Joined by Common Cause, Consumer Watchdog for media briefing on “what’s at stake if big money wins lawsuit to terminate anti-corruption law”

On Monday, March 6, 2023, a coalition of policy experts, including representatives from Common Cause and Consumer Watchdog, joined State Senator Steve Glazer (SD7, D-Contra Costa) held a briefing on the special interest lawsuit to terminate SB 1439, what they refer to as “a common sense anti-corruption law that would help end the cycle of scandals caused by special interests’ massive campaign contributions to the local officials they have business before.”

Authored by Contra Costa State Senator Steve Glazer and signed into last year, SB1439 prohibits a local elected official from voting on a matter if they have received a contribution from the party to the matter or their agent of more than $250 during the 12 months prior to the date a final decision is made on the matter. It also prohibits local officials from receiving a contribution of more than $250 in the 12 months after the proceeding from party to the matter or the party’s agent. But the bill also allows an official to return a contribution to avoid violating the new law and still vote on the matter.

According to Common Cause which proposed the bill, California law prohibited anyone seeking a contract, permit, or license from the government from making a campaign contribution of more than $250 to the officials responsible for decisions about that contract, permit, or license. The limitation applied while the contract, permit, or license was pending and for three months after. But local elected officials were exempted from the law. The bill extended the prohibitions from three to 12 months and included local elected officials.

The panel of policy and democracy experts warned the public of the high-stakes consequences of the special interest lawsuit, by eight trade associations and two Sacramento area local elected officials, to terminate SB 1439 at a virtual press conference. The legislation, signed into law last year, is a common-sense, anti-corruption law that would help end the cycle of scandals caused by special interests’ massive campaign contributions to local officials they have business before.

The panel discussed the urgent need to uphold the lawful, long-overdue legislation that holds local leaders accountable to the people they serve, not to special interests. Local stakeholders illustrated how special interests meddling in local politics hinders democracy and harms our communities.

Regarding the urgent need to protect SB 1439:

“We have become numb to the legal corruption that has enveloped our democracy. Pay-to-play is antithetical to an honest and ethical government, and it should be rooted out and killed like a cancer that has affected the body politic,” said Glazer.

“The influence-peddling community wants the opposite – greasy contributions that taint decisions that should be exclusively in the public’s interest. The status quo is shameful, and it is bigger than the corruption we are trying to root out – it is the confidence of our citizenry in whether people can have faith in our democracy,” he added.

Regarding the importance of expanding our anti-corruption laws: 

“California’s local governments have been plagued by scandals in which special interest entities pump campaign cash to the local government officials who determine their fate on licenses, permits, and contracts. The examples are endless – SB 1439 is a common sense, narrowly tailored solution to an acute and documented problem to protect our communities,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, Executive Director of California Common Cause. “It has been tried in other states and in a long list of California cities, and it has never been knocked down because of legal challenges. We trust SB 1439 will succeed in the courts.” 

Regarding how SB 1439 expands the Political Reform Act: 

“SB 1439 is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last 10 years. It gets right to the heart of the corruption problem – people think that elected officials are acting in the best interest of their contributors, not in the public interest. This law expands the purposes of the Political Reform Act and is a major effort to correct this problem and public perception, thus the law should be upheld by the courts,” said Bob Stern, policy expert and principal co-author of the Political Reform Act of 1974.

Regarding how big money in our local politics hurts our communities: 

“Supporting SB 1439 as a bill was an easy choice for us – we see and feel regularly the impact of corporate money in the Inland Empire. Increasingly, it’s felt that regardless of how loudly residents and voters push back against certain kinds of local projects, developer money will always drown out our voice,” said Sky Allen, Executive Director of Inland Empire United. “Over the past 20 years, the Inland Empire has become the largest logistics hub in the world – so instead of green space and local businesses, we’re surrounded by massive warehouses and, as a result, we breathe some of the worst air and are offered fewer quality jobs. Laws like AB 1439 give us hope that moving forward, the scales will be more balanced.” 

Regarding how big money in our local politics hurts consumers: 

“Local politicians have tremendous influence and direct impact on the policies that impact consumers the most, like zoning laws, environmental regulations, and business licensing. When corporations and wealthy individuals use their financial resources to influence local elections and create favor with local elected officials, they successfully steer public policy in ways that are sympathetic to their own interests at the expense of consumers as a whole,” said Ben Powell, Staff Attorney for Consumer Watchdog. “Laws like SB 1439 address this by ensuring that local politicians are working in favor of the public interest, not bids for re-election or trading favors with wealthy donors.”

“It’s imperative that we ensure local elections stay equitable for everyone. When big money comes into play, socioeconomic barriers are strengthened and the community is ultimately the one who loses,” said Emmanuel Estrada, Mayor of Baldwin Park. “In Baldwin Park, we enacted a local ordinance barring city contractors from directly donating to candidates and adding stricter contribution limits. When we sent it to the voters to reinforce the ordinance, over 80 percent were in favor, illustrating the massive desire to remove the influence of big money from our local politics.”

California Fair Political Practices Commission Chair, Richard C. Miadich, who was unable to attend the briefing said, “We’re disappointed to learn a lawsuit has been filed regarding SB 1439 after the Commission voted unanimously to support it and months after it unanimously passed the legislature and was signed by the Governor.”

“It also comes months after we’ve begun issuing guidance, gathering public input and crafting regulations to implement the law. We’ll continue doing just that and will continue to enforce the law unless and until a court ruling says otherwise,” he added.

To watch the full briefing, click here. 

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

 

Required Form 460 months late; contractor provides accounting for payments received

Of the $46,000 raised $43,900 paid to signature gathering coordinator in 9 installments without a contract

Committee treasurer, assistant treasurer refuse to answer questions; two organizers provide some details

By Allen D. Payton

The failed Committee to Recall Lamar Thorpe finally submitted their required campaign finance report last week. Committee treasurer, James Pringle shared it in an email message on Thursday, Jan. 19, 2023, wrote “Please find attached, the PDF copy of the Form 460 that I mailed out last Wednesday.” Antioch City Clerk’s Office Administrative Analyst Edgar Villanueva, confirmed receipt of the report on Thursday saying, “I just got it in the mail, literally this afternoon.”  Committee to Recall Thorpe Form 460 1-19-23

The report and information shared by the paid contractor, Bryan Schafer, during a 40-minute interview this week, undermine the claims by the committee members of “criminal activity and fraud” made on the day they announced the recall’s failure.  Their further claims that he stole $23,000 and didn’t turn over the signatures to them is in dispute. But three of the organizers, Treasurer James Pringle, Assistant Treasurer Tom Hartrick, who was the main person handling the committee’s finances, refuse to answer questions, and Amezcua refuses to answer most questions on the record to provide the details for the public of what transpired. However, Amezcua did go on the record to refute what Schafer said about the number of signatures he submitted and the amount he was to be paid. (See related articles here and here)

As previously reported, the committee’s press release issued on Wednesday, May 11, 2022 read: “Due to various reasons, including Covid and a paid signature company that failed to turn over signed petitions after receiving payment, the recall will not be on the November ballot. Signing efforts during this recall period showcased that close to 11,000 Antioch residents signed the petitions believing that Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe is not providing good leadership for the City of Antioch and we thank them for stepping forward.

To be transparent with the community, due to what we believe is criminal activity and fraud by a professional signing company hired to assist us in signature gathering, paid signatures were not turned over or collected after paying over $23,000. In addition, over 1,500 signatures, gathered by volunteers, were delivered to the signature company, paid to validate as registered voters, were not returned.”

Nine Payments Totaling $43,900 Made to Contractor

The report, known as a Form 460, was due last summer and shows the committee raised $46,077.27 and spent $45,045 leaving $1,032.27 cash on hand. It also shows who contributed $100 or more and how the funds were spent.

There were three large contributors including the largest amount of $15,000 from former Assemblyman Jim Frazier, followed by $4,000 from Kenneth Turnage Construction in Antioch, and $3,883.42 from developer Robert Nunn of Brentwood. The remaining contributions of $100 or more were in smaller amounts totaling $9,036.09 and all from Antioch residents or businesses. A total of $14,558.76 was also raised from contributions of less than $100. The details of who contributed less than $100 is not required by state campaign finance law.

The report shows almost all of the funds raised were paid to “Brian Robert Schafer” of Saginaw, Michigan, misspelling his first name, which is Bryan, who was the contractor hired by the committee. But without a contract.

A total of $43,900 was paid to Schafer in nine payments ranging in size from $1,500 to $20,000 but the report doesn’t provide any dates of when they were made. The committee members previously claimed he absconded with $23,000 as well as the signatures. But that’s not true according to Schafer.

Questions for Schafer

Questions were sent via text to Schafer Thursday evening asking, “How much of the $43,900 did you pay the people you hired to gather the signatures? How much were you charging per signature? How many voters’ signatures were gathered for the effort? How many did you submit to the committee? To whom did you submit the signatures? Has any legal action been taken against you by the committee? They claim you left town with $23,000 and the signatures causing the recall to fail. Is that true? Did Lamar Thorpe or anyone else pay you to leave Antioch without turning over the signatures?”

Schafer Says He Didn’t Steal Money or Signatures

During a 40-minute interview Thursday night, Schafer gave his side of the story completely refuting the claims of the recall organizers.

“The number they contracted for me to get was 6,000 signatures,” he stated. “From the beginning they were having trouble paying me to keep people in the field gathering signatures. They were paying me each week a few thousand dollars. But when they ran out, I had to pay out of my pocket. I had to hire quite a few independent contractors because of the problems they were having with the Thorpe supporters who were hassling our white petitioners. We call them ‘blockers’. It was quite a lot of opposition for such a small town. I had to hire African Americans.”

“I hired a total of 12-15 signature gatherers by the time we finished,” Schafer added. “My dad was one of my petitioners. He got harassing phone calls and texts, even until last fall. Just messing with him.”

Asked how many signatures were gathered and submitted to the recall organizers he said, “I know it was over 3,000 signatures, because they were in the hole $800 or $900 to me.”

Asked how much he charged the committee Schafer explained, “It was $10 per signature for the street price. Normally we do $13.30 which was $10 for the street price and $3.30 for me. But they were up front in the beginning they would have trouble raising funds.”

“We agreed once I got 3,000 signatures, they were going to give me my override of $20,000 at the halfway mark,” he continued. “When I submitted the 3,000 signatures the painter guy (Tom Hartick) said it was the last of the money and it was to see me through the rest of the campaign. But we still needed 3,000 signatures which with my override would be another $30,000 not $20K.”

Asked if signatures were given back to him for verification Schafer said, “They were supposed to give the signatures back to me and pay my office workers 50 cents each to validate them, but they couldn’t come up with that money and that they were going to handle it in a different way. But they were only to give me the signatures they had gathered before they hired my company because I had already validated the signatures we had collected.”

“Lindsey, Kathy and the assistant treasurer are who I dealt with. And I met the one lady’s husband, who collected signatures from me.” Asked if that was Lindsey he was referring to, Schafer said, “yep.”

“When they paid the final $20K it would have only covered 2,000 signatures,” he continued.

A total of $43,900 was paid which covered 3,000 signatures at $13.30 each plus the city clerk’s recall.

“The City Clerk’s recall was only $3.00 per signature. So, some of that has to be factored in,” he explained. “I’d say I didn’t get over 1,500 signatures on that.”

“My override was factored into all of it” Schafer added. “They already said they were strapped for cash so I couldn’t charge them an override for both petitions.”

Asked if he had a signed contract Schafer responded, “I asked them for something in writing, but they kind of dodged around it. Their exact words were, they had to talk to someone about getting a written agreement, but we never did one. It was a verbal agreement.”

Asked about Blitz Canvassing he responded, “I don’t know where you guys got that from. I know Blitz Canvassing. They’re a nationwide company. I’ve never worked with them in the 10 years I’ve been petitioning. Although I’ve hired several people from Blitz. The first meeting I had with Kathy and Lindsey, I told them my company was Designated Petitions. We talked for several hours.”

However, Kathy Cabrera refutes that sharing it was she and Alicia Taylor who meet with Schafer and

“I gave them a 1099,” he added. “I haven’t received a tax form from them so I can get my workers their forms.”

Asked about the claim that he didn’t pay the signature gatherers he hired he stated, “My workers got paid. That’s how they keep working for me. I couldn’t be a coordinator if I didn’t pay my people.”

Schafer said he rented a house in Pittsburg that had 12 beds costing $3,000 per week.

“I was able to house all my people there,” Schafer shared. “They all worked in Antioch at one point or another.”

When informed that Hartrick said no police report was filed because he was told it’s a civil matter Schafer responded, “I was never worried about it because I knew.”

“If they had the $30,000 to finish the signature gathering, we wouldn’t have had the time to finish,” he explained. “If they had hired us at the beginning not 50 days before the deadline we could have gotten it done.”

“I’ve been doing this for about 10 years. I started coordinating about four or five months before I met them, Schafer stated. “Now, I’m coordinating Southern California. Now, I’m on my way to the top. It’s my five-year plan. According to my boss, I’m a sub-coordinator. My boss sends me $40,000 to $60,000 at a time to go buy signatures then I ship them to the Bay Area,” where he’s based.

“He’s technically not my boss because I’m an independent contractor,” he added.

Regarding Thorpe, his committee or anyone else paying him to leave town, Schafer laughed and said, “Looking back on it, I wish he had.”

“My boss saw the initial article in the Herald and he kind of laughed at it because we’ve worked together for the last six years and he knows me,” he added.

Questions for Committee Members Go Unanswered

Questions were sent Thursday evening to Pringle, Hartrick, Amezcua and Cabrera asking, “Why did it take so long to submit your committee’s Form 460? How many total voters’ signatures did the effort collect? How many signatures did you receive from Bryan Schafer? Since he was paid in installments, did you receive signatures with each payment? How much were you paying for each signature? How did the payments to Mr. Schafer work, did he hand you a stack of completed petitions, and you handed him a check? Did someone on the committee first verify the validity of the voters’ signatures before paying him each time?”

They were also asked, “When were the payments for $3,000 and $20,000 listed last on the report made to him?

Do they total the $23,000 you claim he took without providing signatures to you? How many signatures did he owe you at that time? Why did you pay a lump sum $20,000 to him unless he was also handing you the petitions with the remaining signatures required to reach the necessary total at the same time? Who handed him the check?”

They were then asked if the amounts Schafer shared of $10.00 and $3.30 per signature were correct and if it’s true Amezcua retained about 6,000 signatures. “If so, what did you do with those petitions which contain voters’ names, addresses and signatures? Were they destroyed or do you still have them?”

They were also asked if what Schafer is claiming is true, that he was never given any signatures gathered by volunteers before he was hired, to verify, because the committee couldn’t afford the 50 cents per for his office staff and, “if so, where are those petitions with the signatures?”

The organizers were also asked, “What vetting was done before he was hired? Did you check to see if he really owned Blitz Canvassing and had a business license from anywhere or obtained one from the City of Antioch?”

They were also asked if they were aware that on Blitz Canvassing’s website a Bryan Schafer is not mentioned, nor that they do business in California, before Schafer was hired?” and if any of them ever know that he told Kathy Cabrera and Alicia Taylor that his company is Designated Petitions.

Amezcua was asked, “was it the other signature gatherer you mentioned in your text who told you Bryan was with Blitz Canvassing? Or did Bryan tell you that?”

They were all asked, “Did you have a signed contract with him? If so, please provide a copy of it. They were all then asked if it was true that Schafer asked to get things in writing, but they never had a signed agreement with him.

The four were then asked, “Was a police report filed? If not, why not? Have you taken any legal action against Mr. Schafer or his associate, Kim Ridley to at least recover some or all of the funds you claim he stole from the committee?”

The organizers were asked, “What will you do with the remaining $1,032.27 remaining cash on hand? Will you send it to former Assembly Jim Frazier who contributed the most to the effort? Or will you be using it to pay any fines for submitting your Form 460 late?”

Amezcua was asked, “Did Bryan give the petitions with signatures to you and your husband as he is claiming?

Did you keep any of those petitions with the signatures? If so, how many signatures did you have or do you still have in your possession? Or did you destroy them? Did you or anyone else from the committee give Bryan any petitions with signatures on them for his office staff to verify at 50 cents each, including signatures gathered before he was hired?

Amezcua was also asked, “was it the other signature gatherer you mentioned in your text who told you Bryan was with Blitz Canvassing? Or did Bryan tell you that?”

They were all asked, “Was Bryan paid for all the signatures he and his team gathered for both the Thorpe and Householder recalls? Who agreed to hire Bryan? Who paid him each of the amounts listed in your committee’s Form 460? How many signatures did he submit for her recall? Did you agree to pay Bryan and his team $13.30 per signature for the Thorpe recall, including his $3.30 per override, and $3.00 per signature for the Householder recall? If not, what were the amounts agreed to? Do you have the accounting broken down for the number of signatures you received, and the amounts paid to Bryan?”

Cabrera Responds

In response, Cabrera wrote, “He NEVER mentioned Designated Petitions. Lindsey told us he was with Blitz and he clarified it to us at the initial meeting that he was with them – but he and Kim [were] doing this as their own business.”

Cabrera confirmed that, “It was Lindsey’s hubby David” who received some of the signature petitions from Schafer.

“We gave Lindsey his information and she connected with him after that. After the initial meeting,” she added.

An additional question was sent to Cabrera Saturday morning, Jan. 21 asking about the press release received from her email account on May 11.

“With whom did you discuss and develop the press release? Who signed off or agreed to it for publication?” she was asked.

Cabrera responded in writing, “The press release was a joint effort between Lindsey, Tom and I.”

Possible Retaliation Against Cabrera for Providing Information to the Public

On Friday night, Jan. 20, Cabrera informed the Herald that after the email was sent to Hartrick, Pringle and Amezcua containing the text messages between Amezcua and Schafer, Cabrera had been removed as an administrator from the Facebook page set up for the Thorpe recall which was since renamed Antioch Watchdog Lamar Thorpe.

Asked if that was done in retaliation by Amezcua, Cabrera responded simply, “Yep.”

Cabrera was asked who else was or is an administrator for that Facebook page. She responded, “Michelle Kuslits who is friends with Lindsey.

“Noticed several mutual friends blocked me yesterday,” Cabrera added.

City Clerk Won’t Fine Committee but Can File Complaint for FPPC Enforcement

Questions were also emailed to Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder late Thursday afternoon asking when the report was originally due. Because she can assess a late fee fine of $10 per day to the committee Householder was also asked if she will be fining the committee for each day it was late and if so, how much the total will be.

She was also asked, “Was the committee required to submit a Form 497 or any other form for each contribution or expenditure of $1,000 or more?”

Householder responded, “I will not be fining him, because we haven’t issued fines in my office, before. We can file a formal complaint with he FPPC (California Fair Political Practices Commission) and let them handle the enforcement. I will check with my team to determine what other remedies are at our disposal.”

Text Messages Between Amezcua and Schafer

In a comment below the August 11, 2022 post on the Antioch Herald Facebook page of an article about the committee’s lack of reporting their campaign finances Amezcua wrote, “I’ve told you multiple times I’m not on the financial committee and I am not the recall organizer. Please stop including my name in these articles.”

However, text messages between her and Schafer clearly show she was one of the recall organizers.

In undated copies of texts between the two Amezcua asked him, “Brian, what deposit amount is needed from us?” Schafer responded, “I will need 25000 to start.” He then asked, “We said 5,500 for the mayor’s recall?” Amezcua responded, “Let me check with our campaign treasurer and nail him down for a check.”

In an April 1, 2022 text thread with Kathy Cabrera, Schafer wrote, “256 mayor $2,560; 151 city clerk $453; $3013 total. Who do I give these signatures to?” Cabrera responded, “That would be Lindsey as she has all the petitions.” Amezcua responded, “I can pick them up at Safeway in about an hour or so if you’re there?”

In a text thread on April 7, Amezcua wrote, “Good morning, Bryan. I’m sending you talking points for your signature gathers [sic] to perhaps alleviate any more altercations” referring to the confrontations by Thorpe and some of his supporters. She then provided a list of reasons why the mayor should be recalled.

Amezcua Refuses to Answer Most Questions

Amezcua responded in two emails with information that she wrote was off the record. So, the following questions were sent to her, again Saturday morning, Jan. 21 asking, “Did Bryan give the petitions with signatures to you and your husband as he is claiming? Did you keep any of those petitions with the signatures?

If so, how many signatures did you have or do you still have in your possession? Or did you destroy them? Did you or anyone else from the committee give Bryan any petitions with signatures on them for his office staff to verify at 50 cents each, including signatures gathered before he was hired?”

Regarding Cabrera’s removal as an administrator from the Antioch Watchdog Lamar Thorpe page, Amezcua was asked, “did you remove Kathy Cabrera from the Antioch Watchdog Lamar Thorpe Facebook page? Are you an administrator of that page? If you didn’t do you know who did or who else is an administrator for that page? Was her removal done in retaliation of her providing answers and information about the recall?”

Following a third email from Amezcua with information she would not share on the record, additional questions were emailed to her Saturday afternoon asking, “How many signatures were gathered by the volunteers? If you were the one receiving the signatures, did you tell Tom how many so he would pay Schafer the correct amount for each batch? How many batches of signature petitions did you tell Tom you had received? What happened to the signature petitions? Were they destroyed? If not, where are they?”

Finally, she was asked, “Do you think it’s fair that those who contributed financially to the effort and the voters and residents of Antioch who signed the petitions are not informed what happened with their money and signatures and information?”

Additional Questions for Organizers

The following questions were then sent to Hartrick, Pringle and Cabrera Saturday afternoon asking, “Who received the signature petitions from Bryan? Did they tell either of you how many signatures had been submitted to ensure you paid Bryan the correct amount for each batch? How many batches of signature petitions did the person or people he submitted signatures to tell Tom they had received? What happened to the signature petitions? Were they destroyed? If not, where are they?”

Finally, since Cabrera is the only recall organizer to answer questions and provide information about it, Hartrick and Pringle were also asked the same question posed to Amezcua, “Do you think it’s fair that those who contributed financially to the effort and the voters and residents of Antioch who signed the petitions are not informed what happened with their money and signatures and information?”

Cabrera, Amezcua Refute Per Signature Payment Amounts, Number of Signatures Gathered

Regarding the amounts charged per signature by Schafer Cabrera responded, “Thorpe: $10/signature; Ellie: $3 signature; Verification: $0.50/each. Then rest of the financial questions I cannot answer as I do not know the answers. Sorry I’m not much help But I never got involved in the financials and Lindsey was the ones with the petitions.”

Asked if she had ever collected or received any of the signature petitions from Schafer, Cabrera responded, “Oh sure – I worked signing tables and gathered signatures and gave them to Lindsey. I signed the completed petition forms.”

But Cabrera did not receive any of the signature petitions from Schafer.

Amezcua responded with the following information.

“No, I did not receive 3,000 valid signatures as claimed.  It was less than 1,800 for Thorpe and less than 900 for Householder,” she wrote. “I was never told about any ‘override’ cost and have never seen any evidence that supports that claim.”

8,000 Signatures Gathered as of April 22nd

However, in an April 22nd letter to the editor from Cabrera she provided a “Recall Update” writing, “We have 8,000 Signatures and 9,511 is what is required to put the initiative on the ballot. Our goal is 10,000 signatures. So, 2,000 more signatures are needed with a little less than 3 weeks to go!! Our Pro Signers as well as Volunteers are still working hard throughout the city to get us to our goal.”

Yet, how many of those signatures were gathered by volunteers versus by Schafer and his team is still not clear.

Check back later for any additional responses or other updates to this report.

“Passing of the Gavel” ceremony for 2023 Board Officers; Colin Coffey who represents Antioch ends term as president

By Dave Mason, Public Information Supervisor, Public Affairs, East Bay Regional Park District

The East Bay Regional Park District held a swearing-in ceremony for four newly elected Board members during its January 17, 2023 Board of Directors meeting with Congressman Mark DeSaulnier and one of the District’s longest serving employees delivering the oaths of office.

New Directors Olivia Sanwong for Ward 5 and John Mercurio for Ward 6, along with Director Colin Coffey in his second term representing Ward 7 – which includes Antioch – were sworn in by Congressman Mark DeSaulnier who was also recognized for his many contributions to the Park District. Director Dennis Waespi in his third term for Ward 3 was sworn in by Karen McClendon, a Park District employee with over 38 years of service who remains a stalwart in the District.

In a ceremonial “passing of the gavel”, outgoing Board President Coffey handed the leadership role to the new Board President, Director Waespi. President Waespi and the Board of Directors expressed appreciation to Director Coffey for his leadership over the past year. Waespi was elected to the Board in 2014 and served as board president in 2018.

“I am honored to serve as the Board President for 2023,” said new Board President Dennis Waespi. “As Board President, I intend to continue advancing the Park District’s mission of providing parks, shorelines, and trails for safe and healthful recreation and environmental education, while preserving natural wildlife habitat and natural and cultural resources.”

The Board officers named for 2023 are Vice President Elizabeth Echols, Treasurer Ellen Corbett, and Secretary Dee Rosario.

For information about the East Bay Regional Park District, visit ebparks.org. To learn more about its Board of Directors, visit www.ebparks.org/board-and-staff/board.

The East Bay Regional Park District is the largest regional park system in the nation, comprising 73 parks, 55 miles of shoreline, and over 1,300 miles of trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and environmental education. The Park District receives more than 25 million visits annually throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Zepeda’s election in Richmond council race also confirmed, Butt’s campaign files precursor to possible lawsuit but dropped it

By Chris Campos, Editor, ThePress.net

Republished with permission.

MARTINEZ—Tamisha Torres-Walker, running for re-election for the Antioch City Council District 1 seat, came ahead by 3 votes on Nov. 8 beating challenger Joy Motts. After a lengthy and expensive recount Torres-Walker’s lead increased by one vote, according to the county elections office.

Allen Payton, publisher of the Antioch Herald but “acting as a resident and voter in the city,” requested the recount on Motts’ behalf. It’s been a costly exercise. Asked what the final price was Motts responded, “about $30,000.”

She was glad she went through the process. “With just a three vote difference I think it makes sense to go forward and the community agreed. I had support to pay for this.”

The results of the recount were announced Friday by County Clerk Deborah Cooper. The total for Motts dropped by one vote while Torres-Walker’s vote total didn’t change.

Asked for her thoughts Torres-Walker said, “I’m just excited for this to finally be over and celebrate this win. I’ve just been waiting for this process.  I’m going to go home and celebrate the holidays with my family and look forward to serving Antioch on the city council for the next four years.”

Payton, publisher of the Antioch Herald, offered to help fundraising and help cover the costs of the recount. Motts stated earlier on her Facebook account, “We have found out today that unfortunately, the County is charging upwards of $38,500 for this recount, an exorbitant amount of money. Nevertheless, we are moving forward to try and raise the necessary funds. If you would like to support my efforts for a full recount, you can donate on my website at joymotts.org”

Payton said Friday, “about $20,000 total was raised by Mott’s campaign, most through her website, and spent as of today, including another $2,080 she paid today to the Contra Costa County Elections and $6,000 for elections attorney Chris Schweickert of Seto, Wood & Schweickert in Pleasant Hill for yesterday and today.”

On the first day of the recount 8 challenged vote-by-mail ballots and 4 challenged provisional ballots in the District 1 race were reviewed by Motts and Payton, who requested the recount on her behalf the previous week. It occurred at the Contra Costa County Clerk’s Office Elections Division office, with Deputy Clerk-Recorder Tommy Gong, two elections office staff members as well as Torres-Walker and campaign consultant Melody Howe Weintraub monitoring the ballot count.

Of the ballots reviewed that day, two ballots were challenged by Motts and Payton for further review by Gong who allowed one to be counted and one was rejected.

A simultaneous recount is under way for the Andrew Butt campaign in Richmond’s District 2 race which ended in a tie and was broken last week by the drawing of an envelope out of a shopping bag. The results of the recount reduced Butt’s vote total by three and winner Cesar Zepeda’s vote count remaining the same.

As the challenge to those few ballots was transpiring, county elections staff were in the warehouse about a block away, retrieving 1,700 boxes of ballots in which the staff members have determined there are ballots for both the Antioch and Richmond elections. Those ballots were already put through the counting machines and included in the total vote count.

During a tour of the warehouse on Wednesday, Dec. 14, Elections Services Manager Travis Ebbert was asked if ballots could be stuck together and scanned through the machine. He responded it could happen, but there are checks and balances.

“There are ways that ballots get scanned and double scanned. The scanners are high speed. They go really fast,” Ebbert explained. “By the time the first ballot is processed the seventh ballot is being imaged. There are checks for that. There’s human intervention and a second person there.”

“There’s potential for human error out of the 1.5 million ballot pages (submitted in the county during the November election),” he continued. “In the 1% manual count there were no double scans. This was the smoothest scan with the least human intervention.”

Helen Nolan, the assistant registrar of Contra Costa County, said later, “Thank you to everyone who came to observe and be a part of the recount process today. I appreciate your patience; we know it’s not always exciting but it’s an important part of our democracy and protecting the vote!”

During an interview with a reporter for NBC Bay Area Motts said, “This was not the methodology my campaign asked for. We wanted them to look at all the ballots in all the boxes. But to do that would be an exorbitant amount of money. When they decided to do this targeted search we didn’t expect there would be much of a change.

“The costs were split with the Butt campaign, so the total was $60,000 for both recounts,” she continued. “I think with elections this close they should automatically do a recount. As we saw today some ballots were adjudicated. I think it’s important that the county elections (office) does that and we as citizens support that.”

On Thursday Butt’s campaign filed the required paperwork on Thursday for a potential lawsuit challenging the election results but chose to drop it.

“What I filed on Thursday was an election contest under election code,” Daniel said, “It’s been muted by this recount result. It challenges specifically the two votes in the marina precinct. You also have to show it will change the outcome of the election. Now that Cesar has won by three votes, we’re dropping it. I’m keeping the door open to sue the city because the district map fails all criteria. But it won’t overturn the results of this election.”

“Both these candidates did the right thing in spite of opposition. They fought the good fight. But it’s worth looking into reducing the costs for recounts and requiring automatic recounts in close races,” he added.

Contra Costa County Elections Division staff provided the following information Friday evening:

Recount Results:
Antioch City Council District 1 Recount ANTIOCH Final Results by Precinct O&U
Tamisha Torres-Walker 1,467
Joy Motts 1,463
Diane Gibson-Gray 1,338

Richmond City Council District 2 Recount RICHMOND Final Results by Precinct
Andrew Butt 1,918
Cesar Zepeda 1,921

“These close races should remind voters how important every single vote is. I have been working for the Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department for 33 years and recounts have been extremely rare.” said Cooper. “Our elections team once again performed above and beyond, by recounting not one, but two city council races over the course of the past week and a half. These recounts confirmed the integrity of the elections through a transparent audit process.”

The final official report for this election is posted on the Contra Costa County Elections website and can be found at www.contracostavote.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to the Richmond recount portion of this report.

After giving impassioned speech of his accomplishments Board Vice President Hernandez passed over, but gets $1,200 he requested to participate in Latino water policy program on 4-1 vote

New Trustee Lathan unanimously elected board’s new vice president; given official oath on Monday by Mayor Thorpe

By Allen D. Payton

Re-elected Antioch School Board Trustee Mary Rocha who now represents Area 5 and new Area 2 Trustee Dr. Jag Lathan were given their oaths of office during the board meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2022. Lathan’s was ceremonial as, according to a tweet by Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe, he gave the official oath of office to her on Monday, Dec. 12 with Area 1 Trustee and then-Board Vice President Antonio Hernandez in attendance.

During the reorganization of the board, Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis was elected board president on a 3-2 vote. Lathan and Hernandez voted no. Prior to the vote the Area 1 trustee made an impassioned speech pleading with his colleagues to elect him president but was bypassed for the position. Hernandez is the third board vice president who has been bypassed for the presidency in the past several years, including former Trustees Debra Vinson and Crystal Sawyer-White, whom the board bypassed twice.

When the item of reorganizing the board came up on the agenda, Rocha nominated Lewis to be board president saying, “since he was passed over last time under concerns of business affiliations so, at this time I feel it’s proper he continue in that position.” Last year, when then-Board Vice President Lewis declined to be nominated for the presidency citing “some family challenges” and “family caregiving that came up.” Hernandez then offered himself for the position that night, but instead, Area 4 Trustee Gary Hack was elected board president, also on a split, 3-2 vote and Hernandez was elected vice president on a 5-0 vote.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Hack seconded Rocha’s motion. During discussion Lathan said, “Considering Vice President Hernandez is currently in the position it feels like a good succession plan would be to continue with that up to presidency.”

Hernandez’s Pleas for Presidency Ignored

“For the same reasons, last year I offered to be, wanted to be president and I was told I didn’t have enough experience,” Hernandez said. “So, I did exactly that…I filled in the role of vice president. I got my Masters in Governance from the California School Boards Assocation. I’ve also done a lot of work on the school board such as passing, putting forth the equity policy. I worked on the student board member policy, crafting that policy, putting forward the trauma and grief response committee. I worked on creating inclusive language in our policies. I’ve worked on putting forward actual ideas to make more inclusive LGBTQ policies and initiatives. I’ve spoken at events…I’ve worked to elevate the discourse here,  in this district as many of you have seen the way that I make sure we’re elevating and talking about data-driven initiatives, making sure that we’re doing everything that we can and working to improve as a district and building upon the work that we’re doing.”

“I was recently elected as a WELL Fellow, for a water policy fellowship, where I competed against elected officials across the state and was selected for this prestigious fellowship,” he continued. “I’ve served on boards before and I know I can do the work, here,”

“What message are we sending to our students when that was the reasoning why I was not selected as board president?” Hernandez asked. “I went out. I did the work. I’m going to be here to fight for students, plain and simple.”
“When we talk about vulnerable students, talk about families that are struggling, that was me in school, that was my family,” he stated. “My family’s here, tonight. They’ve had those experiences, so, they’ve worked those service jobs.”

“What message are we sending to students if we don’t select me as board president?” Hernandez asked, again. “Because I did the work. I put it forward and I’m ready to serve this school district and that’s a message we need to be sending out to our students.”

“Now, everyone here is happy to make whatever decisions they want to make,” he continued. “But I needed that message to be out there, and I need people to understand what the decisions we make reflect on this school district.”

Lewis Elected President on 3-2 Vote

Ignoring Hernandez’s pleas, Rocha called for action to be taken on the motion.

Hack then asked for the vote, “one by one”.

When Lathan was called upon to vote she responded, “Trustee Vice President Hernandez”.

She was corrected by district staff and Hack. “You vote on the motion.”

“Oh, no,” Lathan said.

Lewis and Rocha each voted yes, followed by Hernandez voting no, and Hack voting yes, and the motion passed on a 3-2 vote.

Hernandez has been an ally of Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe who backed Rocha’s opponent, Dominique King, in the November election.

After the meeting Lewis said, “I felt like some of the comments tonight were directed at me and that’s fine. I understand. I think to be on the board there needs to be a certain caliber of person and the members are all high caliber. I look forward to working with the entire board to serve the students, their parents, the faculty, staff and community.”

Lathan Elected Board VP on 5-0 Vote

The election for board vice president was next with Hernandez nominating Lathan saying, “I think she brings the most experience we’ve ever had on this board when it comes to the background of education. She has experience both as a teacher, principal, administrative and on the county Board of Education. I think she will make a fantastic addition to this team and will continue to elevate the discourse in this school district.”

Rocha seconded the motion and without any discussion it passed 5-0 with all trustees voting yes.

“Congratulations to the two of you,” Hack said.

After explaining the role, Hernandez was then re-elected as the district’s Liaison to the County School Boards Association on 5-0 vote following the motion by Hack and seconded by Rocha.

$1,200 Request by Hernandez for Latino Water Policy Program Approved on 4-1 Vote

Later in the meeting, Hernandez was successful in receiving a $1,200 increase in his individual Board Trustee Training Allocation budget. As previously reported, the funds are to cover the costs for his participation in Water Education for Latino Leaders (WELL) UnTapped Fellowship Program, a water policy program for Latino elected officials, he mentioned earlier as one of his accomplishments. Hernandez was selected as part of the 2023 class.

“They only ever select a handful of school board trustees,” he argued. “It’s easy for people to think that water policy only belongs in the hands of the city. But we are a large organization and school districts are large organizations that use water. The health and safety of our water is something that students interact with all the time…I view education, environment and all these things as all interconnected into the health of our students.”

Hernandez asked the board for the one-time increase over and above the $3,000 they each receive, “so I can continue in serving as a role model for our students as a lifelong learner.”

Rocha challenged the additional funds for Hernandez saying, “I want to congratulate you…you’ve been selected to this…fellowship. But water policy is not an educational thing that we are dealing with and I don’t know that I can support taxpayers’ money going toward to educate you on water policy that is not school education.”

“I’m going to be voting against it,” she added.

“I can’t make it any clearer how connected water is to education than what I did before,” Hernandez responded.

With no additional questions or comments from the other trustees, on a motion by Hernandez and seconded by Lewis, the additional funds were approved on a 4-1 vote with Rocha the sole no vote.

“Thank you. I appreciate it,” Hernandez said following the vote.

After the meeting Lewis was asked why he voted for the additional training funds requested by Hernandez. The new board president said, “Because we don’t have a policy about how we use our funds. I’m going to bring to the board a discussion of how we use Trustee Training Allocation budget funds.”

 

Re-elected Rocha and newcomer Lathan

Hernandez requests $1,200 to participate in Latino officials’ water policy program

By Allen D. Payton

The winners of the Areas 2 and 5 Antioch School Board races in the November election will be given their oaths of office, tonight, Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2022. Re-elected Trustee Mary Rocha who will know represent Area 5 and new Trustee Dr. Jaguanana “Jag” Lathan, who ran unopposed in Area 2 will be sworn in at 6:20 p.m. in the District Office Board Room at 510 G Street in Antioch.

That will be followed by a Closed Session at 6:45 p.m. and the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. During the regular meeting the board will choose a new president and vice president for the coming year. The board will also vote to elect one of their members as Liaison to the Contra Costa County School Boards Association.

Hernandez Requests Funds to Attend Latino Officials Water Conference

Among the various items for possible action, at the request of Area 1 Trustee Antonio Hernandez, under Item 11.A. the board will consider a one-time increase of $1,200 to his Board Trustee Training Allocation budget. It’s to cover the costs for Hernandez to participate in the WELL UnTapped Fellowship Program, a water policy program for Latino elected officials. Hernandez was selected as part of the 2023 cohort.

According to the organization’s website, latinosforwater.org, “Water Education for Latino Leaders (WELL) was founded in 2012 with the goal of strengthening the voice of local Latino leaders, ensuring they have context for and participation in water policy decisions.”

The website also explains, “WELL UnTapped is a selective, six-month program for local elected leaders aimed at helping participants make an impact on California water policy while addressing individual community water challenges.”

As a councilmember in 2019, Mayor Lamar Thorpe attended the WELL UnTapped fellowship academy in Los Angeles. In a Jan.11, 2019 post on is official Facebook page, he posted a video and wrote, “Road trip! Headed to WELL UnTapped in LA for first fellowship academy weekend. Join me! Let’s talk about AGUA! Stopped at Caistaic Lake 1 of 3 terminals branches of the Cal Water Aqueduct, which starts in East County. This is it where Delta water ends up!”

WELL’s 11th Annual Statewide Conference will be held March 31 and April 1, 2023, at the Aritel Plaza Hotel & Conference Center in Van Nuys, CA.

When asked about Hernandez’s request Rocha responded, “I am bringing that up. The big funder of WELLS is the Southern California water company that is always after our water. Of the cohort composition, 14 are mayors or city council members, he is only one of three school board members and the only one from the north. I attended two of their workshops when I was an elected council member. WELL paid for it.”

She agreed that it’s appropriate for a council member to participate and attend as water is an issue city councils deal with responding, “Exactly.”

“I will be questioning his request since he is already over his budget of $3,000 a year,” Rocha added.

Rocha is correct as one of the WELL Associate Members who have contributed $10,000 to $25,000 annually to the organization is The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California which is a big supporter of the Delta tunnel (Conveyance project) that will move water from Northern California to the south.

See the complete meeting agenda. The meeting can also be viewed on the District’s YouTube Channel.

 

She, Wilson given oaths of office Tuesday night

By Allen D. Payton

Following the oaths of office for District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, during the Antioch City Council meeting Tuesday, December 13, 2022, Torres-Walker was appointed the city’s next mayor pro tem. For now, pending the outcome of the ballot recount in the District 1 election which began Tuesday morning, she will serve in the position for the coming year.

Even though Wilson had a higher percent of the vote, she has previously served as mayor pro tem and according to city ordinance, she can’t serve in the position again until all other council members have had the opportunity.

“I’m very proud of you,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe said to Torres-Walker.

Then, on a motion by District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock and seconded by outgoing Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica the council voted 5-0 to appoint her. The mayor pro tem serves in the place of the mayor when absent from meetings or out of town. Torres-Walker will also serve as the alternate to Thorpe at the monthly Mayor’s Conference.

 

Initial cost estimate of $38,500 per may be reduced by work on both

Could take 6 to 7 days

Herald publisher makes request on behalf of Motts in Antioch race

By Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach and Engagement Specialist

The County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department has received two recount requests for races in the November 8, 2022, General Election. One request is for the Antioch District 1 City Council race in which Tamisha Torres-Walker won over Joy Motts by three votes and the second is for the Richmond District 2 City Council race, which ended in a tie between Andrew Butt and Cesar Zepeda. Today, Wednesday, Dec. 7 at 5:00 p.m. is the deadline for requesting a recount.

In California, any voter may request a recount. For single-county races, a request for recount must be made within five days of the county canvass/certification. No reason is required.

“Our office conducted expanded manual tally audits for these two close races, which were attended by the affected candidates and media representatives. These audits were done above and beyond the state requirements and at the County Elections Division’s cost. Our staff has done an excellent job and I am confident in their work. These requests are within the rules for recounts,” said Debi Cooper, Clerk-Recorder-Registrar. “As per state law, the requestor of the recount must pay the cost for the recount. The cost is determined based on the steps involved in the recount, including the sorting out of the physical paper ballots. Our office is preparing estimated costs for the requestors based on the type of recount that have been requested.”

On Monday night, Allen Payton, Antioch resident and publisher of the Antioch Herald and Contra Costa Herald, submitted a request for a hand recount of the ballots on behalf of candidate Joy Motts who lost to incumbent Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker. The letter was received by the elections staff Tuesday morning. On Wednesday, according to outgoing Richmond Mayor Tom Butt, the father of Andrew Butt who lost yesterday’s tiebreaker, the Butt campaign requested a hand recount of the ballots in that race.

The hand count by elections staff, last Thursday, was done using copies of images of the ballots that had been scanned through the machines. (See related articles here and here)

Once the costs are provided to the requestor, the recount will begin after payment for the first day’s processing is received. The recount must begin within 7 days of the official request. California law states that costs paid by the requestor are to be refunded if the recount changes the outcome of the election in favor of the requestor. The requestor is responsible for all costs of the recount. If the outcome does not change, the requestor may receive a refund if the amount paid was greater than the actual cost of the recount.

If the recount is conducted with the original paper ballots, the recount is expected to take 6-7 days. Conducting parallel recounts for two districts may save some shared costs but will take longer than the process for a single jurisdiction.

According to Tommy Gong, Deputy Clerk-Recorder, the initial estimate is $38,500 for each recount, as staff has to go to the warehouse, use a forklift and retrieve the boxes of ballots. That’s because, according to Helen Nolan, Assistant Registrar of Voters, the ballots are no longer stored by precinct but as they arrive in the Elections office. They will have to pull the 4,500 ballots from the estimated 1.3 million ballot pages submitted in the county during the November election. Each ballot included four pages, she added.

Wong estimated the sorting would take five days and recounting one day. However, he explained that they know how many ballots for each race and the results of the votes on those ballots that are in each box. Gong said the price for each recount could be reduced by sharing in the cost of retrieving and sorting the ballots. He also said he would also be checking with the Secretary of State’s office, today to determine if the recount could be done box by box in the warehouse which could further reduce the costs. Gong said he will know if that’s allowable Wednesday afternoon.

More information on recounts is available on the Secretary of State’s website here. You can also reach out to the Elections Division at 925-335-7800.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.