Issued on: June 16, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. As Americans, we believe that all persons are created equal and endowed with the inalienable rights to life and liberty. A fundamental purpose of government is to secure these inalienable rights. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers place their lives at risk every day to ensure that these rights are preserved.
Law enforcement officers provide the essential protection that all Americans require to raise their families and lead productive lives. The relationship between our fellow citizens and law enforcement officers is an important element in their ability to provide that protection. By working directly with their communities, law enforcement officers can help foster a safe environment where we all can prosper.
Unfortunately, there have been instances in which some officers have misused their authority, challenging the trust of the American people, with tragic consequences for individual victims, their communities, and our Nation. All Americans are entitled to live with the confidence that the law enforcement officers and agencies in their communities will live up to our Nation’s founding ideals and will protect the rights of all persons. Particularly in African-American communities, we must redouble our efforts as a Nation to swiftly address instances of misconduct.
The Constitution declares in its preamble that one of its primary purposes was to establish Justice. Generations of Americans have marched, fought, bled, and died to safeguard the promise of our founding document and protect our shared inalienable rights. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial leaders must act in furtherance of that legacy.
Sec. 2. Certification and Credentialing. (a) State and local law enforcement agencies must constantly assess and improve their practices and policies to ensure transparent, safe, and accountable delivery of law enforcement services to their communities. Independent credentialing bodies can accelerate these assessments, enhance citizen confidence in law enforcement practices, and allow for the identification and correction of internal deficiencies before those deficiencies result in injury to the public or to law enforcement officers.
(b) The Attorney General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to those State and local law enforcement agencies that have sought or are in the process of seeking appropriate credentials from a reputable independent credentialing body certified by the Attorney General.
(c) The Attorney General shall certify independent credentialing bodies that meet standards to be set by the Attorney General. Reputable, independent credentialing bodies, eligible for certification by the Attorney General, should address certain topics in their reviews, such as policies and training regarding use–of-force and de-escalation techniques; performance management tools, such as early warning systems that help to identify officers who may require intervention; and best practices regarding community engagement. The Attorney General’s standards for certification shall require independent credentialing bodies to, at a minimum, confirm that:
(i) the State or local law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policies adhere to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws; and
(ii) the State or local law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policies prohibit the use of chokeholds — a physical maneuver that restricts an individual’s ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation — except in those situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law.
(d) The Attorney General shall engage with existing and prospective independent credentialing bodies to encourage them to offer a cost-effective, targeted credentialing process regarding appropriate use-of-force policies that law enforcement agencies of all sizes in urban and rural jurisdictions may access.
Sec. 3. Information Sharing. (a) The Attorney General shall create a database to coordinate the sharing of information between and among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies concerning instances of excessive use of force related to law enforcement matters, accounting for applicable privacy and due process rights.
(b) The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall include a mechanism to track, as permissible, terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force. The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall account for instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force. The Attorney General shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the information in the database consists only of instances in which law enforcement officers were afforded fair process.
(c) The Attorney General shall regularly and periodically make available to the public aggregated and anonymized data from the database described in subsection (a) of this section, as consistent with applicable law.
(d) The Attorney General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to those law enforcement agencies that submit the information described in subsection (b) of this section.
Sec. 4. Mental Health, Homelessness, and Addiction. (a) Since the mid-twentieth century, America has witnessed a reduction in targeted mental health treatment. Ineffective policies have left more individuals with mental health needs on our Nation’s streets, which has expanded the responsibilities of law enforcement officers. As a society, we must take steps to safely and humanely care for those who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse in a manner that addresses such individuals’ needs and the needs of their communities. It is the policy of the United States to promote the use of appropriate social services as the primary response to individuals who suffer from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction, recognizing that, because law enforcement officers often encounter such individuals suffering from these conditions in the course of their duties, all officers should be properly trained for such encounters.
(b) The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate, identify and develop opportunities to train law enforcement officers with respect to encounters with individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction; to increase the capacity of social workers working directly with law enforcement agencies; and to provide guidance regarding the development and implementation of co-responder programs, which involve social workers or other mental health professionals working alongside law enforcement officers so that they arrive and address situations together. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prioritize resources, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to support such opportunities.
(c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall survey community-support models addressing mental health, homelessness, and addiction. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall summarize the results of this survey in a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, which shall include specific recommendations regarding how appropriated funds can be reallocated to support widespread adoption of successful models and recommendations for additional funding, if needed.
(d) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, prioritize resources, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to implement community-support models as recommended in the report described in subsection (c) of this section.
Sec. 5. Legislation and Grant Programs. (a) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall develop and propose new legislation to the Congress that could be enacted to enhance the tools and resources available to improve law enforcement practices and build community engagement.
(b) The legislation described in subsection (a) of this section shall include recommendations to enhance current grant programs to improve law enforcement practices and build community engagement, including through:
(i) assisting State and local law enforcement agencies with implementing the credentialing process described in section 2 of this order, the reporting described in section 3 of this order, and the co responder and community-support models described in section 4 of this order;
(ii) training and technical assistance required to adopt and implement improved use–of-force policies and procedures, including scenario-driven de-escalation techniques;
(iii) retention of high-performing law enforcement officers and recruitment of law enforcement officers who are likely to be high-performing;
(iv) confidential access to mental health services for law enforcement officers; and
(v) programs aimed at developing or improving relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve, including through community outreach and listening sessions, and supporting non profit organizations that focus on improving stressed relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 16, 2020.
Read More
Plea entered today, Tuesday, June 16, 2020 in Butte County Superior Court
SAN FRANCISCO—PG&E today entered its plea in Butte County Superior Court related to its role in the 2018 Camp Fire. In accordance with the agreement PG&E reached in March 2020 with the Butte County District Attorney, the company pleaded guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of unlawfully starting a fire.
The following statement was delivered today in court by PG&E Corporation CEO and President Bill Johnson.
“I am here today on behalf of the 23,000 men and women of PG&E, to accept responsibility for the fire here that took so many lives and changed these communities forever.
I have heard the pain and the anguish of victims as they’ve described the loss they continue to endure, and the wounds that can’t be healed. No words from me could ever reduce the magnitude of such devastation or do anything to repair the damage. But I hope that the actions we are taking here today will help bring some measure of peace.
Our equipment started the fire that destroyed the towns of Paradise and Concow and severely burned Magalia and other parts of Butte County. That fire took the lives of 85 people. Thousands lost their homes and businesses, and many others were forced to evacuate under horrific circumstances.
I wish there were some way to take back what happened or take away the pain of those who’ve suffered. But I know there’s not.
What I can say is this: First, PG&E will never forget the Camp Fire and all that it took from this region. We remain deeply, deeply sorry for the terrible devastation we have caused.
Second, since the Camp Fire, we have worked side-by-side with Butte County residents and public officials to help the Paradise region recover and rebuild. That work continues today, and we are doing everything we can to make things right.
Third, we are working hard to get the victims compensated. With our Plan of Reorganization on track to be approved by June 30, their wait may finally be nearing an end. In fact, the Bankruptcy Court has concluded confirmation hearings regarding our Plan. This should be one of the final steps toward paying the $25.5 billion in settlements we’ve reached with wildfire victims, Butte County agencies and others.
Finally, I want to reiterate to the Court and all of the people of the Paradise region that the lessons PG&E learned from the Camp Fire are being taken to heart and are driving comprehensive changes currently underway at PG&E.
We are intently focused on reducing the risk of wildfire in our communities. We have improved our inspection and operational protocols. We are hardening our energy system and making it more resilient. We have incorporated advanced technology to better predict and detect extreme weather conditions. All of this, and more, is being done to help make sure the tragedy that occurred here never happens again, in any of the communities we serve.
In closing, I want to reiterate that on behalf of PG&E, I apologize for the pain we have caused. We know we cannot replace all that the fire destroyed. We do hope that by pleading guilty and accepting accountability, by compensating victims and supporting rebuilding efforts, and by making significant, lasting changes in the way we operate, we can honor those who were lost and help this community move forward.
Your Honor, we make this plea with sadness and regret—and with eyes open to what happened, and to what we must do to make things right.”
About PG&E Corporation
PG&E Corporation is a holding company headquartered in San Francisco. It is the parent company of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”), an energy company that serves 16 million Californians across a 70,000-square-mile service area in Northern and Central California. Each of PG&E Corporation and the Utility is a separate entity, with distinct creditors and claimants, and is subject to separate laws, rules and regulations. For more information, visit http://www.pgecorp.com. In this news release, they are together referred to as “PG&E.”
Read MoreIncludes hair salons, barber shops, and 100 people at indoor church services and funerals
Contra Costa Health Services is taking another step toward alignment with the State of California’s guidance on opening businesses and activities at a pace that protects public health and safety. At the same time, CCHS continues to recommend that residents stay home as much as possible and take steps to protect themselves and each other when leaving the house.
The Contra Costa Health Officer has amended the county’s health order to allow hair salons and barbers to reopen for business beginning Wednesday morning. They must follow state health guidance to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19.
The new order also increases the number of swimmers who may share a pool to 1 person per 75 square feet, as allowed by the state.
The social distancing order also allows as many as 100 people to attend a funeral or other religious service at an indoor place of worship, in line with the state’s health guidance.
Some of Contra Costa’s key indicators for measuring how well the community is slowing the spread of COVID-19 did increase in the first half of June, an expected outcome as more people come into more contact with each other as the county gradually reopens businesses and activities.
CCHS is carefully monitoring that data and could adjust the reopening timeline to protect the public health.
CCHS encourages everyone to take simple steps to protect themselves from COVID-19: Follow the shelter-in-place order, and wear a face covering when you go out or are near other people. Wash your hands thoroughly and frequently, and always stay home from work or school if you are not feeling well.
Visit www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/health-orders to read the new health order and its appendices, and for local information about Contra Costa’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read More
Beginning Monday, June 15, the Library will offer Front Door Service at 23 community libraries. The service will allow patrons to pick-up books, DVDs and audiobooks placed on hold through the Library’s website at ccclib.org.
Those patrons with holds on the shelf from early March, before the Health Order began, will have the opportunity to make appointments first. This is necessary to clear the thousands of holds currently on library shelves and make room for new holds. Those patrons will be contacted with instructions explaining how to make an appointment to pick up their materials. Appointments are encouraged, but not required. Those coming to the library without appointments may experience a wait.
New holds can be placed beginning on Thursday, June 18, and appointments will be open to any patron who wishes to pick up available holds. Patrons will be notified when their holds are ready. They will make an appointment at the appropriate location and schedule a pick-up time. Once at the library location, the patron will call or text the number on the sign at the front of the building. Staff will confirm the library card number and collect the items. Materials will be placed in a bag with the patron’s name on it and put on a table at the front door. It is a safe, contactless process.
“We are eager to reconnect with library users and take this important step toward reopening,” said County Librarian Melinda Cervantes. “Staff are taking every precaution to provide visitors with a safe, library experience.”
Front Door Service is available during regularly scheduled hours at 23 locations. See the full list of locations and hours here. All libraries will be closed on Sundays. Front Door Service will not be available at the Pinole, Pleasant Hill or Prewett locations until further notice.
For the safety of our patrons and staff, Library items will be quarantined for a minimum of 72 hours in between each use. Staff will wash their hands frequently, wear masks and observe social distancing protocols. Patrons approaching the front door should also wear a mask and observe social distancing guidelines. All returns should be placed in the book drop.
Stay tuned to ccclib.org for more information about how to use Front Door Service.
For questions about library services, contact staff via Chat, Monday – Friday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. or text questions to (925) 290-7627.
Read MoreFrom Contra Costa Health Services
The State of California this week granted Contra Costa County a variance that allows more local control over when some activities restricted by the COVID-19 pandemic may resume.
The variance allows Contra Costa to move ahead with its road map for reopening at a pace that is appropriate for local conditions, which includes hair salons, indoor dining, gyms and schools in coming weeks.
“We are able to reopen more businesses and activities because the people of Contra Costa have diligently followed the health orders restricting our activities for many months,” said Candace Andersen, chair of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. “We remain committed to a safe and careful reopening for our county.”
In an attestation filed to the state this week, Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) outlined the progress at managing the spread of COVID-19 locally and how the local healthcare system is preparing in the event of a new surge in cases.
If safe to do so, hair salons and barber shops can reopen for business on June 17, according to a timeline released by CCHS. Indoor dining, bars, gyms and fitness centers, hotels and some indoor entertainment venues may follow July 1.
The county’s timeline could change if community health indicators worsen, such as an increase in the number of new cases or patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Contra Costa is the first of six counties in the lower Bay Area to seek or receive a variance from the state COVID-19 health order, joining the North Bay counties of Napa, Solano and Sonoma.
Visit cchealth.org/coronavirus for more information about Contra Costa’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read More
By Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020, at about 4:05 pm, Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs from Bay Station were dispatched to a suspicious circumstance at an apartment building on the 4800 block of Appian Way in El Sobrante.
Deputies arrived at the location and discovered a body that was decomposed. The Homicide Unit of the Investigation Division responded along with the Crime Lab.
The autopsy of the body took place this morning. The person is identified as 64-year-old John Birdseye Sussdorff of El Sobrante. The cause of death is listed as blunt force chest injury and sharp force head injury.
Detectives identified a suspect in the case. 48-year-old Anthony Mark Rodriguez of El Sobrante was arrested and later booked into the Martinez Detention Facility for murder. He is being held in lieu of $1 million bail. Detectives say the two knew each other and had lived in the same residence.
Anyone with any information on this case is asked to contact the Investigation Division at (925) 313-2600. For any tips, email: tips@so.cccounty.us or call (866) 846-3592 to leave an anonymous voice message.
Read MoreClaims “Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection”
“…the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship.”
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 a formal legal letter was by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty, to members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, to ensure county health services staff follows through with their commitment to change the requirement to a recommendation that places of worship gather names and contact information of those who attend services and provide it to the county upon request. (See related articles, here, here and here). In addition, the letter points out that the county’s health order limiting indoor services to 12 people also violates the Constitution. – 2020.06.10_HDhillon CAL Letter to Contra Costa County
June 10, 2020
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Unconstitutional Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17, Specifically Regarding “Additional Businesses” (section 3 of Appendix C-1, Updated June 5, 2020)
Dear Board of Supervisors:
We write today, on behalf of clients in Contra Costa County, to demand the immediate rescission of Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 (the “Order”). The Order is concerning for two reasons: (1) Its requirement that houses of worship—and only houses of worship—keep and upon request disclose “a record of attendance” to Contra Costa Health Services violates both state and federally protected rights of associational privacy; (2) Restricting religious gatherings to no more than 12 participants violates First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. And while we appreciate the County’s recent announcement that it plans to revise its requirement that houses of worship keep and disclose attendance lists, until such plans manifest, we reiterate our objection over its current text.
- Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates First Amendment Rights
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government actors from enforcing any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U. S. Const. amend. I; see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment). Under strict scrutiny, the government cannot burden religious activity unless it first establishes (1) a compelling interest for imposing such burdens, and (2) that the burdens are the “least restrictive means” necessary to further that compelling interest. Federal courts routinely enjoin the enforcement of laws and policies under this standard. See e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520, 524 (1993).
The County’s Order severely burdens religious expression. The Order’s restriction on indoor religious services—limiting the number of participants to 12 persons or 25% of the building’s capacity, whichever is less—does not survive exacting scrutiny in that it is not the least restrictive means to accomplish the County’s interest in public health. Simply put, there are better ways for the County to accomplish its interest in public health that do not burden religious expression as much. For example, restricting participation on a percentage basis only—with respect to facility seating capacity—is a better solution. Twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one thousand looks very different from twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one hundred people.
In other words, percentage-based restrictions accommodate larger houses of worship while satisfying the County’s interest in public health and social distancing.
- Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
Equal protection requires the state to govern impartially—not draw arbitrary distinctions between
individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objection. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985).
Here, the County’s 12-person limit on religious gatherings is nothing if not arbitrary. This is more restrictive than statewide health guidelines, according to the California Department of Health for places of worship, which currently limits attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is less; it is unclear where Contra Costa County’s “12 person” idea originates.
Additionally, no other establishment in Contra Costa County is subject to these more restrictive and draconian requirements. Costco, laundromats, marijuana dispensaries, and countless other purely secular entities are not burdened by this arbitrary, 12-person limitation.
On April 14, 2020, the United States Attorney General, William Barr, issued a statement addressing the disparate treatment being afforded to houses of worship.
As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest. While we believe that during this period there is a sufficient basis for the social distancing rules that have been put in place, the scope and justification of restrictions beyond that will have to be assessed based on the circumstances as they evolve.
Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true more so than ever during this difficult time. The pandemic has changed the ways Americans live their lives. Religious communities have rallied to the critical need to protect the community from the spread of this disease by making services available online and in ways that otherwise comply with social distancing guidelines.
The County may not treat houses of worship as second class entities; at a minimum, it must treat them equitably with respect to secular counterpart. Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 does the opposite—it targets houses of worship with more burdensome restrictions.
III. The Order Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Right to Privacy Under State Law
The right to privacy is an inalienable right under California law.3 This privacy interest irrefutably extends to participation in religious gatherings.
In Church of Hakeem, Inc. v. Superior Court, Alameda County, 110 Cal. App. 3d 384 (Ct. App. 1980), the court expressly declined to mandate disclosure of member names and addresses, even after allegations of criminal activity or wrongdoing by the church. In City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 2 Cal. 3d 259 (Ct. App. 1970), the court affirmed a list of freedoms afforded constitutional protections, such as the freedom of association and privacy in one’s associations, encompassing privacy of the membership lists of a constitutionally valid organization. In Pacific Union Club v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. App 3d 60 (Ct. App. 1991), the court provided a robust analysis of associational rights and ultimately upheld a private club’s right not to disclose member lists.
Applied here, Contra Costa County’s Order requiring houses of worship to create and preserve the names and contact information of those in attendance at a worship service or ceremony, and then disclose such information “immediately upon request” unconstitutionally violates privacy rights while chilling religious expression. Whether gathering for political, social, or religious reasons, the right of association is sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the County’s Order deprives Californians their right to pray, worship, repent, and seek spiritual guidance privately. Rather, the Order subjects their most intimate religious activities to potential publication.
3 “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1
- The Order Violates Right to Privacy Protected by Federal Law
The “Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Ala. Ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). Citing American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O., v Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402 (1950), the Court explained,
‘A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature.’ Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particular where a group espouses dissident beliefs.
Here, Contra Costa County’s Order tramples Californians’ right to privacy and in doing so, violates the Due Process Clause. Similar to the state of Alabama in NAACP v. Alabama, Contra County is requiring houses of worship to disclose the identities of congregants gathering to worship. And similar to the state of Alabama, this mandatory disclosure of religious expression “curtails the freedom to associate,” “denying “the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and is “subject to the closest scrutiny.” Id. at 460-61.
- Attendance Recordation Requirement Violates Equal Protection Protected by Federal Law.
By the Order’s express terms, the Order discriminates against places of worship by requiring places of worship to create and maintain attendee lists, yet the Order places no other such burdens on any other non-religious establishment whatsoever. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “a law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993). Further, “A law is not generally applicable if its prohibitions substantially under include non-religiously motivated conduct that might endanger the same governmental interest that the law is designed to protect.” Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542–46). So, “In other words, if a law pursues the government’s interest ‘only against conduct motivated by religious belief,’ but fails to include in its prohibitions substantial, comparable secular conduct that would similarly threaten the government’s interest, then the law is not generally applicable.” Id.
The County fails this standard. Houses of worship are uniquely burdened by this public disclosure requirement. And again, no other entity appears to be subjected to this standard.
In conclusion, we believe the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship. For these reasons, the Center for American Liberty respectfully requests that Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17, requiring houses of worship to record and disclosure attendance at religious services, be either rescinded or amended to cure its constitutional defects. We look forward to hearing your response.
Regards,
Harmeet K. Dhillon
cc: John Gioia, Candace Anderson, Diane Burgis, Karen Mitchoff, Federal D. Glover
Read More“Denounce and decry…tone deaf, irresponsible and unreasonable actions.”
Car caravan protest to be held Tuesday in downtown Richmond.
By Chris Flink, Communications Specialist, SEIU Local 1021
During the Tuesday, June 9 2020 meeting of the Richmond City Council, Mayor Tom Butt facetiously introduced a motion to “defund the police department and save seventy million dollars”. (See https://youtu.be/hZ5RTBtwxu8?t=16934; at the 4 hours, 42 minutes, 14 seconds mark) Richmond is facing budget shortfalls, and has been investigating ways to close gaps between income and expenditures. During that process five unions worked to identify creative and common-sense ways to close those gaps without layoffs and service cuts, which would deny Richmond residents important services and take good jobs away from the city.
After Mayor Butt’s announcement, the unions and Contra Costa Labor Council wrote the Mayor and all City Council members the letter below.
A car caravan protest will be held Tuesday, June 16, at 4:30 p.m., starting at Richmond’s Main Library located at 325 Civic Center Plaza.
June 11, 2020
Richmond City Council
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Mayor Butt & Councilmembers,
The Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO and Richmond City Employee Unions copied herein (Fire Fighters Local 188, IFPTE Local 21, RPOA, RPMA and SEIU Local 1021) denounce and decry the Mayor’s tone deaf, irresponsible and unreasonable actions at the Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 9. When the community stands up, proclaims Black Lives Matter, and demands change, that community deserves better than a Mayor sarcastically making a motion to do away with Richmond’s police force. The Mayor’s comments were intended to be divisive and trivialized the serious work Richmond City Employee Unions have done to find needed solutions to the City’s budget shortfall.
Richmond City Employee Unions and their membership come to the bargaining table in good faith, intending to serve the community and make Richmond a fair, equitable place that works for all of its residents. It is clear and disappointing that the Mayor is not engaging in these conversations in good faith. In this time of global pandemic and a looming economic crisis, Richmond’s residents and workforce deserve leadership from the Mayor’s office, not trolling and tantrums.
On Tuesday, June 16, at 4:30 p.m., community and labor groups will join together for a car caravan in Richmond to continue the serious dialogue in the need for city services.
Signed,
Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Fire Fighters Local 188
IFPTE Local 21
Richmond Police Officers Association
Richmond Police Managers Association
SEIU Local 1021
The motion by Butt was tabled on a 4-3 vote led by Councilmember Nathaniel Bates to “table the entire discussion”, with Council Members Eduardo Martinez and Melvin Williams joining the mayor in opposing it, wanting further discuss ion of the idea.
Allen Payton contributed to this report.
Read MoreBy Steve Hill, Public Information Officer, Con Fire
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) announced today the arrest of a suspect in the recreational vehicle (RV) fire that burned under Highway 4 in Concord earlier this week.
The fire in question took place June 8, 2020 with the first call coming in at 3:27 p.m. An investigation was immediately conducted by the District’s Fire Investigations Unit, and Concord Police with a suspect identified and arrest made without incident on June 8 just after 5 p.m.
Arrested was Jade McCoy, a Concord-area transient, date of birth April 22, 1993. McCoy, who was on probation from a previous arson conviction for setting an exterior fire in 2019, was arrested after investigation by FIU and Concord PD revealed she intentionally set the fire in the RV. McCoy and her boyfriend had been living in the RV parked on Port Chicago Highway under Highway 4. The arson occurred after a verbal altercation between the two parties. Her possible involvement in other recent fires in the area is currently under investigation.
McCoy is in custody in the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Detention Center in Martinez. Concord Police filed the case with the District Attorney on June 9 and action is pending.
Investigation revealed a woman seen at the scene around the time of the fire to be the likely responsible party. A short while later, around 5 p.m., Concord Police located the suspect in the vicinity near Olivera Road and Esperanza Drive. Con Fire FIU investigators responded to that scene, interviewed the suspect and determined she was responsible for the blaze, placing her under arrest. She was handcuffed and transported to the Martinez Detention Facility by Concord Police where she was again interviewed by FIU.
The RV fire was initially reported by several parties beginning just before 3:30 p.m. on June 8. Arriving on scene moments later at 3:41, Con Fire’s Battalion Chief 2 reported a fully involved RV on fire under the highway.
In all, 21 fire personnel from Con Fire and the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord’s Federal Fire Department responded to the fire with two Type 1 fire engines, three Type 3 fire engines, two ambulances, a medical supervisor and a fire investigator. Concord Police and the California Highway Patrol also responded to the scene. At 3:42 p.m., the incident commander reported the fire under control.
There were no injuries to responding personnel or civilians.
Read MoreBy Steve Aubert, Fire Marshal/Public Information Officer, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Brentwood, CA — East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD), the local fire agency serving Brentwood and Oakley Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory announced Wednesday, that due to severe under-funding, it has been forced to take new, urgent measures to maintain its extremely limited operations and keep firefighters safe.
Starting July 1, the Fire District will only send firefighters inside a burning building if human life is at risk. Due to the extreme conditions resulting from a 3-station deficit, ECCFPD firefighters are being forced to spread themselves across 3 stations not 6, covering 250 square miles. This is pushing our firefighters to their limits as they respond to twice as many calls for help. Furthermore, the added strain of unbalanced “automatic aid” agreements with other county fire departments are becoming unsustainable. ECCFPD must now focus on containing the fire to the structure involved. Unfortunately, this defensive first operation strategy raises the safety risk factors for families, businesses, and for property within our communities just as the 2020 fire season is getting underway. Also announced by ECCFPD on Wednesday: all public outreach events and station visits will be eliminated indefinitely.
The safety risk of being under-funded and short 3 fire stations is real and growing, according to ECCFPD Fire Chief Brian Helmick. “In fire emergencies, every second counts. When a fire or emergency strikes, you need help fast. Response times matter. Delayed response times can allow a fire to double in size every 30 seconds. But our reality is that East Contra Costa communities, your homes, businesses, and your families will, on average, face slower responses than national standards recommend, when you call 911.”
“Due to severe under-funding, our firefighters are continually overrun responding to calls, maintaining required training and trying to be active in public education. We must take necessary steps to save lives and provide the safest environment for our workforce, so firefighters are ready and able to answer the call when it comes,” Chief Helmick added.
“These are not steps we want to take – and candidly, they may not be the last. We may have to consider other, even more drastic measures” said Chief Helmick, adding, “The reality is, we have to live within our means and keep our firefighters safe. We are working tirelessly to address our severe funding shortfall, including correcting past oversights and renegotiating developer fees and other fees that should have been put into place decades ago. We are also practicing full transparency, asking our community for input, and continuously LISTENING in every direction. Our goal is to find common ground that helps shape a local ballot measure that our community can support, authorizing a new, stable and reliable (i.e. guaranteed, sustainable and sufficient) local funding source that secures adequate ECCFPD fire protection in the future and that doesn’t take resources away from our public service partners.”
Learn more at www.eccfpd.org.
ABOUT THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT:
The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) is a rural-funded fire district that currently operates 3 fire stations and has a 3-station deficit. The District protects a population of more than 128,000 across its 249 square-mile service area. ECCFPD provides firefighting personnel, emergency medical services (basic life support) and fire prevention to the residents and businesses of the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated communities of Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory. Learn more at www.eccfpd.org or social media via Facebook (East Contra Costa Fire Protection District), Instagram(@east_contra_costa_
Read More