But five proposed maps created and submitted by residents using online mapping tool on City’s website will be included in discussion – see three of them, here; Antioch rushing to be done by end of January; Brentwood using more transparent process with independent citizens commission, showing all maps created on their redistricting website, won’t be finished until April 17

By Allen Payton

At the beginning of Tuesday night’s regular Antioch City Council meeting, at 7:05 p.m., a public hearing will be held on the redistricting of council districts. But only the maps created by the consultant, Q2 Data and Research which were considered at the council’s last hearing on redistricting were included with the agenda packets. Only two maps created and submitted by members of the public using the City’s online mapping tool were received by Q2 as of yesterday, three more Tuesday morning, two of which had been submitted on Nov. 15 and 16, by resident Lindsey Amezcua. She provided them to the Herald and are published, above and below. Antioch Council Redistricting Hearing presentation 121421

Jan Hood of Q2 said “two maps from the public had been received as of yesterday (one of which was from the Herald) and three more, this morning. They will all be presented to council and be part of the public hearing, tonight.”

4:15 PM UPDATE: Late Tuesday afternoon, Hood shared, “that all publicly submitted maps (that Q2 has received) have been posted on the redistricting website under the ‘Public Map Submissions’ section.”

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #11162021449 (antiochca.gov)

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #11212021458 (antiochca.gov) – The Antioch Herald map. One correction to the label on the map placed by Q2. Districts 2 and 4 are not divided by Contra Loma Blvd. but the boundary of the Contra Loma Regional Park.

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #11282021434 (antiochca.gov)

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #1152021439 (antiochca.gov)

Antioch Redistricting Public Map #12142021487 (antiochca.gov) One correction to the label on the map placed by Q2. Districts 2 and 4 are not divided by Contra Loma Blvd. but the boundary of the Contra Loma Regional Park.

———————-

Following are the individual district maps and details submitted by the Antioch Herald:

AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 1    AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 2   AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 3

AH AntiochCityCouncil_District 4   Antioch Herald – 2021 Council Redistricting Map & Details

The Herald’s map was drawn based on principles of compactness, keeping Communities of Interest together, and using common-sense boundaries such as major roadways, in order for the public to easily understand in which district they reside. It also moves the Mira Vista Hills/Silverado Drive area into District 2 instead of District 4, and makes Districts 2, 3 and 4 north-south oriented districts instead of east-west, with each one bounded on the north by Highway 4. There are no changes to District 1’s current boundaries. Although incumbency is not a required consideration for the process, the Herald’s map leaves all current council members in their current districts.

Difficulties Using Online Mapping Tool

All five council members, City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Q2 staff were informed by this reporter that it took four tries using the City’s online mapping tool, three after logging in and on the third try, I was able to submit. But what was sent shows it was a blank map. On the fourth try, without logging in, I created the above map which I did submit, and is labeled Antioch Herald map. A minor challenge is the district colors are too similar and the user doesn’t get to choose them. Thus Districts 1 and 4 look like the same color and Districts 2 and 3 are very similar, as well.

Amezcua said she, too had difficulty using the online mapping tool.

Unlike the district maps approved for last year’s elections, which were only in place for two years, the district maps approved this time will be in place for 10 years.

Brentwood Using Independent Citizens Commission, More Transparent Process

The City of Brentwood’s redistricting process includes an independent citizens redistricting commission made up of five members of the public and alternates appointed from those who applied by a retired judge, to review submissions and then send two or more designs to the council for a decision on a final map which the council members can’t modify. All submitted and draft maps designed by the public are on their city’s redistricting webpage for the public to review. Their process began in September and won’t be completed until April 17. (See Brentwood’s  Online Mapping Tool)

Questions for Council, City and Q2 Staff

Questions were sent Monday night to all five council members, City Attorney Smith and Q2 staff, asking, “Why aren’t any maps drawn and submitted by members of the public, including mine, included for Tuesday night’s public hearing on redistricting? Why are only the three maps drawn by Q2 included that were presented at the last meeting?”

It was shared that this reporter was told by Q2 staff in a Zoom meeting held with them, that they redrew the maps for each district created and submitted for the process by the Herald   Why didn’t that occur? How many maps were submitted by members of the public? What’s the point of having an online mapping tool for the public to use if you’re just going to disregard what they have submitted?”

None of them are available on the City’s redistricting page.

They were also asked, “did the mapping tool get fixed so it produces one complete map of all four districts and not just the four individual maps, using the same color for each?”

The Antioch council members and staff were also asked, “Why can’t Antioch use that same process?  What is the rush to get this done by the last meeting in January when the Brentwood City Council won’t be completed with their process until April 17?”

None of the council members nor city staff responded prior to publication time on 1:00 p.m. Tuesday.

Q2 Responds

In response, Hood of Q2 also said, “As of now, the mapping tool does not provide a final citywide map. It shows the four final maps, individually. I will follow up regarding your suggestions and discuss them with our team”.

Asked for copies of the other two maps created by members of the public to include them with this report, Hood said she was waiting to hear back from city staff for permission.

Hood asked if members of the public have created and submitted a redistricting map using the City of Antioch’s online mapping tool but it is not part of tonight’s council public hearing, to please email Q2 at support@publicredistricting.com.

Attend or View Council Meeting

The meeting will be held in-person in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street and are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings.

Public Comments

Members of the public wishing to provide public comment may do so one of the following ways (#2 pertains to the Zoom Webinar):

1. Fill out an online speaker card by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting located at: https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card.
2. Provide oral public comments during the meeting by clicking the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

– You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting.

– When the mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to “raise your hand”. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak.

3. Email comments to cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting. The comment will be read into the record at the meeting (350 words maximum, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the mayor). IMPORTANT: Identify the agenda item in the subject line of your email if the comment is for Announcement of Community Events, Public Comment, or a specific agenda item number. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”.

All emails received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the Council Meeting will be entered into the record or the meeting. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

 

Dear Editor:

After an over two-month limbo period, the proponents for the recall Lamar Thorpe campaign received the news we have all been waiting for on December 2nd, 2021. We finally had the go-ahead to begin gathering signatures to start the process to recall Lamar Thorpe.

The Holiday Delites event seemed a perfect fit to have our first signature gathering event. We knew so many of our fellow residents who support this cause would be in attendance. So, image our surprise when Joy Motts, candidate for District 1 in the 2022 elections and president of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, attempted to halt our signature gathering and interfered with local businesses obtaining new clientele.

I, along with several other proponents for both Recall Lamar Thorpe and Recall Ellie Householder (AUSD), spent Saturday from 10 AM to 4:30 PM in front of both Rivertown Treasure Chest on G St. and RiverTown Sweets on 2nd Street with the blessing from both owners.

We were informed that day that Motts made multiple attempts to contact business owners and asked other individuals to contact us to say we either must move inside or stop the signature gathering. Motts eventually approached me herself around 2:00 pm and asked that I move inside the already crowded bakery which I was in front. I responded that it was our plan to be off the street before the start of the parade. Motts continue to ask that we immediately vacate.

Crystal Philbrook, owner of RiverTown Sweets advised Motts that every time there was a recall signature gathering new customer business was up over 50% and with that kind of statistics, she advised Joy that we would be welcome to be in front of her location anytime as we brought in business. The same sentiment was echoed by the owner of Rivertown Treasure Chest. Being true to our word we vacated the 2nd Street location – which was the Holiday Delites parade route at 4 pm for a parade that started at 5 pm.

Joy Motts being part of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation (a local nonprofit) and a District 1 2022 candidate was completely out of line to make such a request. Joy Motts’ bullying tactics will not be tolerated, nor will it deter us from the mission of gathering the required signatures. Businesses giving permission to us to gather signatures in front of their stores have seen increased foot traffic and sales when having the signature gathering events in front of their storefront, something that Motts and the Celebrate Antioch Foundation doesn’t seem to care about.

If Joy Motts and the Celebrate Antioch Foundation were concerned that the signature gathering tables brought a negative political aspect to the Holiday Delites event, then why are political floats allowed in the parade?

It appears she wanted us off the street as her friend, the mayor, was going to be in the parade with Householder. Yet another example of dirty underhanded politics at play in the City of Antioch.

It makes me wonder, what truly were Ms. Motts’ motives by all her behind the scenes activity to stop us?

Kathy Cabrera

Recall Lamar Thorpe proponent

Publisher’s Note: Asked when an organization is granted a street closure by the City if that means they also control the sidewalks, Motts said she didn’t think so. She shared that the concern of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation leadership was there would be a perception the non-profit organization, which works with the City, was taking sides in a political issue and that they stay out of politics. Motts also said they were informed the signature gathering would occur inside the businesses and wanted to ensure the table on W. Second Street wouldn’t be there during the parade for the public to be able to use the sidewalk. 

Will hold their only public hearing on Wed., Dec. 8; staff’s one map makes few changes to wards, keeps six cities split, splits two more including Clayton, violates community of interest and compactness guidelines

By Allen Payton

The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) will hold a public hearing at the December 8, 2021, Governing Board meeting to seek community input on a staff proposal to adjust trustee area boundaries and ensure population balance that keeps the wards gerrymandered with few changes to the politically drawn 2011 map. The regular meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., and will include a review of the proposed ward map based on population changes unveiled in the 2020 Census. (See related article)

The current trustee ward boundary map approved in 2011, was drawn to benefit the late Trustee Sheila Grilli, who represented Ward 3, and include Bay Point, where former Trustee Greg Enholm lives, in a separate district, so he couldn’t run against her, again. He was elected to the board the following year. The current map also benefited the late Trustee John Nejedly, who represented Ward 4, by including most of San Ramon with the more politically conservative portions of Antioch and Brentwood in East County.

It also combined the southern portions of Pittsburg with Concord, rather than use the hills as a natural boundary. The current map also splits Alamo from the rest of the San Ramon Valley, and includes Lamorinda with portions of Martinez and Hercules, as well as Rodeo and Crockett, not using the hills as a natural boundary. The trustee representing that ward must travel outside of their ward to get to the other sections. Such politically based drawing of representative district maps is referred to as gerrymandering.

Both the current and proposed maps violate two basic principles for drawing district or ward boundary maps including keeping communities of interest together and compactness. That’s in spite of the fact Board president Andy Li recently wrote “4CD is following a process to re-draw ward boundaries to ensure population balance and proportion as stipulated in Education Code. Other considerations presented and discussed at the Governing Board’s November 10, 2021, meeting, included ensuring compliance with the federal voter rights act, compact and contiguous areas, respecting communities of interest as much as possible, and respecting incumbency.”

However, respecting incumbency is not one of the guidelines in the state education code and is not a requirement for redrawing boundary maps. It’s a political consideration. For example, the Antioch School Board drew their area boundary map in 2019 resulting in two incumbents residing in the same district. The same can occur with the new college board ward map.

Proposed Trustee Wards Map

While the proposed trustee ward map has a total population deviation of just 1.7% between wards – which is closer to the intent of the Constitution of ensuring one-person-one-vote than the new map recently approved by the Board of Supervisors with a 9.77% population deviation between districts – it keeps things pretty much the same as the 2011 map. It continues to split Antioch, Brentwood, Pittsburg in East County, Martinez, Concord, Walnut Creek and one of the county’s smallest cities, Clayton, in Central County, and in West County, instead of splitting Pinole, as the current map does, the proposed map splits Hercules.

The proposed map indicates where the incumbents currently live, labeled as W’s and shows both Ward 2 Trustee and Board Vice President Judy Walters and Ward 3 Trustee Rebecca Barrett both live in Martinez.

The proposed map also indicates where the county Board of Education (labeled with A’s and COE for County Office of Education) trustees live, because that board normally uses the same map that the college board approves.

 

Incorrect List of Ward Member Cities and Communities for Both Maps

The staff report includes a list of cities and unincorporated communities associated with each ward for both maps. But it is incorrect. The correct information is as follows:

Ward 1 John E. Márquez 2011: El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Kensington, Richmond, San Pablo, parts of Pinole

2021: El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Kensington, Pinole, Richmond, San Pablo, and parts of Hercules

Ward 2 Judy E. Walters 2011: Alamo, Canyon, Crockett, Hercules, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Port Costa, Rodeo, parts of Pinole, parts of Pleasant Hill and parts of Walnut Creek

2021: Alamo, Canyon, Crockett, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Port Costa, Rodeo, parts of Clayton, parts of Hercules, parts of Pleasant Hill and parts of Walnut Creek

Ward 3 Rebecca Barrett 2011: Pacheco, parts of Bay Point, parts of Concord, parts of Martinez and parts of Pleasant Hill

2021: Pacheco, parts of Clayton, parts of Concord, parts of Martinez, parts of Pittsburg and parts of Pleasant Hill

Ward 4 Andy Li 2011: Blackhawk, Byron, Danville, Discovery Bay, San Ramon, Camino Tassajara, and parts of Antioch, parts of Brentwood and parts of Clayton

2021: Blackhawk, Byron, Danville, Discovery Bay, San Ramon, Camino Tassajara, parts of Antioch and parts of Brentwood

Ward 5 Fernando Sandoval 2011: Bay Point, Bethel Island, Clyde, Knightsen, Oakley, parts of Antioch, parts of Brentwood and parts of Pittsburg

2021: Bay Point, Bethel Island, Clyde, Knightsen, Oakley, parts of Antioch, parts of Brentwood and parts of Pittsburg.

Public Hearing In-Person and Online

The community is invited to participate in this conversation by either attending the meeting in-person at 500 Court Street, Second Floor Board Room, Martinez, California, or by joining the meeting via Zoom. A link to the public meeting is located on the 4CD website at www.4cd.edu in the December 8, 2021, Governing Board meeting agenda.

Special districts like 4CD are legally obligated to follow Education Code Section 5019.5, which highlights the process to follow, ensuring the population of trustee wards is balanced based on the changing demographics of the community. Community college districts are required to complete this process by February 28, 2022.

The first phase of this work began at the Governing Board’s November 10, 2021, meeting, when trustees received a presentation that outlined the demographic changes of Contra Costa County highlighted in the 2020 Census. Under the direction of legal counsel, 4CD research staff analyzed the 2020 Census information to develop the proposed ward map.

4CD Regular Governing Board Meeting – 12.8.21 agenda

The agenda for the above meeting and a memo highlighting certain reports are attached. The agenda can also be accessed at:  2021-12-08-GB Agenda

If you are attending in person, public session will begin at 6:00 p.m. and will be held in the Second Floor Board Room.  Please note that according to Contra Costa Health Services and effective August 3, 2021, masks are required for everyone, regardless of vaccination status, in indoor public spaces such as businesses, classrooms and offices.

If you are attending remotely, please see the information below to access the meeting.

Meeting link:                https://tinyurl.com/2021-12-08-GB-Agenda                       

            Meeting ID No.:           972 7628 0768

            Passcode:                     205040         

            Phone option:               1.669.900.6833          

Public Comment:  You may address an item on the agenda or a subject of your choice. The desired goal is to create an environment of mutual respect between participants of Governing Board meeting discussions; to enhance intellectual thought; and to insure that all present have an opportunity to present their views in an orderly fashion.  If you would like to make public comment at this meeting, please see the information listed on the attached agenda.  A fillable public comment card is also attached within the agenda and included here: 4CD Board Mtg Public Comment Card

City Clerk Householder provides copy of letter on day it’s due instead of only mailing it as she did previously

“She was very accommodating, this time.” – Recall organizer Kathy Cabrera

160 days to collect 9,511 signatures of registered Antioch voters.

By Allen Payton

After being served with recall papers on Tuesday for abusing her position to benefit political ally, Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe, City Clerk Ellie Householder approved the petition for his recall in a letter to organizer Kathy Cabrera, today, Thursday, December 2, 2021. It was the 10th day since the fourth version of the petition was submitted, which is the legal limit. Unlike with her previous three letters rejecting Thorpe’s recall petition, this time Householder didn’t just send it by certified mail delaying the signature gathering by two more days, she also left a copy for the organizers at her office in City Hall. (See related articles here and here)

That allows signature gathering to begin, today. Organizers now have 160 days to collect 9,511 signatures of registered Antioch voters to qualify the recall for the ballot. Cabrera and Antioch resident Lindsey Amezcua, who is also helping lead the recall to remove Householder from the Antioch School Board, were the first to sign their names to Thorpe’s recall petition. Approved Thorpe recall petition

What took the County Clerk two days to do for Householder’s recall from the school board, took her and the Thorpe recall organizers almost two months to complete. The petition for the mayor’s recall was first submitted to the city clerk on Oct. 11th. (See related articles here and here)

“She was very accommodating, this time,” Cabrera said about Householder.

“The recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe is ready to move ahead into the signature gathering phase,” Cabrera stated. “Signature gathering events are planned for this Saturday and Sunday.”

“This is bigger than anyone’s own personal views,” she continued. “The group of proponents and supporters are committed and have begun collecting the 9,511 signatures required to put the recall of Lamar Thorpe on the ballot.”

“We will follow the recall process and let the Antioch citizens’ voices be heard,” Cabrera added. “We believe the residents of Antioch deserve better as too many good people in City Hall, Antioch residents and Antioch businesses are leaving under Mayor Thorpe’s tenure.”

The mayor had the opportunity to provide a response which would have been printed on each petition copy. But he chose not to and has not explained why. Efforts to reach Thorpe for comment were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

The recall organizers will hold their first official signing event during the annual Holiday Delites celebration in historic, downtown Rivertown on Saturday. Following is the schedule they provided for this weekend:

Saturday 12/4/21 10am to 5pm
RiverTown Sweets on W. 2nd Street.
Rivertown Treasure Chest on G Street
Sunday 12/5/21 10am to 2pm
Bluerock Starbucks – This will be a drive-up signing event.

Any registered voter in Antioch can sign the petition and help gather signatures.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

“It was the best job in the world, helping people and solving problems.”– Jim Frazier

Currently serves Antioch and most of East County

By Allen Payton

In a post on his official Facebook page and Twitter feed, Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2021 State Assemblyman Jim Frazier (D-11) announced he will be resigning from his position at the end of the month.

In addition to posting his letter of resignation, at 12:32 pm Wednesday, he tweeted, “It has been a joy and a privilege to represent District 11. I extend my sincerest appreciation to each of you. Thank you all.” Frazier posted a similar comment on his Facebook page, writing, “It has been a joy and a privilege to represent District 11. I extend my sincerest appreciation and love for an incredible 9 years of service. Thank you all.”

His announcement dispels the rumors that Frazier, who moved from Oakley to Fairfield a few years ago, would run for supervisor in Solano County, State Senate or Congress, if Rep. John Garamendi was going to retire. But the Assemblyman, was first elected to the Assembly in 2012 following his time on the Oakley City Council, could have served one more term, since members of the state legislature can only serve a total of 12 years in either the Assembly or State Senate or a combination of both, due to term limits in Proposition 28 passed by voters in 2012.

When reached for comment Frazier said, “it’s time to move on and I have a strong urge to get back into the transportation sector, pursue my passion, and help people achieve their goals in transportation.”

“It was the best job in the world, helping people and solving problems,” he continued. I’ve served for 14 years in public service. It’s time to move on.”

Asked about the rumors he might run for another office, Frazier laughed and said, “nobody asked me.”

The press release reads:

“California State Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Fairfield) today announced his resignation from the California State Assembly, District 11, effective December 31, 2021. Mr. Frazier will be seeking new opportunities in the field of transportation.

Assemblymember Frazier said, “This is the best job that I have ever had. I have enjoyed serving the State of California and the 11th Assembly District and greatly appreciate the confidence that my constituents have shown in me over the last nine years. I am proud of the many successes that we achieved together. My future plans are to put to use my passion and experience in the transportation sector, explore new career opportunities and spend additional time with family and friends.”

Mr. Frazier was elected to the California State Assembly, District 11 in November of 2012. The 11th District encompasses portions of Solano, Contra Costa and Sacramento counties and includes the following cities, towns, and areas: Antioch, Bethel Island, Birds Landing, Brentwood, Byron, Collinsville, Discovery Bay, Fairfield, Isleton, Knightsen, Locke, Oakley, Pittsburg (partial), Rio Vista, Suisun City, Travis Air Force Base, Vacaville and Walnut Grove.

Assemblymember Frazier currently serves as Chair of the powerful Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, providing oversight of open meeting laws, Offices of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, State Controller, and State Treasurer, State holidays, seals, and official acts, emergency services, Outdoor Advertising Act (billboards), alcohol, gaming, horse racing, the State Lottery, and tobacco. He has been an advocate for enhanced unemployment and disability policy as chairman of Select Committee on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. As a key member of the Assembly Veteran’s Committee, he supported legislation to improve lives of veterans. Mr. Frazier oversaw and helped coordinate state public works activities while serving as the Assembly Speaker’s appointee to the State Public Works Board. Mr. Frazier previously served as chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee, overseeing transportation infrastructure managing $2.3T in annual commerce, and promoting system improvements and job creation.

Additional key accomplishments:

• Delivered numerous improvements to transportation infrastructure across high-speed rail, highways, and public transportation, securing $30B in total transportation funding and $5.2B for highly impactful SB1 infrastructure project.
• Fostered legislation to obtain $1.2B in funding for special needs population, supporting and overseeing series of hearings throughout the State of California, evaluating the mission and effectiveness of relevant state agencies.
• Established reputation as champion for California Delta, serving as key member of Delta Protection Commission focused on protecting fish and wildlife, safeguarding farmers, and ensuring continuous environmental and economic viability of delta by promoting water conservation, improved water quality, and improved management of land use and development.
• Secured $12 million to remove abandoned and derelict commercial marine vessels throughout the Delta region through the 2021 State Budget.
• Secured funding for Special Olympics for 6 years, including $20M funding through the 2021 State Budget.
• Secured funding for Solano First 5 in the amount of $2 million to create a Fairfield First 5 Center through the 2021 State Budget.
• Secured $500,000 for East Contra Costa Fire Protection District’s training program.
• Authored legislation for a Veteran Designation of CA Driver’s License to recognize military service, resulting in hundreds of thousands of additional dollars for Veterans.

Mr. Frazier’s was recognized with many awards during his Assembly career. His accomplishments include (partial list): 2018, Legislator of the Year from the California State Commanders Veterans Council, 2017 California Transportation Foundation Elected Official of the Year, Director’s Special Recognition for Infrastructure Advocacy by American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016 Special Olympics Volunteer of the Year, 2016 AMVETS Legislator of the Year, 2015 Decoding Dyslexia: Assemblymember of the Year, 2015 California Transportation Foundation: Elected Official of the Year, 2015 Small Business Legislator of the year by California Small Business Association (CSBA) and California Small Business Roundtable (CSBR), 2015 CA Waterfowl Association, Grant Kenyon Award, Legislator of the Year, Appreciation Award: Sikh Communities of Napa and Solano Counties and Fairfield- Suisun Unified School District.

An avid supporter of non-profits, Mr. Frazier was a Founder and Vice President of the Friends of Oakley Community Foundation from 2007 until 2013. A dedicated volunteer, Mr. Frazier served on the Boys and Girls Club Advisory Board, a Board of Director member for Impact Teen Drivers and dearest to his heart, he has been a volunteer with Special Olympics since 2005.”

Proponents accuse her of abusing her power to help Mayor Thorpe in his recall and violating California Public Records Act

By Allen Payton

While waiting for Mayor Lamar Thorpe to arrive for his press conference on providing more funds to house 15 of Antioch’s homeless population, Tuesday morning, Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder was served with recall papers, again. This time it’s to remove her from the elected city position. Signature gathering for a separate recall to remove Householder from her position as an Antioch School Board trustee is already underway. (See related article).

In their Notice of Intention to Circulate a Recall Petition, the 20 proponents, who are all Antioch residents and registered voters, offered the reasons for the recall which are mainly related to how she’s mishandled the recall for Thorpe. (See related article)

Householder’s recall notice reads: “TO THE HONORABLE Elizabeth Householder: Pursuant to Section 11020, California Elections Code, the undersigned registered qualified voters of Antioch, in the State of California, hereby give notice that we are the proponents of a recall petition and that we intend to seek your recall and removal from the office of City Clerk, in Antioch, California, and to demand election of a successor in that office.

The Grounds for the recall are as follows:

You violated the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6253) by failing to provide a copy of a public document to the records department at Antioch City Hall and thus hindered a constituent from their right to inspect a public record. You rejected the first drafted petition to recall the Antioch mayor without including a statement of what alterations to the petition were necessary (Elections Code 11042(c)). You then rejected a second petition citing election code 107(b), which is not applicable to the recall effort. You ignored the proponents request to send your findings via email, instead choosing to send them via certified mail at a cost to the city and cited elections code 11224 as your reason to not email them. Election code 11224 refers to the certification process of approved petitions that have already been signed by registered voters and was erroneously cited. You omitted emails from a Public Records Request, once again violating the California Public Records Act. This misuse and misapplication of Election Codes and continued violations of Government Code 6253 illustrates your inability to do the job in which you were elected and warrants your removal.”

Householder had no comments at the time she was served. She was asked via email, Wednesday afternoon, if she had any comments in response at the time of publication.

Householder has 10 days to respond in writing. Then the proponents must submit the petition to the Antioch City Clerk’s Office. But Householder cannot deal with it and must be handled by the Deputy City Clerk.

Like in Thorpe’s recall, organizers will have to gather approximately 9,400 signatures within 160 days for Householder’s recall from her city clerk position to qualify for the ballot.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

 

Only one proposed map to be presented by district staff, attorney and only one public hearing will be held; wards aren’t required to be equal in size, can have a 5% population deviation from average, so they can match the Supervisors’ new map; Trustees Walters, Sandoval committed to an independent redistricting body/commission during their 2020 campaigns; Sandoval will request it at Dec. 8 meeting; Board President Li offers to consider one after process is completed; deadline is Feb. 28, 2022

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Nov. 10, the Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) Board of Trustees received a presentation about Ward Equalization Based on the 2020 Census. The process will begin during a public hearing at their Dec. 8 meeting, with one map presented by District staff and attorney, and must be completed by the end of February. However, there will be no online mapping tool for the public to use to submit proposed, alternative maps, like the Board of Supervisors and some cities like Antioch and Brentwood have offered. 111021-4CD Trustee Area Redistricting presentation

According to the 2020 Census, the population of the District is now 1,165,927 a growth of 116,902 since 2010. That results in an average ward population of 233,186. Ward 5 has experienced the greatest population growth in the previous decade and is now 7.1% over average. Although state education code requires the population of each ward be equal “as nearly as may be”, according to 4CD staff the wards can legally have a population deviation from one to the other as great as 10%, just like the Board of Supervisors are allowed. Their final map has a total deviation of 9.77%. (See related article)

The 2011 ward map splits a variety of cities, including Pinole in West County, Martinez and Concord in Central County, and Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood in East County. Concord, Pleasant Hill, Pacheco and portions of Martinez and Pittsburg are included in Ward 2 The map includes Clayton and portions of Antioch and Brentwood with Danville, San Ramon, Blackhawk and Camino Tassajara in the Ward 4. Alamo is included in Ward 2 with Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda, as well as Hercules, Rodeo and Crockett, and portions of Pinole and Martinez.

In which cities the current board members live will be taken into consideration. Ward 2 Trustee Dr. Judy Walters lives in Martinez, and Ward 5 Trustee Fernando Sandoval, a Pittsburg resident, were elected last year. Ward 1 Trustee and Richmond resident, John Marquez, Ward 3 Trustee Rebecca Barrett who also lives in Martinez and Ward 4 Trustee Andy Li, a San Ramon resident, are up for election, next year.

According to the staff report on the Nov. 10th presentation, “Pursuant to Education Code Section 5019.5, following each decennial federal census, and using population figures as validated by the Demographic Research Unit of the Department of Finance as a basis, the governing board of each school district or community college district in which trustee areas have been established, and in which each trustee is elected by the residents of the area the trustee represents, shall adjust the boundaries of any or all of the trustee areas of the district such that the population of each is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas. 4CD must update ward boundaries as needed to achieve this equalization by February 28, 2022. The attached presentation is informational and represents the first phase of this process.”

Since there was nothing mentioning the districts ward equalization process on the 4CD website, several questions were asked of Executive Vice Chancellor Mojdeh Mezhdizadeh, in charge of the redistricting process, and District PIO Timothy Leong.

Q. Will there be an online mapping tool for the public to use to submit proposed maps on the district’s website, as other agencies, including Contra Costa County and the Cities of Antioch and Brentwood, as well as the state are offering.?

A. No. The process you are referring to are related to municipality actions being done in compliance with the Fair Maps Act, which are to be followed when cities and counties address the redistricting challenge following the 2020 Census. Community college districts are governed by different legal standards, specifically Education Code section 5019.5.

That code also reads:

“(a)(1) The population of each area is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as the ratio that the number of governing board members elected from the area bears to the total number of members of the governing board.

(2) The population of each area is, as nearly as may be, the same proportion of the total population of the district as each of the other areas.

(b) The boundaries of the trustee areas shall be adjusted by the governing board of each school district or community college district, in accordance with subdivision (a), before the first day of March of the year following the year in which the results of each decennial census are released. If the governing board fails to adjust the boundaries before the first day of March of the year following the year in which the results of each decennial census are released, the county committee on school district organization shall do so before the 30th day of April of the same year.”

Q. Will there be a hearing schedule for the public to participate in the process?

A. A public hearing on redistricting will be scheduled at the Governing Board’s December 8, 2021, meeting, to obtain community input on the District’s draft redistricting recommendation. In addition, a proposed draft map will be shared and described at this meeting.

Q. The presentation during the Nov. 10th board meeting and the staff report reads, “4CD must update ward boundaries as needed to achieve this equalization by February 28, 2022” and the “presentation is informational and represents the first phase of this process.” What is that process going to beand when, please? When will the next board meeting be held? It doesn’t show on the Board Docs webpage.

A. The presentation at the November 10, 2021, Governing Board meeting, was the first phase of the redistricting process. Since that meeting, 4CD research staff, under the direction of legal counsel, have been analyzing the 2020 Census information and are finalizing a draft recommendation to adjust the five wards in order to meet the population balance and proportions as required by Education Code.  This will be presented at the December 8, 2021, Governing Board meeting.

Q. Why doesn’t the board simply use the same map approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors? While I recognize there is a small portion of the county on the south end, east of San Ramon and Camino Tassajara is outside of the district. That would not change the deviation percentage much.

A. The development of supervisorial wards were done at a different time and separately from those of the 4CD trustees. The processes are also governed by different legal requirements. The College District is in the process of following applicable laws to meet the needs of its constituency.

Q. But why would that preclude the board from offering an online mapping tool for the public to use to submit proposed maps for consideration?

A. The opportunity for community input on 4CD’s redistricting process and proposal will be available during the Governing Board’s December 8, 2021, meeting. I understand you submitted a proposed redistricting map to the Board of Supervisors, and if you wish for our trustees to consider that map, I would recommend you submit it to Pat Kaya atpkaya@4cd.eduby December 3, 2021, so that it can be considered.

Q. Why will only one draft map be shared by staff at the Dec. 8 board meeting and not several alternatives?

A. Our recommendation to the Governing Board at the November 10, 2021, meeting, and based on past practice, was for staff to provide one map of a proposed adjustment to the ward boundaries. Trustees will have the opportunity to review the proposal at their December 8, 2021, meeting, and along with community input, can decide if it meets their approval or ask staff to make further adjustments to the proposal for review at their January 12, 2022, meeting.

Q. A very small portion of the county east of San Ramon and Camino Tassajara, is not in the 4CD, but is part of the Chabot-Las Positas Community College District. What is the population of the area of Contra Costa County not included in the district?

A. We are seeking the County’s assistance to determine the population of the county that is not covered within the 4CD service territory because we do not track that information.

Q. After reading that education code section, it appears school and college district boards must follow the same guideline as the U.S. House of Representatives in having equal population per district, with no 5% maximum deviation like the Board of Supervisors can have.

A. Legal counsel advises us that we do not follow the same standard as the House of Representatives. For example, school (districts) having a 10% and below deviation are presumptively balanced for legal purposes.

Q. In response Mezhdizadeh and Leong were asked, “does that mean a 5% deviation from average? If so, why can’t the maps created for the Board of Supervisors work for the college district?”

12/2/21 UPDATE: Leong responded, “We are required to assess based on variance, and our max is 10%. Based on the data we received from the 2020 Census, we learned the variance was over 10%, triggering the work to rebalance our wards. Our recommended draft ward boundaries now have a variance of 1.7%.”

As for using the map created for the Board of Supervisors, he responded, “That is a conversation and decision for the Governing Board to make.”

Regarding the population of the area of Contra Costa County not included in the district, Leong wrote, “According to the County Elections Office, Census Tract 3551.12 contains 116 census blocks, and has a population of 1,593.”

Two Trustees Committed to Independent Redistricting Body/Commission

During the 2020 election campaign, Ward 2 Trustee Dr. Walters said she would support an independent redistricting body to redraw districts, in response to a question from the League of Women Voters.

“After the 2020 Census is completed, districts will need to be redrawn in 2021. If elected, will you support an independent redistricting body to redraw districts? Why or why not?

Answer from Judy E. Walters: Yes, independent redistricting bodies have drawn impartial boundaries and avoid gerrymandering, or drawing district lines that benefit certain incumbent legislators and/or the political party in power.”

In response to the same question, Ward 5 Trustee Fernando Sandoval also gave his support for an independent redistricting commission.

“Answer from Fernando Sandoval: I will wholeheartedly support an independent redistricting commission to redraw districts for Contra Costa Community Colleges. Both the State of California and municipalities like the City of Berkeley and several others have passed measures to create commissions that are free of political influence. This, in turn, has ensured that the districts that are ultimately agreed upon are more representative of the communities of interest that reside there.”

Board Can Increase the Number of Trustees

That same code section also reads: “the authority to establish or abolish trustee areas, rearrange the boundaries of trustee areas, increase or decrease the number of members of the governing board, or adopt any method of electing governing board members may be exercised only as otherwise provided under this article.”

Q. Does that mean the college board can increase the number of trustees on the board and corresponding districts? If they choose to do so, does that need to occur during the redistricting process? What is the maximum number of trustees allowed on the board?

A. The Governing Board can decide to change the number of elected trustees at any time and does not have to coincide with this redistricting process. It is a completely separate topic from the post-census Redistricting process, which is the District’s main focus at this time in order to meet the February 28, 2022, deadline.

Questions for Trustees

In an email on Saturday afternoon, all five trustees were asked the following questions:

Will you support forming an independent redistricting commission of residents to assist you with the Ward Equalization, this year?

Will you also commit to basing the new boundaries on principles of:

1. One person one vote with as little population deviation from one district to the other;

1. Compactness;
2. Communities of Interest – such as keeping all the San Ramon Valley cities and communities together, and not including East County with the San Ramon Valley as the current Ward 4 does; and
3. Splitting the larger cities, first, such as Concord, Antioch and Walnut Creek

If you choose to have ward populations with a deviation as much as 10%, recognizing a very small portion of the county is not in the college district, why not simply adopt the same map the Board of Supervisors adopted?

Would you support increasing the number of trustees and corresponding districts to seven, as the Las Positas-Chabot Community College District and Peralta Community College District have? Why or why not?

Finally, in which city do each of you live? Only President Li includes that he lives in San Ramon in his bio on the 4CD website Board page. Since that will be a consideration in redrawing the ward boundaries, that’s important for the public to know when giving input to you during the process.

Board President Li Responds

Only Board President Li responded to the Herald’s questions with the following:

“The Contra Costa Community College District (4CD) is working closely with legal counsel to ensure we administer a fair and impartial redistricting process following Education Code section 5019.5. Since 2020 Census data was released about 6 months later than usual, 4CD did not receive the final 2020 census data until the last week of September and we are required to complete our post-census redistricting process by February 28, 2022 as required by law.

4CD is following a process to re-draw ward boundaries to ensure population balance and proportion as stipulated in Education Code. Other considerations presented and discussed at the Governing Board’s November 10, 2021, meeting, included ensuring compliance with the federal voter rights act, compact and contiguous areas, respecting communities of interest as much as possible, and respecting incumbency.

The questions in your November 27, 2021, email refers to your interest in obtaining support for an independent redistricting body to redraw our ward boundaries that could be consistent with ward areas similar to those recently approved by the Board of Supervisors. This was not the direction we provided staff during our November 10, 2021, public meeting.

If there was interest by the trustees to pursue this idea to completely redraw our ward boundaries and other proposals such as increasing the number of trustees, the Governing Board would place this item on a future meeting agenda so the conversation could be done publicly, and it would take place after we have rebalanced our existing wards based on populations changes outlined in the 2020 Census.

Regarding the use of a public mapping tool, the Governing Board did not feel this it was necessary to rebalancing the population as required by Education Code 5019.5. If, after the completion of the redistricting work is completed, and the Governing Board chooses to pursue the idea to completely revamp our trustee wards, a mapping tool could also be considered.”

Since he didn’t answer some of the questions, Li was asked the following, again: “If you choose to have ward populations with a deviation as much as 10%, recognizing a very small portion of the county is not in the college district, why not simply adopt the same map the Board of Supervisors adopted? Would you support increasing the number of trustees and corresponding districts to seven, as the Las Positas-Chabot Community College District and Peralta Community College District have? Why or why not?”

Four Other Board Members Asked, Again

The other four board members were sent the same questions, again asking for each of them to respond. In addition, Walters and Sandoval were specifically asked, “why didn’t you propose appointing an independent citizens commission for redistricting as you committed during your campaigns, last year?”

Sandoval Responds, Commits to Requesting Independent Commission

“The board in open session has not had a discussion on redistricting, yet because we haven’t seen the data,” Sandoval said when reached for comment. “I want to ensure the public has the opportunity to weigh in on the process and the work that will be done by district staff. That’s part of the transparency we need to have for the process.”

“I will fulfill my commitment to ask for the independent redistricting commission,” he added. “Speaking on my own behalf, I will also ask for more transparency.”

Regarding expanding the board to seven members, Sandoval said, “that’s something for the board to discuss. It isn’t something I ran on in 2016 or 2020 and was elected to do. But I’m open to having that discussion. Having seven board members is a mixed bag for several different reasons. But we have to discuss it and let the public weigh in on it.

Minutes of the November 10th board meeting was not yet available on the 4CD website as of publication time. It has been requested of Leong, Wednesday afternoon, Dec. 1. Minutes of past meetings are only available in the agenda of the next meeting. The Dec. 8 board meeting agenda is not yet posted on the 4CD’s Board Docs website. The links to the archive of board meeting videos are also not easy to find. They’re available, here: https://www.4cd.edu/gb/videos.html.

To contact each of the trustees, please see their phone and email contact information, here.

Please check back later for updates to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

The current DA has been slow to respond to flash mob robberies, and once she responds, she’s ineffective. Given my 36 years of experience as a Contra Costa Deputy District Attorney, I know the District Attorney can do more. We need to implement these three steps immediately:

1. Convene a Bay Area-wide law enforcement response to track and apprehend suspects 

Contra Costa law enforcement agencies are partnered to provide mutual aid during emergency situations.  This “mutual aid” concept should be employed throughout the Bay Area to strategically shut down access routes for potential retail targets to intervene and prevent crime before it happens.

The investigative and technological expertise of this team will:

• Identify the criminal syndicates who organize the smash-and-grab robberies
• Intercept the “chatter” on social media planning these events
• Share information between law enforcement agencies to quickly locate and arrest perpetrators

The ideal team to coordinate this activity is the DA/FBI Safe Streets Task Force, comprised of local, state, and federal task force agents who are partnered with prosecutors assigned to the Community Violence Reduction Unit (a unit that I created in the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office).

Given the violence involved and the value of the merchandise being stolen, the Task Force will collaborate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to charge qualifying cases under the Hobbs Act and prosecute them in federal court.

The criminal syndicates committing the smash-and-grab robberies, as well as strings of residential burglaries in Contra Costa, are mobile and active in surrounding counties.  During the past four years, regional law enforcement agencies have done an impressive job of sharing information to identify the true scope of the criminality of these crews and to provide investigative support.  The information supplied by this well-coordinated network provided me with the evidence required to file multiple counts following very significant organized retail theft and residential robberies.  I worked with the Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill Police Departments through the investigative challenges of the looting in 2020 and filed charges on a number of suspects.  As District Attorney, I will continue to support this allied inter-county effort.

2. Prevent the use of our freeways as crime corridors, deploy cameras 

Organized shoplifting gangs have been using the regional freeway system to quickly move between targets in neighboring law enforcement jurisdictions.  By the time an investigation starts at the first crime, the gang has moved on to loot another store in the next county.

Contra Costa’s Freeway Security Network has the technological capability to combat organized retail theft.  The Allied Freeway Agencies have received additional funding for the Network and direction to develop a plan to augment and expand the Network county-wide in order to provide technological leads in preventing and investigating criminal syndicates involved in the violent organized retail theft.

I am proud to have originated the creation of this freeway camera system to combat freeway shootings.  Since the network was installed, freeway shootings have been reduced by 90% in Contra Costa while remaining all too frequent in neighboring counties. I continue to work with law enforcement and elected leaders to propose that additional funding that Governor Newsom included in the state budget be used to incorporate additional technology to target organized retail theft into the Freeway Security Network.

3. Disrupt the use of social media as a key enabler of looting 

Organized retail theft would not exist without social media, which is the key element to planning and profiting from these crimes.

Looting is coordinated through social media 

Social media platforms provide the means of communication which allows criminals to conspire to commit take-over robberies. These platforms are directly aiding and abetting the commission of large-scale crimes, which may result in criminal liability for the social media platforms.  I will call on the social media platforms, as well as private communication platforms, to monitor and immediately report to law enforcement any communications planning a smash-and-grab robbery or the “fencing” of stolen property.

We must make it clear to technology companies that failure to monitor and report the coordination of criminal enterprise should not be a protected business activity and should instead be considered as aiding and abetting that crime.

Stolen goods are sold via online marketplaces 

If a market for the merchandise that is being stolen did not exist, the criminal syndicates would have no motive to steal.  While I am out talking with community members, most are surprised to learn that the merchandise that is stolen from CVS, Walgreens, Lululemon and the high-end retailers is often sold on the internet via OfferUp, LetGo, and the Facebook and Amazon Market Places.

As District Attorney, I will actively engage and educate our community members about the crime occurring in our county and ways we can work together to combat it, such as not buying merchandise off the internet that does not have a means of guaranteeing that it is not stolen merchandise.  I will also work with retail stores to modify their return/exchange policies to ensure that they are not accepting the return of their own stolen merchandise.

———————————————————-

About Mary Knox: Mary Knox was born and raised in Walnut Creek and has 36 years of experience advocating and fighting for victims, their families, and the larger community. She is a lead prosecutor in the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s office, who has prosecuted and won high profile cases against some of the most notorious criminals in county history. She has broken the chokehold that criminal gangs have had on the most disadvantaged communities and has engaged in meaningful violence reduction by instituting effective strategies to reduce crime and prosecute violent criminals. Learn more about Mary at maryknox4da.com