Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

“MELT ICE” Act of 2026 authored by Contra Costa’s Ávila Farías signed by governor

By Leave a Comment

Prevents former ICE agents with history of misconduct from becoming law enforcement officers in California

Claims participating in ICE operations during Trump’s 2nd term “demonstrates an immorality”

Could be challenged in court, deemed unconstitutional

By Allen D. Payton

On Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1627, the Misconduct Ends Law-enforcement Trust Act of 2026 (MELT ICE) by Assemblywoman Anamarie Ávila Farías (D-Martinez), which disqualifies officers employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from being employed as a peace officer in California, if they “engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked…if employed as a peace officer in this state.”

The Assemblywoman represents portions of Contra Costa County in the State Assembly’s 15th District.

While the law makes clear that existing police hiring rules covering serious misconduct by former law enforcement officers now, also apply to officers involved in immigration enforcement, it applies even if the ICE officer was not found guilty of misconduct in their current or previous position.

However, the soon to be new law could be challenged in court because of possible violation of federal labor law and deemed unconstitutional in part due to the “immorality” clause. That clause reads, “Participating in the operations of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on or after January 20, 2025, demonstrates an immorality that California cannot afford to have in its ranks of peace officer.”

On August 30th, the bill passed the state Senate on 29 to 10 party-line vote, and the Assembly by 57 to 16 also on a party-line vote. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor on Sept. 9th at 1 p.m.

Part of Package of Federal Immigration Enforcement Related Bills Signed by Governor

According to a press release from the governor’s office that day, “Governor Newsom signed 21 bills earlier today cementing California’s longstanding efforts to support immigrant communities and reflecting on the state’s response to an intensified federal immigration enforcement environment.”

“Newsom…signed a package of bills related to federal immigration enforcement in California to expand oversight of federal immigration enforcement in California.

“This action builds on years of work by Governor Newsom and the Legislature to support (illegal) immigrant families, protect communities and the economy from reckless immigration actions, strengthen transparency and oversight of detention facilities, and ensure that state resources are focused on public safety and the needs of Californians.

The governor’s office claims the package of bills, “Prohibits ICE officers who have committed serious misconduct on the job from becoming peace officers or public employees in California.”

Included in the bills was AB 1627 by Ávila Farías, described as “Public employment: disqualifications”, and known as the MELT ICE Act.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 1627

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “Existing (state) law specifies circumstances that disqualify a person from holding office or being employed as a peace officer, including, among other things, any person previously employed in law enforcement in any state or United States territory or by the federal government whose name is listed in any of specified indexes whose certification as a law enforcement officer in that jurisdiction was revoked for misconduct or who, while employed as a law enforcement officer, engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked by the commission if employed as a peace officer in this state.

“This bill would specify that, for purposes of the disqualification circumstances described above, the terms ‘employed in law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement officer’ include a law enforcement officer employed in any state or United States territory or by the federal government who engages in immigration enforcement, as provided.”

Bill Text Claims Participating in ICE Operations During Trump’s Second Term “Demonstrates an Immorality”

According to the Bill Text in, “SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

“(a) Beginning in 2025, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have terrorized California residents, United States citizens and noncitizens alike, through untargeted arrests and brutality based on nothing more than a person’s racial appearance, language spoken, means of earning a living, or exercise of First Amendment-protected expression.

“(b) Beginning in 2025, the United States Department of Homeland Security has recruited peace officers to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the promise of being unrestrained in the manner in which officers engage with civilians or by the laws of the State of California.

“(c) Participating in the operations of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on or after January 20, 2025, demonstrates an immorality that California cannot afford to have in its ranks of peace officers whose duties include interacting with the public.”

Further according to the Bill Text, “…except as provided in subparagraph (B), any person previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor, and personally engaged in immigration enforcement,” is “disqualified from holding office as a peace officer or being employed as a peace officer of the state, county, city, city and county, or other political subdivision, whether with or without compensation, and is disqualified from any office or employment by the state, county, city, city and county, or other political subdivision, whether with or without compensation, which confers upon the holder or employee the powers and duties of a peace officer.”

Subparagraph B (ii) reads, “‘Immigration enforcement’ includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.”

However, the bill “does not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or from maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity.” That means existing law enforcement officers can cooperate with ICE within limits of California’s sanctuary state laws.

Assemblywoman Ávila Farías speaks about her bill, AB1627 on the Assembly Floor On May 27, 2026. Video screenshot source: CalMatters

Ávila Farías Comments About Bill, Signing by Governor

A press release issued earlier this year, after the State Assembly passed her bill, reads, “On the Assembly Floor, Assemblymember Ávila Farías emphasized that ICE enforcement has created fear across California—impacting both citizens and immigrants alike—and legislation is needed to proactively safeguard our communities and critical spaces.”

She is further quoted in a FOX11 Los Angeles report as saying in a statement, “California’s peace officers…must be guardians of constitutional rights, not participants in their erosion.” and “argued that participating in ICE operations during this period ‘demonstrates an immorality that California cannot afford to have in its ranks.’”

In her brief speech on the Assembly Floor on May 27th, Avila Farias said, “Communities are safer when we are policed by people who are committed to protecting the public rather than kidnapping them.”

During a presentation before the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety in April, she said, “Frankly, I don’t want my kids or anyone else’s counting on people who flaunt the rule of the law.” Ávila Farías also claimed, “this bill, does not have any legal issues, and challenges, because we’re simply doing a modest expansion of existing law in a way to protect our community members and holding the highest regard of what our law enforcement professionals. It also is not honing into the individuals that are doing their jobs to the letter of the law. This is protecting vulnerable community populations…”

She repeated her remarks before the state Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety in June saying, “AB 1627 ensures that immigration enforcement personnel are disqualified from becoming a peace officer in California if they have committed misconduct in their prior roles. This bill is about restoring public trust and holding federal law enforcement to the same standards as any other peace officer in California.”

About the governor signing her bill Ávila Farías said, “Our kids deserve role models in uniform, not individuals tied to fear and intimidation. AB 1627 is about accountability, integrity, and reducing harm before it happens. With the signing of the MELT ICE Act of 2026, California sends a clear message: Federal agents who have disregarded constitutional rights are not to be entrusted with peace enforcement roles in our state. Thank you, Governor Newsom, for your commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting our communities.”

Ávila Farías’ office issued a press release about the bill’s signing.

“Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed my bill to prevent former ICE employees with documented histories of misconduct from becoming peace officers in California.

“AB 1627, the Misconduct Ends Law-Enforcement Trust Act of 2026, started with people in my community speaking up. One year ago, at a No Kings Rally in Concord, our community came together and spoke out about the fear many immigrant families were experiencing. That community activism helped inspire this legislation, and I am proud that their voices helped lead to meaningful change.

“AB 1627 was not written overnight. It was the result of many conversations, a lot of listening, and working with people who care deeply about public safety and accountability.

“At the heart of this bill is a simple principle: if someone has a documented history of misconduct, they should not be able to leave one agency and simply put on another uniform without accountability.

“I am honored and humbled to have played a part in creating one more barrier to prevent individuals who have abused their authority from becoming peace officers in California. This is about protecting public trust and making sure the people entrusted with a badge are held to a high standard.

“I want to thank Governor Newsom, my legislative colleagues, the community partners who stood with me, and the law-enforcement professionals who worked with us throughout this process. “This is what people power looks like. A community raised its voice, we listened, we worked together, and we turned that vision into law.

“AB 1627 takes effect January 1, 2027.”

Opposed by Statewide Police Organization

According to a report on MSN.com, “The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) has voiced opposition to the bill. ‘This bill is unnecessary, duplicative and it jeopardizes qualified immunity for California employees,’ stated David Mastagni on behalf of PORAC.

The report further claims, “Critics argue the measure represents ‘guilty by association’ and could worsen existing staffing shortages in California’s police departments and schools. According to data from PORAC, law enforcement agencies throughout California have lost over 3,300 sworn officers since 2020, with an average of 10% of policing roles remaining unfilled.”

Could Be Challenged in Court, Deemed Unconstitutional

However, the new law could be ruled unconstitutional if challenged in court as questions have arisen whether the state can legally enforce a lifetime ban on a specific class of former federal employees without violating federal labor protections or constitutional due process.

According to a report by iHeart Radio in February, “Legal experts question whether California can legally enforce a lifetime ban on a specific class of federal employees without violating federal labor protections or constitutional due process rights.”

Inclusion of the “immorality” clause could give further basis for a court challenge.

Gov. Newsom signs Concord Naval Weapons Station bill moving redevelopment forward

By Leave a Comment

SB 328 authored by Senator Grayson, co-authored by Assemblymembers Ávila Farías and Wicks provides CEQA exemptions, requires 25% of housing to be for lower-income

Base Reuse Project plan includes 12,272 new homes, 6 million SF of commercial space for up to 26,500 jobs, over 800 acres of parks & trails

By Colleen Awad, City of Concord Community Relations Manager

Concord, CA (September 30, 2026) – The City of Concord applauds Senator Tim Grayson for authoring Senate Bill 328, its principal coauthors, Assemblymembers Ávila Farías and Wicks, and thanks Governor Newsom for signing it into law.

Senate Bill 328 (SB 328), entitled, “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ): exempt surplus land,” supports the City’s path to redevelop the former Concord Naval Weapons Station into a world-class neighborhood for current and future Concord residents after many years of planning and public input. It would exempt the property from certain requirements of CEQA and requires 25% of the housing be for lower-income renters and owners.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “This bill would revise the definition of ‘exempt surplus land’ to remove the reference to buyers and instead mean 2 or more adjacent or nonadjacent parcels combined for disposition to one or more persons or entities, as specified.

Source: City of Concord

“The bill would also exempt surplus land that is a former military base that was conveyed by the federal government to a local agency or a local reuse authority, and that is all or any portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station, if certain requirements are met, including that the former military base has an aggregate area greater than 5 acres and that before disposition of the land, the local agency or local reuse authority has entered into a disposition and development agreement that stipulates that at least 25% of the aggregate residential units permitted to be developed will be restricted to lower income households with an affordable housing cost or affordable rent for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, as specified. The bill would regulate actions challenging the disposition and would prescribe penalties for violations of these provisions. The bill would also regulate the actions of the local agency or local reuse authority, including, among other things, requiring the local agency or local reuse authority to include in the annual report the status of development of residential units on the former military base, as specified.”

Furthermore, “This bill would provide that specified environmental review documents satisfy the requirements of CEQA for any project within the portion of the Concord Naval Weapons Station included within the boundaries of the area plan for the Concord Community Reuse Project, as provided, that has land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types and locations for those land use types that are consistent with the area plan diagram and the project does not cause the aggregate development in the area plan to exceed the area plan maximum planning areawide total, as specified. The bill would further provide that a project that contains land use types that are consistent with the area plan land use types in locations that are not consistent with the area plan diagram would be subject to review pursuant to CEQA, and would be limited to review of the location of land use types that are not consistent with the area plan diagram, as provided.”

Thank you to Governor Newsom, Senator Grayson, and our state partners for your leadership, and to residents, community leaders, and stakeholders for supporting this legislation and this transformative neighborhood.

“Passage of SB 328 gives the City of Concord, Brookfield, and Concord residents certainty to move from vision to reality,” said Mayor Laura Nakamura. “Coming on the heels of the landmark agreement with the U.S. Navy, the legislation keeps this project moving forward to produce thousands of well-paying construction jobs and add many homes to our community.”

The vision for the project is to deliver a vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive new community that reflects the values and aspirations of Concord. Among its elements are 12,272 new homes, 25 percent of them affordable to working families, seniors, and first-time buyers, along with approximately 6 million square feet of commercial space supporting up to 26,500 jobs, and more than 800 acres of local parks and trails.

In the months ahead, the City will continue working with Brookfield as they engage the community in the preparation of a Specific Plan. A Specific Plan serves as the detailed blueprint for future development by establishing land uses, neighborhood character, transportation networks, infrastructure, public amenities, parks and open space, and the design standards that will guide the community’s evolution.

With SB 328 now law, the Concord Naval Weapons Station Base Reuse Project continues its forward momentum.

For more information visit https://concordreuseproject.org.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

EEOC sues employment agency for H-1B visa-based national origin discrimination

By Leave a Comment

Image Source: X/ Techgig

Federal lawsuit alleges agency refused to refer American applicant for tech position in Silicon Valley

By Office of Communications & Legislative Affairs, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

SAN FRANCISCO — Sibitalent Corp., a Texas-based employment agency specializing in information technology staffing and recruitment, violated federal law when it refused to refer an American applicant for a position in Mountain View, California because of the applicant’s national origin, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, in July 2025, a Sibitalent recruiter contacted an American database developer by e-mail for a business data analyst position in Mountain View, California, but included a notification “ONLY H-1B,” in large, highlighted text. When the American developer questioned the legality of such a visa requirement for the position, the Sibitalent recruiter ceased communicating and refused to refer him for the job. Sibitalent subsequently referred two candidates of Indian and Nepali origin for the same analyst position, according to the suit.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s website, the H-1B Visa program “applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.

“The law establishes certain standards in order to protect similarly employed U.S. workers from being adversely affected by the employment of the nonimmigrant workers, as well as to protect the H-1B nonimmigrant workers. Employers must attest to the Department of Labor that they will pay wages to the H-1B nonimmigrant workers that are at least equal to the actual wage paid by the employer to other workers with similar experience and qualifications for the job in question, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment – whichever is greater.”

“The EEOC’s mission is to ensure equal opportunity for all, which includes Americans,” said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. “Employers and employment agencies cannot shut qualified Americans out of job opportunities by using unjustified visa requirements as a proxy for national origin discrimination. The EEOC will vigorously enforce federal law to protect American workers from unlawful discrimination.”

This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by employment agencies based on national origin. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Sibitalent Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-11106) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, after first attempting to reach a pre‑litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.

EEOC San Francisco District Director Christopher Green said, “The EEOC will vigorously enforce Title VII to ensure that American applicants can compete for jobs on a level field where hiring decisions are based on qualifications and performance.”

The EEOC recently released information on anti-American discrimination and is partnering with the Department of Labor in Project Firewall. For more information on national origin discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination.

The EEOC’s San Francisco District Office has jurisdiction over Northern Nevada, Northern California, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

CA says you must affirm gender ideology to keep your job

By 1 Comment

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

“Misusing a coworker’s pronouns is sexual harassment”

By California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA —  Christian radio host Dennis McCourt sat down at his computer earlier this year to complete a training California law required. He got a few slides in, read a question asking him to affirm that misusing a coworker’s pronouns is sexual harassment, and stopped.

“There’s absolutely no way I’m going to do this,” McCourt said in an interview. “You could put a gun to my head. I won’t do it.”

McCourt works for an out-of-state Christian software company with two employees in California. That was enough to pull his employer into one of the most far-reaching workplace training mandates in the country, a law that requires employees to affirm concepts about gender identity that some religious workers say conflict with their faith. Whether the law exempts religious employers at all is a question no court, regulator, or state agency has definitively answered.

A Law That Grew

California has required sexual harassment training since 2005, but two later bills changed its scope substantially. In 2017, then-state Sen. Ricardo Lara authored SB 396, requiring employers with 50 or more employees to add training on harassment based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. The following year, then-state Sen. Holly Mitchell authored SB 1343, which dropped the threshold to five employees and extended the one-hour training requirement to all employees, not just supervisors. Both are now part of Government Code section 12950.1, and the next compliance deadline for covered employers is Jan. 1, 2027.

The law’s reach surprises many employers. A company must train its California workers if it has five or more employees anywhere in the country, even if only one works in California and the company is headquartered elsewhere, which is how McCourt’s employer became subject to it.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

An Unanswered Exemption Question

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act generally excludes nonprofit religious organizations from the definition of “employer”, shielding churches and qualifying religious groups from many discrimination and harassment claims. But the training mandate in section 12950.1 defines “employer” on its own terms, covering any business with five or more workers, without mentioning religion or nonprofit status.

The Church Law Center of California, a firm that represents churches and religious nonprofits statewide, tells its clients they are not exempt from the training requirement. Separately, the employment law firm Weintraub Tobin has noted that other FEHA provisions requiring “all” employers to comply only “impliedly” carry forward the religious exemption found elsewhere in the code, leaving open whether that exemption applies to the training mandate specifically.

California Family Council, a Fresno-based Christian advocacy organization that tracks religious liberty issues in state law, says it has found no published court decision, no attorney general opinion, and nothing on the Civil Rights Department’s website that resolves the question. The department’s guidance repeats that the requirement applies to “all employers with five or more employees” without addressing religious organizations directly.

Even if courts eventually find that the law does reach religious employers, a further question remains untested: whether the First Amendment requires an exemption when a religious organization’s staff are asked to affirm gender identity content as a condition of compliance. Employment attorneys say that question has not yet been litigated in this context.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

What the Training Covers (see training slides here…)

The Civil Rights Department’s free supervisor training, posted at calcivilrights.ca.gov/shpt, goes beyond conduct rules into concepts about gender. One slide defines “gender identity” as a person’s internal sense of being male, female, a combination of the two, neither, or nonbinary and states that gender identity can differ from the sex a person was “assigned at birth”.

The training also walks supervisors through a scenario in which a transgender employee reports that a coworker keeps using their prior name and pronouns and has objected to their use of the women’s restroom. The training’s slides state that continuing to use a person’s prior name after a gender transition, known as “dead-naming”, “is considered harassment”, that intentionally using the wrong pronoun “is considered harassment”, and that objecting to a coworker’s restroom use based on their stated gender identity “is harassment”.

Under that framing, an employee who voices disagreement with a coworker’s restroom use, without any complaint, rudeness, or other conduct involved, has engaged in harassment as the state defines it.

Supervisors also required to watch the following video about gender and sexual orientation ideology. Notice how everything in this video is stated as facts with no acknowledgement that some employers and employees might have differing viewpoints that should also be respected. Watch here. 

The training separately warns supervisors that they can be held personally, not just professionally, liable: one slide states that employees who believe they were harassed “can sue the person who harassed them for money damages,” in addition to any action taken against the employer.

California’s own list of protected characteristics places “religion, creed” and “gender identity, gender expression” side by side as equally protected classes. Critics of the training, including McCourt and California Family Council, argue that the material puts those protections in direct tension by casting a sincerely held religious view about sex and gender as itself a form of discrimination.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

One Employee’s Refusal

McCourt’s employer required him to affirm the training’s gender identity statements before he could move to the next slide. The platform allowed a comment field, and McCourt used it on every page to record his objection rather than let a silent click stand in for agreement.

“It’s not simply passively listening to the theory,” McCourt said. “It’s having to affirm it to get to the next page, to comply with the state’s requirement and my employer’s requirement.”

McCourt’s objection is rooted in a traditional Christian reading of Genesis, which he and many other Christians understand as teaching that God created human beings male and female. For McCourt, being asked to affirm a different framework in writing is not a minor technicality but a direct conflict with that belief.

He has told his employer he cannot comply and is seeking either a religious accommodation or an alternative curriculum, and is reaching out to Christian legal organizations for help. Federal and state law both generally require employers to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief unless doing so would impose a genuine undue hardship on the business, a standard that predates this training mandate. Whether that standard applies here, and how, is the question now taking shape.

McCourt is also asking pastors in his network to speak out on the mandate.

“I have a genuine concern regarding my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ being discipled by the state of California regarding their sexual ethic,” he said. “The fact that thousands of pastors in CA are not even aware that their church members are being forced into this indoctrination is very disturbing.”

Greg Burt, vice president of California Family Council, argues the training crosses a line. “California isn’t just regulating workplaces anymore. It’s dictating what its citizens must believe,” Burt said. “No state agency has the authority to force a Christian to affirm, in writing, a view of gender he doesn’t hold. That isn’t harassment prevention. That’s compelled speech.”

McCourt points to a passage in Acts 5:29, in which the apostles tell religious authorities they “must obey God rather than men,” when they were told they should not longer speak about Jesus and his teachings. This is the biblical text he and other Christians draw on when they say conscience should take precedence over a legal requirement they believe conflicts with their faith.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

A Broader Pattern

California Family Council says this case fits a pattern it has documented in other settings, including gender-identity training for public school teachers through the state’s PRISM program, pronoun policies at the University of California, and training mandates for healthcare workers. In each case, the organization argues, Californians have faced pressure to affirm a contested view of sex and gender or risk professional consequences.

What Happens Next

California Family Council is compiling a list of pastors, employers and employees willing to go on record about the training requirement ahead of the Jan. 1, 2027 compliance deadline. The organization says it is continuing to consult attorneys on the exemption question and plans to press the Civil Rights Department and state lawmakers for clarity on whether religious organizations are covered.

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Oakland USPS hosting Maintenance jobs hiring event Aug. 12

By 1 Comment

Source: USPS

Work for the Post Office and earn up to $35.95/hour

OAKLAND, CA — The U.S. Postal Service is hosting a free hiring event to help future employees create their online profile and immediately start applying for jobs in Maintenance.

As part our innovative 10-year-plan, Delivering for America, the Postal Service is focused on building a more stable and empowered workforce. Our employees are our greatest asset, and we are investing in our new employees by providing robust training and on-the-job support.

The Postal Service is a great place to work, with job security, career advancement opportunities and benefits. The Postal Service has an immediate need for the following positions to be filled:

  • Electronic Technician – $35.95/hour
  • Building Equipment Mechanic – $34.16/hour
  • Maintenance Mechanic (Mail Processing Equipment) – $34.16/hour
  • Maintenance Mechanic – $27.32/hour
  • Laborer Custodial – $21.52/hour

Please attend the Oakland Maintenance Hiring Event:

Location: Oakland P&DC located at 1675 7th Street, Oakland, CA 94615

Time: 10:00 am to 2:00 pm

Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Applicants must be 18 years or older. All applicants must be able to pass drug screening and a criminal background investigation. Some positions require an exam. Any position that has a driving requirement will also require a valid driver license and clean DMV two-year driving history. Citizenship or permanent resident status is required.

The Postal Service is an equal opportunity employer offering a fast-pace, rewarding work environment with competitive compensation packages, on-the-job training, and opportunities for advancement. Learn more at: Careers – About.usps.com.

 

Contra Costa Event Park seeks applications for new CEO

By Leave a Comment

Home of the Contra Costa County Fair

ANTIOCH – The Board of Director of the Contra Costa Event Park, Home of the Contra Costa County Fair announce their search for a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Current CEO Joe Brengle announced that he would be retiring at the end of June 2025.

Under the Board’s guidance, the CEO plans, executes and manages the annual Contra Costa County Fair. In addition to the Annual Fair, the CEO leads the planning, organization, recruitment, and management of the Contra Costa Event Parks facility rental program (Interim Events), along with negotiating and facilitating long term rental agreements.

Current CEO Joe Brengle with a character during the 2024 Contra Costa County Fair. Photo: CC Event Park

The Monthly Salary Range for the position is $8,630 – $10,567. The salary will be based on the successful candidate’s qualifications with CalHR approval. An example of additional benefits include: State of California, Public Employment Retirement System (PERS), Vacation & Sick Leave, Health Plan, Dental Plan, Vision Plan and State Holidays.

A full description of the position and application process is available on the Fairs website CEO-Flyer.pdf, or can be picked up at the Fair Administration Office, 1201 W. 10th Street, Antioch.

Mark your calendars for the 2025 Contra Costa County Fair May 15 – 18, with the theme “Let’s Go Country”.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

CA Controller publishes 2023 payroll data for local governments

By Leave a Comment

Of 11,946 Contra Costa County employees, Administrator highest paid at $494,001

SACRAMENTO — State Controller Malia M. Cohen has released the 2023 self-reported payroll data for cities and counties on the Government Compensation in California website. The data covers 517,358 positions and a total of more than $40.72 billion in 2023 wages.

Users of the site can:

  • View compensation levels on maps and search by region;
  • Narrow results by name of the entity or by job title; and
  • Export raw data or custom reports.

The newly published data includes 462 cities and 52 counties. The City of Hayward had the highest average city employee wage in California, followed by Atherton, Pleasant Hill, and Beverly Hills. The counties with the highest average employee wages were Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Monterey, and Ventura. The city employee with the highest total wages in California was a police officer for the City of Santa Monica, while the top 20 highest-paid county employees work in health care professions.

Data for Contra Costa County show 11,946 employees worked sometime during the year and were paid $1,137,258,564 in wages and $470,014,925 in retirement and health contribution. The highest paid employee was the County Administrator with $494,001 total pay, which included $466,378 in regular pay, $20,423 in lump sum payment, described as paid to the employee for one-time cash-outs (including, but not limited to, paid excess vacation and sick leave, and legal settlements), and $7,200 for other pay, described as any other pay not reported as regular pay, overtime pay, or lump-sum pay such as car allowances, meeting stipends, incentive pay, bonus pay, etc.

California law requires cities, counties, and special districts to annually report compensation data to the State Controller. The State Controller also maintains and publishes state and CSU salary data. Five counties and 20 cities failed to file or provided incomplete or late information. San Francisco is both a city and a county; the website reports San Francisco as a city.

Since the website launched in 2010, State Controller’s Office has published pay and benefit information on more than two million government jobs in California, as reported annually by each entity.

As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.

 

Scathing State Audit confirms Labor Commissioner’s 47,000 backlogged claims at end of 2022-23

By 2 Comments

Payroll graphic source: CA State Auditor

Senator Glazer’s request leads to findings of workers cheated out of $63.9 million in past wages

Calls it a failure to act on behalf of workers

Report claims inadequate staffing, poor oversight have weakened protections for workers

SACRAMENTO – California Labor Commissioners have stood idly by as a massive backlog in wage theft cases piled up worth $63.9 million in lost wages to workers as its enforcement unit failed to enforce and collect wages in 76 percent of cases in which employers were found to owe wages, according to a report released Wednesday by Grant Parks, the California State Auditor.

The scathing audit came as a result of a March 2023 request through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee by Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, and Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego. It was based on news reports about the lack of wage theft enforcement.

Parks reported his findings to the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly about the “Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO).” Lilia García-Brower is the current state Labor Commissioner and was appointed to the position by Governor Newsom in July 2019. Neither her name or photo appears on the website for the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Ironically, according to the agency’s website, “The mission of the LCO is to ensure a just day’s pay in every workplace in the State and to promote economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws. By combating wage theft, protecting workers from retaliation, and educating the public, we put earned wages into workers’ pockets and help level the playing field for law-abiding employers.”

The audit “reviewed the backlog of wage claims submitted by workers from fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23, and determined that the LCO is not providing timely adjudication of wage claims for workers primarily because of insufficient staffing to process those claims.”

Furthermore, the state Auditor reported, “In addition to its delays in processing wage claims, the LCO has not been successful in collecting judgments from employers. A possible factor contributing to its low collection rate is that the Enforcement Unit does not consistently use all of the methods available to it for collecting payments owed to workers.”

Senator Glazer released this statement on the audit’s findings:

“The California State Auditor’s report makes clear that our State Labor Commissioner is a toothless enforcer of our wage theft laws. This deeply troubling assessment exposes a system that has fundamentally failed the workers it is supposed to protect. According to the auditor, there is a backlog of 47,000 claims registered on June 30, 2023. This is a state embarrassment and a stain on the department that workers depend on for justice.

The report also highlights an alarming increase in the average number of days to resolve claims, which has skyrocketed from 420 days in 2017/18 to an astounding 890 days in 2022/23. This drastic decline in efficiency is not just a statistic; it represents thousands of workers enduring prolonged injustice and financial hardship.

This lack of enforcement emboldens companies to exploit workers, knowing they can likely escape any real consequences, thus perpetuating and increasing further abuse. These findings paint a grim picture of an agency overwhelmed and ineffective, leaving workers vulnerable and without recourse. Immediate and decisive action to restore integrity and effectiveness to the Labor Commissioner’s office is needed. The workers of California deserve nothing less than a robust system that ensures timely and fair resolution of wage theft claims.”

The report can be found here: www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/the-california-labor-commissioners-office/

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Bill to mandate ‘science of reading’ in CA schools faces teachers’ union opposition

By Leave a Comment

Teacher Jennifer Dare Sparks conducts a reading lesson in her 3rd/4th class at Ethel I. Baker Elementary School in Sacramento, Calif. Thursday, Jun. 2, 2022. Photo credit: Randall Benton / EdSource

Part of nationwide push to bring back phonics, sponsors seek compromise, CTA refuses to negotiate

By DIANA LAMBERT, JOHN FENSTERWALD, ZAIDEE STAVELY, EDSOURCE.org

California’s largest teachers’ union has moved to put the brakes on legislation that mandates instruction, known as the “science of reading,” that spotlights phonics to teach children to read.

The move by the politically powerful California Teachers Association (CTA) puts the fate of Assembly Bill 2222 in question as supporters insist that there is room to negotiate changes that will bring opponents together.

CTA’s complaints include some recently voiced by some advocacy organizations for English learners and bilingual education that oppose the bill and have refused to negotiate any changes to make the bill more acceptable.

The teachers union put its opposition to AB 2222 in writing in a lengthy letter to Assembly Education Committee Chairman Al Muratsuchi last week. The committee is expected to hear the bill, introduced in February, later this month.

The letter includes a checklist of complaints including that the proposed legislation would duplicate and potentially undermine current literacy initiatives, would not meet the needs of English learner students and cuts teachers out of the decision-making process, especially when it comes to curriculum.

“Educators are best equipped to make school and classroom decisions to ensure student success,” the letter said. “Limiting instructional approaches undermines teachers’ professional autonomy and may impede their effectiveness in the classroom.”

Marshall Tuck, CEO of EdVoice, an advocacy nonprofit co-sponsoring the bill, said he was surprised that CTA would oppose legislation that would ensure all teachers are trained to use the latest brain research to teach children how to read.

“Unfortunately, a lot of folks in the field haven’t actually been trained on that, and a lot of the instruction materials in classrooms today don’t align with that,” Tuck said.

Tuck said CTA appears to misunderstand the body of evidence-based research known as the science of reading. It “is not a curriculum and is not a program or a one-size-fits-all approach,” he said. “It will give teachers a foundational understanding of how children learn to read. Teachers will still have a lot of room locally to decide which instructional moves to make on any given day for any given children. So, you’ll still have significant differentiation.”

A nationwide push

California’s push to adopt the science of reading approach to early literacy is in sync with 37 states and some cities, such as New York City, that have passed similar legislation.

States nationwide are rejecting balanced literacy as failing to effectively teach children how to read, since it trains children to use pictures to recognize words on sight, also known as three-cueing. The new method would teach children to decode words by sounding them out, a process known as phonics.

Although phonics, the ability to connect letters to sounds, has drawn the most attention, the science of reading focuses on four other pillars of literacy instruction: phonemic awareness, identifying distinct units of sounds; vocabulary; comprehension; and fluency. It is based on research on how the brain connects letters with sounds when learning to read.

Along with mandating the science of reading approach to instruction, AB 2222 would require that all TK to fifth-grade teachers, literacy coaches and specialists take a 30-hour-minimum course in reading instruction by 2028. School districts and charter schools would purchase textbooks from an approved list endorsed by the State Board of Education.

The legislation goes against the state policy of local control that gives school districts authority to select curriculum and teaching methods as long as they meet state academic standards. Currently, the state encourages, but does not mandate, districts to incorporate instruction in the science of reading in the early grades.

“It’s a big bill,” said Yolie Flores, president of Families in Schools, a co-sponsor. “We’re very proud that it’s a big bill because that means it is truly consequential in the best way possible for children. It’s not a sort of tweak around the edges kind though, it’s the kind of bill that really brings transformation. So we are hoping that the Legislature sees beyond the sort of typical pushback and resistance, and in the end, I think, teachers will see that this was a huge benefit for them.”

Seeking compromise

The bill’s author, Blanca Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, said she took CTA’s seven-page letter not as an outright rejection but as an opportunity for negotiations.

“I’m glad they sent this letter,” she said. “They outline their objections and the reasons why, and that’s something I can work with. It’s not a flat, ‘No, we don’t want you to do it.’ They gave me specific items that I can look at and have a conversation about.”

She said that Assemblymember Muratsuchi asked her to work with the CTA on a compromise. She is also meeting with consultants for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Salinas, “to look at the big picture,” she said.

But Flores says the state’s budget problems, with predictions of no money for new programs, may be a bigger hurdle to getting the bill passed than the CTA opposition. The cost of paying for the required professional development for teachers would total $200 million to $300 million, she said. Because it is a mandate, the state would be required to repay districts for the cost.

“That is a drop in the bucket for something so transformational, so consequential,” Flores said. “I hope that the Legislature really comes to that realization. We’re in a budget deficit, but our budget is a statement of priorities.”

Advocates say that it is imperative that California mandate instruction in the science of reading. In 2023, just 43% of California third graders met the academic standards on the state’s standardized test in 2023. Only 27.2% of Black students, 32% of Latino students and 35% of low-income children were reading at grade level, compared with 57.5% of white, 69% of Asian and 66% of non-low-income students.

“It’s foundational,” Flores said. “It’s not the only thing teachers need to know. It’s not the only thing that teachers will need to do and to adhere to, but it’s sort of the basic foundational knowledge of how children’s brains work in order to learn to read.”

The bill would sunset in 2028 when all teachers are required to have completed training. Beginning in July, all teacher preparation programs would be required to teach future educators to base literacy instruction on the science of reading.

Needs of English learners

The CTA and other critics of AB 2222 charge that it ignores the need of English learners for oral language skills, vocabulary and comparison between their home languages and English, which they need in order to learn how to read. Four out of 10 students in California start school as English learners.

Tuck disputes this. “We actually emphasize oral language development,” he said. “This would be the first statute that would say when instructional materials are adopted, and when teachers are trained in the science of reading, they must include a focus on English learners and oral language development.”

Representatives from Californians Together, an advocacy organization for English learners and bilingual education, applauded the CTA’s opposition to the bill. They oppose the bill, rather than suggest amendments, because they disagree with its overall approach.

“We just don’t think this is the right bill to address literacy needs,” said Executive Director Martha Hernandez. “It’s very restrictive. We know that mandates don’t work. It lacks a robust, comprehensive approach for multilingual learners.”

Instead, Californians Together and the California Association for Bilingual Education have both said they would prefer California fund the training of teachers and full implementation of the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework.

The framework was adopted in 2014 and encourages, but does not mandate, explicit instruction in foundational skills and oral language development for English learners.

The California Language Teachers Association has requested the bill be amended to include information about teaching literacy in languages not based on the English alphabet, such as Japanese, Chinese or Arabic, according to Executive Director Liz Matchett. However, the organization has not yet taken a position on the bill.

“I agree that we want to support all children to be able to read. If they can’t read, they can’t participate in education, which is the one way that is proven to change people’s circumstances,” said Matchett, who teaches Spanish at Gunn High School in Palo Alto. “There’s nothing to oppose about that. I’m still a classroom teacher, and all the time, you get kids in high school who can’t read.”

Education Trust-West urges changes in the bill to center the needs of “multilingual learners” — children who speak languages other than English at home — and to include more oversight and fewer mandates, such as those that may discourage new teachers from entering the profession.

“If our recommended amendments were to be accepted, EdTrust-West would support it as a much-needed solution to California’s acute literacy crisis.”

Claude Goldenberg, professor emeritus of education at Stanford University, said “it was disappointing” to see CTA’s opposition, particularly because the union did not suggest amendments. He said he had met with representatives from CTA and urged them to identify what could be changed in the bill.

In a recent EdSource commentary, Goldenberg urged opponents to “do the right thing for all students. AB 2222’s introduction is an important step forward on the road to universal literacy in California. We must get it on the right track and take it across the finish line.”

Referring to the CTA’s opposition, Goldenberg said, “Obviously my urgings fell flat. They identified why they’re opposing, but there’s no indication of any possible re-evaluation.”

Goldenberg, who served on the National Literacy Panel, which synthesized research on literacy development among children who speak languages other than English, has called on the bill’s authors to amend it to include a more comprehensive definition of the “science of reading” and include more information about teaching students to read in English as a second language and in their home languages.

The CTA has changed its position on bills related to literacy instruction in the last two years. It had originally supported Senate Bill 488, which passed in 2022. The legislation requires a literacy performance assessment for teachers and oversight of literacy instruction in teacher preparation. The union is now in support of a bill that would do away with both.

The change of course was attributed to a survey of 1,300 CTA members, who said the assessment caused stress, took away time that could have been used to collaborate with mentors and for teaching, and did not prepare them to meet the needs of students, according to Leslie Littman, vice president of the union, in a prior interview.

Veteran political observer Dan Schnur said he’s not surprised CTA would oppose the bill since some of its political allies are against it; the question is how important CTA considers the bill.

“If it becomes a pitched battle, CTA will have to decide whether it is one of its highest priorities in this session,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom hasn’t indicated his position yet, but Schnur, the press secretary for former Gov. Pete Wilson, who teaches political communications at UC Berkeley and USC, said, “This is not the type of fight Newsom needs or wants right now. If he has strong feelings, it’s hard to see him going to war for or against.”

Contra Costa Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity seeks three members

By Leave a Comment

One Business member, two Community members

The Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Equal Employment Opportunity (ACEEO) has one vacant Business seat and two vacant Community seats open to applicants. The successful candidate for the Business seat must own a business within the county, and candidate(s) for the Community seats must either work or reside within the county. All candidates must have an interest in equal employment matters. The ACEEO meets on the fourth Friday of each month from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., except for holidays.

The ACEEO assists with the implementation of the County’s Equal Employment Opportunities and Contracting Programs and serves as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors. The ACEEO reviews the Equal Employment Opportunities Program and recommends actions to facilitate the attainment of the County’s goals for equal employment opportunities regardless of gender and race/ethnicity.

The Board of Supervisors established the ACEEO on July 9, 1991. The Council has thirteen (13) seats representing the following groups: 4 Community seats; 2 Labor seats; 2 Management seats; 1 Educational seat; 1 Disability seat; 1 Business seat; 1 Veteran seat; and 1 Labor/Trade seat.

Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 655- 2000 or visiting the County webpage at www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418. Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 1025 Escobar St., 1st Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. Applications can also be emailed to ClerkoftheBoard@cob.cccounty.us.

Applicants should plan to be available for public interviews. For further information about the ACEEO, please contact Antoine Wilson at antoine.wilson@riskm.cccounty.us or (925) 335-1455. You can also visit the web page at www.contracosta.ca.gov/4503/Advisory-Council-on-Equal- Employment-Opp.