Only 93 people provided public input, nine alternate maps submitted

Antioch split between Districts 3 and 5 along Somersville Road, Auto Center Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way

By Daniel Borsuk

During their final public hearing for the 2021 redistricting process on Tuesday, Nov. 23, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to approve the 2021 Redistricting Map D on Tuesday that shows Supervisor Candace Andersen’s District 2 and Supervisor Federal Glover’s District 5 gaining territory at the expense of District 3 Supervisor Dianne Burgis and District 1 Supervisor John Gioia. (See agenda item D.1)

The supervisors’ action on the final redistricting map beat the mandatory Dec. 15 deadline by 22 days after county officials conducted a series of public hearings and workshops that drew meager citizen input.

“For the six workshops a total of 21 individuals provided public comment either in person or by Zoom or phone call; and an additional 72 individuals were on the Zoom or phone call in portions of the workshops but chose not to speak,” a county document stated in defense of the public participation.  A total of nine public submissions of alternative maps were included in the process. (See related article)

No matter how uneven the county process might have been in attracting public participation, two districts – District 2 and District 5 – scored the most territory and potential political clout from the decennial redistricting process.

Map D keeps Antioch split in two between Districts 3 and 5, as the city currently is, but in different ways. This time the districts are split along Somersville Road and Auto Center Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Herald publisher Allen Payton asked the supervisors to consider splitting Antioch along the city boundary line with Pittsburg and Highway 4, which he said makes more sense for residents to know what district they live in and to match the current and expected district boundaries for Antioch City Council District 1. Burgis said she tried to make that happen but the population figures to comply with the 5% deviation legal requirement, didn’t work.

After the final vote on the map, Board Chair Burgis of Brentwood put a positive spin on the two-month redistricting activity stating.

“The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors thanks the community for its participation in this decennial process,” she said. “We have been committed to a robust Redistricting and public outreach process with public hearings, a dedicated website at CoCoRedistricting.org, public workshops, and multiple ways for the public to share input, including an online mapping tool to draw maps and submit comments.  We want to thank you for staying informed and playing a role in this important process.”

“I’d like you to not vote on this today,” requested Sherrill Grower, one of three persons who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting. “I feel like this map disenfranchises the public particularly along the northern waterfront. I am not pleased with the proposed district boundaries.”

With the new map, District 4 now covers most of Walnut Creek split at Highway 24 and Interstate 680 with District 2 Supervisor Andersen representing the other portion of the city, primarily Rossmoor.

District 4 underwent the smallest population gain of the five districts with a 1.65 percent increase from 2010 to 2020, to 229,348 residents, according to Census data. Whites represent 51.7 percent of District 4’s population followed by Latinos at 22.4 percent, Asians at 15.2 percent, Blacks at 3 percent and 7.7 percent for others.

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, who has announced she won’t seek re-election in 2022, also saw the city of Concord, which is in District 4, split with Glover’s District 5 by Highways 4 and 242 and the former railroad right-of-way.

Mainly because Andersen’s District 2 experienced the biggest population gain of any of the other districts, from 2010 to 2020 it gained more territory. Population-wise, District 2’s population rose from 218,017 in 2010 to 243,565 in 2020. Whites make up 55 percent of the district’s population followed by Asians at 28 percent, Latinos at 8.5 percent, and Blacks at 1.6 percent and others at 6.8 percent.

District 2 will now cover Tassajara Valley, Blackhawk, Diablo and Camino Tassajara, all formerly were represented by Supervisor Burgis.

District 3, which saw its population rise 2.85 percent to 203,711 from 2010 to 2020, covers most of Antioch and the other growing cities of Brentwood and Oakley and communities of Bethel Island, Knightsen, Discovery Bay, and Byron.

District 2 also contains the cities of San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, Lafayette, and Orinda. The census designated Alamo, Blackhawk, Diablo, Camino Tassajara, Saranap, and Castle Rock as contained in District 2.

In addition to the cities of Pleasant Hill and Clayton, the Contra Costa Centre, Acalanes Ridge, Shell Ridge, San Miguel and North Gate are in District 4.

Glover, who offered no comment on the final redistricting map, also gained territory. He not only retains the Northern Waterfront, an area now under planning study for future industrial and economic development from Crockett to Oakley, but District 5 now, no longer has a portion of Pinole that was formerly split by District 1’s Gioia and District 5’s Glover.

Not mentioned publicly, District 5 is due to benefit economically and demographically when bulldozers rev up at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station where the Seeno Company has won City of Concord approval to build 13,000 housing units and commercial developments on 5,046 acres on the former Naval weapons base property in north Concord. Construction should be well underway over the next 10 years.

Based on U.S. Census data, District 5’s population increased from 203,744 in 2010 to 228,463 in 2020. Thirty-five percent of the district’s population is Latino, 27.5 percent is White, 17.9 percent is Asian and 12.4 percent is Black.

Supervisor John Gioia was pleased with the redistricting results, especially when more urban-like district contains the cities of Richmond, San Pablo, El Cerrito, and Pinole. Kensington, North Richmon, East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, Rollingwood, Tara Hills, Montalvin Manor, and Bayview are also included in District 1.

District 1’s population grew from 203,437 persons in 2010 to 224,726 in 2020, according to U.S. Census data. Latinos represent 40.9 percent of the district’s population followed by whites at 21.7 percent, Asians at 16.8 percent and Blacks at 16.8 percent

“The boundaries are very similar to our local transportation district,” observed Gioia. “There is no gerrymandering.”

Overall, Contra Costa County’s population increased 11.4 percent to 1,168,064.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

 

Householder finally provides specifically what she wanted corrected; delays signature gathering for another 10 to 12 days

By Allen Payton

On Monday, Nov. 22, the organizers for the recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe received another letter in the mail from City Clerk Ellie Householder rejecting their petition, for a third time. It will further delay gathering of the approximately 9,400 signatures to place the recall on the ballot. But unlike in her previous two response letters, this time she provided specifics of what needed to be corrected. (See related article)

The city clerk also provided two pages along with her denial letter outlining the corrections.

“So, we followed what revisions she asked of us and submitted the revised petition to her at about 4:30 on Monday,” said organizer Kathy Cabrera.

“Her big thing is on our petition Ellie wanted what is on that to match what was on the notice we served Lamar with and filed, including my phone number. Honestly, I don’t think it’s a necessary item,” Cabrera stated. “Arne agrees it’s not a necessary item. But we went ahead and put it on there, because that’s what she’s asking.”

“When we went in with the corrected version I said, ‘Thank you for providing the revisions needed on the recall petition,’” Cabrera shared. “How can Ellie reject it this time if we provided exactly what she’s asking for? But she has another 10 days to respond – and that includes holidays. So, she has until 5:00 p.m., Dec. 2nd to provide her response letter. If she mails it, again, we expect to get it on Saturday the 4th.”

Cabrera was asked how can you be required to provide a list of Top Funders when the committee hasn’t been formed, yet and you don’t know who they will be?

“Agreed,” she responded. “But we included the Top Funders declaration page, even though we didn’t think it was necessary, answering ‘none’ to each of the three questions.”

Multiple attempts to reach Householder were unsuccessful prior to publication time. She was asked why she didn’t provide the corrections to the petition that she wanted made by the organizers in her first two letters, how can she expect them to list the potential Top Funders for the committee if it hasn’t been formed, yet, will she take the full 10 days to respond and if it really takes 10 days for her and her staff in the city clerk’s office to review the revised petition.

On their way out of City Hall, Cabrera said Thorpe was there for both the candlelight vigil for a homeless man who had been killed by a train, last Friday night, and for the ribbon cutting for the renovated council chambers.

“Lamar yelled at us across the lobby, ‘did you get all your signatures, yet?’” Cabrera stated, who was there with another person helping with the petition paperwork. “I turned and asked, ‘did he just say that?’ He was laughing. He thinks it’s all a big joke. So, we just kept walking.”

Thorpe did not respond to a efforts asking him about the interaction before publication time. He was asked if it is true? If so, why, and was he just trying to be funny, or was you poking fun at them knowing they had just submitted their revised petition for his recall for a fourth time.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

State Elections Code only requires it be “in writing”; Householder ignores organizers repeated requests to receive letter via email; refuses to answer questions, admit her mistake in second response letter

By Allen Payton

Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder, a political ally of Mayor Lamar Thorpe, has once again chosen to mail her printed response letter to proponents of his recall, further delaying the signature gathering. On Friday, Nov. 19, 2021, organizer Kathy Cabrera was informed that Householder had mailed her response letter This is the third time the city clerk has chosen to do so. (See related article)

It was on the 10th day since they submitted their recall petition for the third time, which is the legal limit for Householder’s response.

The second time the city clerk was due to provide her response letter to the petition on Oct. 21, fellow organizer and former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, who earned the advanced, professional designation of Master Municipal Clerk from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks, emailed Householder, writing, “In accordance with Elections Code 11042, the lead proponent, Kathy Cabrera, will pick up the Elections Official’s response to the Recall Petition of Lamar Thorpe.” He further shared the language from that code section.

In an email response that same day, Householder, who has not yet earned the lesser designation of Certified Municipal Clerk wrote, “For clarification, I received the copies of the petition and proof of publication in the Clerk’s office on the 3rd floor. I even opened the door for Ms. Cabrera when she arrived. Further, your understanding of EC11042 (b) is incorrect. In accordance with section (b), the petition response letter was sent in writing today via certified mail. Please find the attached receipt confirming the petition response letter was mailed today.” (The designation of MPP Householder uses in her email correspondence refers to her Master in Public Policy degree.)

However, the state’s Elections Code section 11042 (b) only requires, as both Simonsen and Householder pointed out that, “The elections official…shall…notify the proponents in writing of his or her finding.”

Following is the complete subsection they referenced.

Elections Code Section 11042 “(b) At the time of the filing of the two blank copies of the petition, the proponents shall also file proof of publication of the notice of intention, if the notice of intention was published, or an affidavit of posting of the notice of intention, if the notice of intention was posted.  The elections official or, in the case of a recall of a state officer, the Secretary of State, shall, within 10 days of receiving the blank copies of the petition, notify the proponents in writing of his or her finding.”

Questions for Householder Go Unanswered

A voicemail was left on Householder’s cell phone Friday afternoon and an email was sent to her Friday night asking why she mailed the response letter instead of emailing it, as Cabrera has repeatedly asked Householder, including in emails sent on Sept. 27, Nov. 2, 3, 4 and 16. Emails_Cabrera Householder

Additional questions were asked of Householder in the Friday night email, including, “can you please provide the requirement that ‘in writing’ means on a physical piece of paper to support your reasoning? Also, where does it require you to mail your response letter? If it must be printed on a piece of paper, couldn’t you have called Ms. Cabrera and let her know she could meet you or your staff at the City Clerk’s office for one of you to hand it to her the day you issued it? If so, why didn’t you instead of making her and the other recall proponents wait two or three more days to receive it in the mail?”

Householder was also asked, “Did it really take you and/or your staff 10 days to review their petition? If so, what took so long? Asking again, why couldn’t you follow the petition template provided by the County Clerk’s office that was used for your recall, instead of the template provided by the California Secretary of State’s office? Finally, will you admit to making a mistake in your last response letter requiring them to provide the names of the Top Funders when they have yet to form a campaign committee?”

Householder did not respond prior to publication time on Saturday afternoon.

Cabrera expects to receive Householder’s response letter by Monday, Nov. 22, almost two months after Thorpe was served with his recall notice on Sept. 24. (See related article)

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

By Allen Payton

On Oct. 5, without any fanfare and long before the redistricting process has been completed, former Antioch Mayor Pro Tem and Councilwoman Joy Motts posted on her Community Advocate Joy Motts Facebook page that she will be running, again for District 1 in 2022. She was first elected to the council in 2018 for a two-year citywide seat, but lost for re-election last year for another two years by 212 votes to current District 1 incumbent Tamisha Torres-Walker, placing second in a three-way race with former Antioch Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Manny Soliz, Jr. (See related article)

A former Antioch School Board Trustee, Motts was elected in 2010 and served until 2014, but lost for re-election placing fourth in a race for three seats. She ran again in 2016 but lost, placing fourth, again in the race for three seats. Motts then set her sights on city council and was elected as the top vote-getter in a six-person race in 2018, for a two-year, citywide seat, resulting in her being chosen by the council as Mayor Pro Tem during the first year of her term. Following redistricting, District 1 where she and her husband live, and District 4 were chosen as two-year seats, when all four seats were up for election, along with the mayor’s seat in 2020. (See related article)

In her Facebook post, Motts wrote:

“Dear Friends and Community Members,

I am excited to announce today that I will be running for Antioch City Council in 2022 as your representative for District 1. For over 20 years I have been a dedicated and passionate advocate for Antioch and especially for the residents of north Antioch. Serving in many capacities over the years as your School Board member that spearheaded the renovation of Antioch High School, as your Councilwoman who supported our business community and public safety, as the President of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation bringing back Antioch’s 4th of July and many other celebrations to Antioch’s families. I am tenured, experienced and I will continue to fight for a safer and better quality of life for all of Antioch’s residents.

I will be your leader who works hard, shows up, governs with respect, does the research, listens to my constituents, and knows that building relationships and collaboration are the key to achieving what is in the best interest of our community. We have many challenges in our community, but we also have so many opportunities on which to build upon. I hope to have your support in this journey. More to follow.”

Then on Oct. 26, she posted a photo of her from the last campaign showing the endorsement by the East Bay Times.

As she mentioned, Motts, a lifelong Antioch resident, currently serves the community as president of Celebrate Antioch Foundation which organizes the events, mainly in Rivertown, including the July 4th and Holiday Delites Celebrations. She is also leading the effort to use the former Antioch Lumber Company lot, known as The Yard, for a new town square, for which she will make a presentation to the city council during next Tuesday’s meeting.

The council election will be held November 8, 2022.

Endorse Map D keeping their districts mostly the same

Antioch remains split but along different lines

County receives $7.4 million more in federal American Rescue Plan Act funds

By Daniel Borsuk

With scant public testimony and only three complete community map submissions, during their meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 9, Contra Costa Supervisors decided to move forward with the 2021 redistricting effort by selecting Map D as the preferred alternative. It creates proposed supervisorial boundaries that will be in place for the next 10 years. CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 NOV 9 presentation

With the clock ticking for supervisors to wrap up the federally mandated redistricting effort by Dec. 15, county officials have not received an abundance of public input at public hearings and workshops on proposed supervisorial maps, but after supervisors again heard meager public input on the proposed maps, the elected officials decided to move forward to comply with federal law.

At the end of day, of the four maps proposed by county staff and the three complete alternative maps submitted by the public, supervisors chose Map D mainly because it presents the fewest revisions from the current districts. However, it offers districts with the greatest deviation of 9.77% in population between districts of all four maps offered by county staff. It only splits up the cities of Concord, Antioch and Walnut Creek.

Impacts

The chosen map results in Districts 3 and 5 with the least population, 11,568 and 11,425 fewer residents than average, respectively, and Districts 2 and 4 with the most population of 11,264 and 9,273 greater than average. So, Districts 3 and 5 Supervisors will represent about 21,000 to 23,000 fewer residents than Districts 2 and 4. District 1 will have the lowest deviation from average population of just 2,455 residents or 1.05%.

Map D keeps Antioch split in two between Districts 3 and 5, as the city currently is, but along different streets. This time the districts are split along Somersville Road and Auto Center Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.

It moves Alamo, Blackhawk and Tassajara Valley from the current District 3 into District 2, allowing them to join the rest of the San Ramon Valley.

It reunites Pinole moving a portion from the current District 5 into District 1 in West County.

It keeps the Rossmoor community of Walnut Creek split from the rest of that city, and leaves it in District 2, while the rest of the city will be in District 4.

The map also shifts a portion of Concord from District 4 into District 5.

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, who announced she will not seek re-election next year, liked Map D because it presents the “least intrusion into Concord.”  District 4 would also pick up the Morgan Territory area.

“If I could have all of Antioch I would,” said Board Chair Burgis.

District 1 Supervisor John Gioia, whose seat is also up for election next year, acknowledged with Map D his district cannot go beyond Pinole and El Sobrante. The neighboring and nearby communities of Hercules and Crockett will be fully represented by District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover.

Alternative Maps

There were only 12 community submissions with eight complete maps and four community of interest maps, using the county’s online mapping tool. Two of the complete maps were submitted by one person and three by another, So, only five people submitted complete, alternative maps.  CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 Community Submission Maps Oct05&19    CCCBOS Redistricting 2021 Community Submission Maps Nov09

Two of the complete maps offered total population deviations between the districts of 10.55% and 13.38%, which is greater than the 10% maximum deviation legally allowed. The population of each district can only be 5% greater or lesser than average. The other five maps split up communities of interest

The community submission of a complete map of the five districts, by the Contra Costa Herald, complied with the population deviation requirement of no greater or fewer than 5% from average. The map offers districts with the least population deviation of just 1.67% compared to the four maps proposed by county staff, while respecting both city and community boundaries, except for Concord and Antioch, the county’s largest cities. In general, the Contra Costa Herald map uses major city streets as the dividing lines, such as A Street in Antioch, and the districts are as compact as possible.

County Receives $7.4 million in American Rescue Plan Act Funds

Supervisors learned additional federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds will be heading to county coffers in ensuing months after $7.4 million have been spent during the first quarter of 2021.

The county Employment and Human Services Department has received $4,694,377, the county Health Services Department has received $2,604,182 and the Department of Conservation and Development has received $90,215, said assistant County Administrative Officer Tim Elway.

Through Sept. 30, county departments spent $71.6 million ARPA funds for rental assistance services. The Health Services Department submitted an expenditure of $20.9 million for pandemic responses.

Last August, the County Administrator’s Office had identified $317,327.304 in ARPA funds allocated to the county. Of that amount, $127,606.231 had been received by the county and represents two of the largest funding sources for the county – $112,029,451 for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and $15,576,780 for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

Hire New Director of Child Support Services from San Joaquin County

Supervisors voted 5-0 to hire San Joaquin County Director of Child Support Services Lori Cruz as the new Contra Costa County Director of Child Support Services at an annual salary of $345,796 of which $56,489 are pension costs.

Cruz, a California licensed attorney, who holds a Juris Doctor from Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, and a Bachelor of Arts Political Science and Print Journalism from the University of Southern California, has served as the Director of Child Support Services in San Joaquin County, the same county where Contra Costa County Administrator Monica Nina was county administrator until her appointment late last year.

Cruz replaces the current director of child support services Melinda Self, who is retiring on Dec. 31, 2021.

Upon accepting the supervisors’ hiring, Ms. Cruz said, “I can bring my 31 years of child support experience to Contra Costa County and bring positive outcomes to your constituents.”

Cruz, who has been a member of the California State Bar since 1989, has served as director of San Joaquin County Child Support Services from April 2014 to present date. From June 2002 to April 2014, she was employed as the Deputy Director of Operations of the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department. During her career she developed programs to analyze departmental data to measure performance and effectiveness of services, leading a statewide effort to obtain significant data to measure performance and effectiveness of services, and leading a statewide effort to obtain a new funding model for local child support agencies.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

For Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, Board of Equalization districts; changes will affect who represents Antioch; more public input encouraged

SACRAMENTO, CA—On Wednesday, the 2020 California Citizens Redistricting Commission released draft maps for the state’s Congressional, State Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization districts ahead of the CA Supreme Court mandated November 15, 2021 deadline.

“We are finally here. We proudly present these draft maps to the people of California as a starting point for public discussion. These are not intended to be final maps and we strongly encourage Californians to continue weighing in until we get it right,” stated Commission Chair Trena Turner. “A global pandemic and delayed census data would not stop this commission from delivering on its promise to create maps that encourage fair representation. We will have final maps completed and certified by the December 27, 2021 deadline. There is still plenty of time for the public to get involved. We urge you to join us because everything is on the lines.”

A major consideration in redrawing the Congressional districts was the fact that California lost a seat in the decennial reapportionment due to population shifts away from the state. That reduces the delegation in the House of Representatives from 53 to 52. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, across the country, the Golden State was joined by Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in losing one Congressional seat each. Oregon, Montana, Colorado, North Carolina and Florida each gained one seat, while Texas gained two Congressional seats.

According to an SFGate.com news report, “In the Bay Area…Contra Costa County has been the biggest source of complaints…some…Antioch residents have complained about African American neighborhoods being split up, while residents south of them in the Tri-Valley area are annoyed that San Ramon and Dublin were kept in separate congressional districts.”

Using the multitude of communities of interest testimony the Commission received throughout the summer, they assessed how that testimony could potentially inform district boundaries considering the tradeoffs that needed to be made in eventual maps. The Commission produced three sets of visualizations (October 27-29, November 2-4, November 7-9) that incorporated additional public input to evolve into draft maps.

Draft maps can be found here and below.

Approved Draft Maps
CONGRESS

• 11.10.21 Congressional Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Congressional Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Congressional Equivalency Files

STATE SENATE

• 11.10.21 State Senate Draft Map
• 11.10.21 State Senate Shape Files
• 11.10.21 State Senate Equivalency Files

ASSEMBLY

• 11.10.21 Assembly Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Assembly Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Assembly Equivalency Files

BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Draft Map
• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Shape Files
• 11.10.21 Board of Equalization Equivalency Files

We encourage the public to provide feedback using this form.

Public comment shall be taken for at least 14 days from the date of public display of the first preliminary statewide (draft) maps of the Congressional, State Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. The Commission shall not display any other map for public comment during the 14-day period.

Draft Map Public Input Meeting Schedule
November 17, 2021—Congressional District Feedback
November 18, 2021—Assembly District Feedback
November 19, 2021—Senate District Feedback
November 20, 2021—Board of Equalization & Any District Feedback
November 22, 2021—Any District Feedback
November 23, 2021—Any District Feedback

Public input meeting appointments can be made here.

In accordance with the California Constitution, the Commission followed these criteria, in this order, to draw district maps:

1. Districts must be of equal population to comply with the U.S. Constitution.
2. Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act to ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
3. Districts must be drawn contiguously, so that all parts of the district are connected to each other.
4. Districts must minimize the division of cities, counties, neighborhoods and communities of interest to the extent possible.
5. Districts should be geographically compact: such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for a more distant population. This requirement refers to density, not shape. Census blocks cannot be split.
6. Where practicable each Senate District should be comprised of two complete and adjacent Assembly Districts, and Board of Equalization districts should be comprised of 10 complete and adjacent State Senate Districts.

In addition, the place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate may not be considered in the creation of a map, and districts may not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.

Every 10 years, after the federal government publishes updated census information, California must redraw the boundaries of its electoral districts so that the state’s population is evenly allocated among the new districts.

In 2008, California voters passed the Voters First Act, authorizing the creation of the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw new State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization district lines. In 2010, the Voters First Act for Congress gave the Commission the responsibility of drawing new Congressional districts following every census.

For more information, please visit www.WeDrawTheLinesCA.org.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Mails letter, again instead of emailing it, further delaying process; proponents used county template which is different than state template that the city clerk follows; revised petition submitted Tuesday afternoon

By Allen Payton

On Saturday, Nov. 6 proponents for the recall of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe received by certified mail a second letter denying their petition paperwork from City Clerk Ellie Householder because it didn’t match the format she has chosen to follow. In addition, this time she added an unneeded requirement that wasn’t mentioned in her first denial letter. It’s the second time the city clerk has rejected the Thorpe’s recall petition. (See related article)

The challenge the organizers faced was the template they followed for the recall petition format they received from the County Clerk is slightly different than the one from the California Secretary of State, which Householder follows. Contra Costa County Recall Petition Template      Secretary of State Recall Petition Template

Under “Necessary Corrections” Householder’s letter reads the same for the first two items. The new correction reads, “Must include ‘Official Top Funders’ pursuant to Elections Code section 107(b).”

Kathy Cabrera, one of the leaders of the recall effort, who served Thorpe with the recall notice, said, “If that really needed to be corrected, why didn’t she include it in the first letter? But in fact, it doesn’t.”

That’s because the requirement is only if an official committee has been formed, which the recall proponents haven’t done, yet.

Asked if they had formed a committee she said, “No and there was nothing that would even say we had a committee.”

The Recall Procedures Guide on the California Secretary of State’s website, for local officials on page 16, reads as follows:

Official Top Funders Disclosure Requirements

For any recall petition for which the circulation is paid for by a committee formed pursuant to Government Code 82013, an Official Top Funders disclosure shall be included on the petition or in a separate document presented to a prospective signer of the petition. (Elections Code § 107(b))

As for the first two corrections, Cabrera stated, “We followed the template used for the petition for Householder’s recall from the school board and that was accepted by the County Clerk.”

That complaint is in addition to the fact that they were forced to wait two extra days – both times – because Householder refused to provide them with her letter via email or in person. That is delaying the signature gathering process because proponents must first receive a letter from the city clerk that their petition paperwork has been approved.

“Had we received her letter by email on Thursday, we could have had the corrected paperwork back to her on Friday to start another ten days,” Cabrera stated. “She’s only required to provide it in writing. email is in writing.”

Questions for Householder

An email was sent to the city clerk on Saturday asking, “why does your latest letter, dated Nov. 4, 2021, denying the petition of the proponents for Mayor Thorpe’s recall, list the requirement that they disclose their top funders, when they haven’t yet formed a committee? Is a committee name on any of the documents they submitted to the City Clerk’s office? If not, why would you assume they formed one? Or did you simply make a mistake in your latest letter? Also, even if it was a requirement, why didn’t you include that in the first letter you sent them?

“Is it true, as has been shared, that you and Lamar have been working together on this, and that you have obtained the advice of a consultant to assist you in responding to the proponents of his recall, and to handle the paperwork and process for it?

“Finally, if the proponents followed the same format provided by the County Clerk’s office, which was also used for the petition for your recall that the County Clerk’s office approved, how is their latest petition submission for the mayor’s recall incorrect, as you cited in the first two sections of the Necessary Corrections?”

Householder did not respond to any questions as of publication time Tuesday night, Nov. 9.

Different Petition Templates Used by County and City

“We spoke with the county clerk’s office staff on Monday, and we ended up using the state’s template, this time,” Cabrera said. “Because the template we had used before was the County’s. The Householder recall petition was approved using that template. But it’s different than the state’s template.”

“It’s not very different but enough that one item needed to be changed,” she continued. “But the third requirement of disclosing the Official Top Funders does not apply to us, because we haven’t formed a committee and we don’t meet the requirements to complete a Form 410, yet.”

That’s the form required once a committee is formed or if $1,000 is received from one individual or $2,000 from more than one.

“There are multiple thresholds, and we haven’t met any of them, yet,” Cabrera added.

“One of the corrections was so ambiguous we couldn’t figure out exactly what she wants,” she continued. “We sequentially numbered the proponents’ names following the example of the recall papers for Governor Newsom.”

When they submitted the petitions both times, the names of the proponents weren’t numbered.

“We even made sure the first paragraph wasn’t indented,” Cabrera explained. “It does say the petition has to be identical to the template. But Householder was being difficult. So, we removed the indentation and numbered the names.”

They reviewed every letter and even used a measuring tape to make sure the box next to where people sign is one inch from the edge, as required.

Another minor difference is the county petition template doesn’t have a place for the signature gatherer to date the form and the state’s does. So, they added that, as well

Organizers Submit Revised Petition

The revised paperwork was submitted Tuesday afternoon with a cover letter. Thorpe recall petition-#3 cover ltr

“Petition number three was graciously accepted by Ms. Householder. She actually date stamped it and provided a copy of it. She didn’t do that before.”

Asked if Householder approved the petition, Cabrera responded, “No. She didn’t approve it. She accepted it as filed.”

“Although we feel we shouldn’t have had to submit the paperwork for a third time, because we followed the county’s template used for Householder’s recall, that was for school board and this is for the mayor,” she concluded.

“Now we wait 10 calendar days. I think that’s the 19th,” Cabrera added.

 

Will review during special meeting/study session Tuesday at 5:30 p.m.; challenges with and complaints about mapping tool

“I also understand that there has been NO one on the site, nor has anyone giving their ideas as to the drawing of the maps.” – Councilwoman Ogorchock

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will hold a special meeting/study session on redrawing their district boundaries at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday night. They will be reviewing, discussing and receiving public comments on two draft maps even before the promised online mapping tool, on the city’s redistricting webpage, available to the public was announced. It can be accessed here: www.redrawmyantioch.publicredistricting.com.

The draft maps on tomorrow night’s agenda offer two options and show slight changes to Districts 3 and 4, but no apparent changes to Districts 1 and 2. Districts must be within 5% of the average population of 115,580. The current district maps are based on the 2010 Census when Antioch had a population of 102,372. With more residential growth occurring in District 3 over the past 10 years and a population that is 6.08% greater than average of 28,895 population per district, some of the population had to be shifted to other districts. Since the population in District 4 is 4.63% less than the average some of the population from District 3 was shifted to District 4 for both Draft Maps A and B. Antioch City Council Redistricting Meeting Agenda 110921

Antioch-Redistricting-Draft-Map-A      Antioch-Redistricting-Draft-Map-B      Antioch-Draft-Map-Demographics 110921

Questions for City Council, Staff, Consultant

The following questions were sent via email Monday afternoon to all five council members, City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith and other city staff asking, “when did the online mapping tool become available? How was the public informed of it being available? Has any member of the public used it or submitted a proposed map? If not, isn’t it premature to be discussing draft maps before the public has had the opportunity to submit their own proposed maps?”

In addition, they were asked, “why are you holding these meetings at 5:30 p.m. when many residents are still commuting home from work, instead of having a special meeting next Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. or on a Saturday and in person for people to attend and see the maps large and up close? Will you be holding more meetings on redistricting and in person?”

In addition, similar questions were asked of the consultant, Karin Mac Donald of Q2 Data and Research after work hours on Monday.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock was the only one to respond Monday evening.

“I don’t know who created these maps, I was told staff,” she wrote. “The interactive part came out on Tuesday. Not enough time for individuals to be able to start working on their thoughts. I also understand that there has been NO one on the site, nor has anyone giving their ideas as to the drawing of the maps.”

“I’ve asked for another meeting, in person, to get feedback. So far that’s been a no go. We’ll have to see,” Ogorchock added.

Challenges With Online Mapping Tool

After a third attempt using three different email addresses to sign up for the online mapping tool, this reporter was able to establish an account to create a map and save it for submission to the city council.

That information and the following additional questions were sent to council members and staff: “Can someone please get that fixed? If I can’t sign up and another person who told me they tried, how can you expect the public to submit proposed maps to provide you their input? What if others don’t have multiple email addresses? Might they just give up and not use the mapping tool? Did someone on city staff test it, first?”

“I totally agree with you,” Ogorchock responded. “I’ve gotten several complaints already. Plus, there is hardly any Spanish documents. Not good.”

Watching Meeting and Public Comments

The special meeting/study session can be viewed at https://www.antiochca.gov/live_stream, on Comcast Channel 24, or AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

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 for the meeting.

Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted (350 words, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor).