Contra Costa Herald

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

Contra Costa Senior Legal Services Summer Soirée & Symposium fundraiser Aug. 22

By Leave a Comment

By Anna Mickelsen, Communications Intern, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

On August 22nd, community members across the county will gather for Contra Costa Senior Legal Services’ (CCSLS) Summer Soirée & Symposium. For more than 40 years, CCSLS has served older adults by providing free legal aid to those aged 60+ who need it. Attorneys from CCSLS help fight evictions to preserve housing, prevent elder abuse, remedy fraud, assist with advance planning documents, and more.

Photo: CC Senior Legal Services

The Summer Soirée & Symposium is not only an opportunity to support the organization, but also will feature a panel discussion on the implications of an aging society, lively entertainment, and delicious refreshments. CCSLS also will present the Honorable Virginia George with the First Annual Elder Justice Award. A Bay Area native, Justice George is an upstanding figure in the community, and a powerful voice for Elder Law and the rights of older adults in Contra Costa County. The Elder Justice Award was created to honor Justice George and her service.

Moving forward, CCSLS will continue to present the Virginia George Elder Justice Award to other professionals who work tirelessly to support the well-being of older adults in the county. Tickets are still available for those interested in attending this upcoming event, and for more information or to purchase a ticket, click, here Summer Soirée and Symposium 2024. All proceeds support CCSLS.

About CCSLS

Contra Costa Senior Legal Services (CCSLS) is a private, nonprofit agency that has been providing free legal services to older residents aged 60 or older in the County since 1976. Thousands of seniors have benefited from these services which have enabled them to stay in their homes, to become eligible for and to retain public benefits, to recover real and personal property wrongly taken from them, and to obtain relief from physical, financial, and emotional abuse.

CCSLS seeks to provide the broadest possible access to its services. It prioritizes those areas of law relevant to the needs of older residents of the County, especially those not otherwise addressed by other legal services programs. CCSLS regularly provides individual assistance to over 1,000 clients per year and provides outreach and training to hundreds more.

DeSaulnier’s 9-year effort pays off as Port Chicago 50 exonerated by U.S. Secretary of the Navy

By Leave a Comment

U.S. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro signs the exoneration on July 17, 2024, the 80th anniversary of the Port Chicago disaster. Source: Office of the U.S. Secretary of the Navy

Followed efforts of former Congressman George Miller III

On 80th anniversary of World War II explosion, total of 256 remaining African-American Sailors receive full exoneration from 1944 courts-martial

“…the families of the Port Chicago 50 convicted for mutinying against an order that should never have been given finally have closure.” – Congressman Mark DeSaulnier

WASHINGTON – The Secretary of the Navy announced on July 17 the full exoneration of the remaining 256 defendants of the 1944 Port Chicago general and summary courts-martial.

The Honorable Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy, made the announcement on the 80th anniversary of an explosion that occurred at Port Chicago Naval Magazine in California. The explosion killed 320 people, injured 400 others, destroyed two ships and a train, and caused damage to the nearby town of Port Chicago.

Secretary Del Toro expressed his deepest condolences for the Sailors, civilians, Coast Guardsmen, members of the U.S. Maritime Service, and one Marine who lost their lives and for their family members.

Following the 1944 explosion, white supervising officers at Port Chicago were given hardship leave while the surviving African-American Sailors were ordered back to work. The circumstances surrounding the disaster were reflective of the Navy’s personnel policies at the time, which barred African-American Sailors from nearly all seagoing jobs. Most of the Navy ordnance battalions assigned to Port Chicago Naval Magazine and similar facilities were comprised of African-American enlisted personnel and white officers.

African-American sailors load ammunition and damage from the explosion damage on July 17, 1944. Source: U.S. Navy Secretary video screenshots

In the absence of clarity on the explosions or further safety training, 258 African-American Sailors refused to resume ammunition handling. After threats of disciplinary action, 208 of the Sailors returned to work; however, the Navy still subsequently convicted all 208 Sailors at a summary court-martial for disobeying orders.

The Navy sentenced each of the summary court-martial defendants to a Bad Conduct Discharge and forfeiture of three month’s pay. During subsequent reviews of the summary court-martial, the Bad Conduct Discharges were suspended, the forfeitures reduced, and one conviction was set aside for insufficient evidence.

The remaining 50 Sailors continued to refuse to return to work and were charged with mutiny. The Navy later convicted all 50 Sailors (who came to be called the “Port Chicago 50”) of mutiny at a mass general court-martial. Each of these defendants was sentenced to a Dishonorable Discharge, fifteen years confinement at hard labor, reduction in rate to E-1, and total forfeitures of their pay.

During subsequent reviews of the general court-martial, the Dishonorable Discharges were suspended, and the period of confinement was reduced from 15 years to 17-29 months. One conviction was also set aside for mental incompetency. By January 1946, nearly all the Sailors were released and given the opportunity to finish their contracts.

“The Port Chicago 50, and the hundreds who stood with them, may not be with us today, but their story lives on, a testament to the enduring power of courage and the unwavering pursuit of justice,” said Secretary Del Toro. “They stand as a beacon of hope, forever reminding us that even in the face of overwhelming odds, the fight for what’s right can and will prevail.”

Orders signed by U.S. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro exonerating the remaining 256 Sailors issued on July 17, 2024. Source: Office of the U.S. Secretary of the Navy.

After a thorough review of the case and related materials, the General Counsel of the Navy concluded that there were significant legal errors during the courts-martial. The defendants were improperly tried together despite conflicting interests and denied a meaningful right to counsel.

The courts-martial also occurred before the Navy’s Court of Inquiry report on the Port Chicago explosion was finalized, which certainly would have informed their defense and contained nineteen substantive recommendations to improve ammunition loading practices.

Following the Navy’s most recent review, Secretary Del Toro fully exonerated the remaining 256 defendants of the 1944 Port Chicago general and summary courts-martial.

A post on the Navy Secretary’s X (formerly Twitter) account reads, “’May the story of Port Chicago serve as a permanent reminder of the power of collective action, the importance of historical truth, and the enduring promise of a more just America.’ Hon. Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy.”

If any family members of the defendants of the 1944 Port Chicago general and summary courts-martial would like to reach out to the Department of the Navy for future notifications on the topic or more information, please reach out to PortChicago@us.navy.mil, or 703-697-5342. (See Navy Secretary video about the exoneration and U.S. Navy video about the Port Chicago disaster)

Congressman DeSaulnier Commends U.S. Navy’s Posthumous Exoneration of Port Chicago 50

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-10) commends the U.S. Navy’s posthumous exoneration of the Port Chicago 50 – African American sailors who were wrongfully and discriminately charged with mutiny after the incident. The harsh treatment they received, both in their work and in the courtroom, was reflective of the racial segregation present in the military at the time. Since coming to Congress in 2015, Congressman DeSaulnier has led the fight for justice for and exoneration of these sailors through legislation and work with the U.S. Navy and multiple Administrations. He represented the community that came together to advocate for the sailors, the site of the Port Chicago explosion, and the memorial site for the majority of his time in office.

“After nearly a decade fighting for justice for the Port Chicago 50, I commend the U.S. Navy and thank Navy Secretary Del Toro for exonerating these heroes and President Biden for his support. Today our nation stands one step closer to fulfilling its founding promise of equality and justice for all,” said DeSaulnier. “I thank Rev. Diana McDaniel and the Friends of the Port Chicago 50, Congressman George Miller and John Lawrence, his then Chief of Staff, and Representatives Barbara Lee and John Garamendi for their efforts to help accomplish this monumental feat.”

“I thank Navy Secretary Del Toro for his exhaustive review and exonerating the Port Chicago 50, correcting 80 years of injustice. The Port Chicago 50 were ordered to their deaths in the summer of 1944, nearly four years before President Truman signed the executive order formally banning racial segregation in the American military. Now, eighty years later, the families of the Port Chicago 50 convicted for mutinying against an order that should never have been given finally have closure. Their full exoneration brings a sense of justice that has been long overdue. As Port Chicago’s Congressman, I am proud to stand with the families of these servicemen and my colleagues, Representatives Mark DeSaulnier and Barbara Lee, in celebrating this historic moment,” said Congressman John Garamendi.

“This is a monumental day for justice and for the families of the Port Chicago 50. I appreciate the Secretary of the Navy taking this crucial action to exonerate these courageous men who were unjustly court-martialed by the Navy following the explosion at Port Chicago. On the 80th anniversary of this tragic event, it’s fitting that these men are not only exonerated, but honored for their service to this country. I have been working on this issue with former Congressman George Miller and Congressman DeSaulnier since coming to Congress 26 years ago. This is long overdue,” said Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

“When I learned of the exoneration I burst into tears, this has been a long-time coming. It is so sad that Robert Allen and the PC 50 and the sailors who were penalized are not with us to celebrate. I am so grateful to the Biden administration, to the Secretary of the Navy, to our Champions Rep. DeSaulnier and former Congressman George Miller. So many people have worked on this – a major wrong has been righted,” said Reverend Diana McDaniel, President of The Friends of Port Chicago National Memorial.

“Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that ‘the arc of The Moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice,’ and today’s action by President Biden and Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro at long last corrects a grievous historical wrong,” said former Congressman George Miller. “I salute colleagues in Congress, state and local government and many others, especially Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, for persisting in this long battle to clear the names of the Port Chicago 50. Special recognition is also due to Rev. Diana McDaniel of the Friends of Port Chicago, Thurgood Marshall, Jr., and the late historian Robert Allen, who have played crucial roles in telling the Port Chicago story and in demanding justice.”

After experiencing segregation in the Navy during World War II, 320 men, including 202 African American sailors, were killed and almost 400 others were injured when a cargo vessel exploded as munitions were being loading onto ships. This incident accounted for more than 15 percent of all African American Naval casualties during WWII and was the deadliest home front disaster during the war. While White officers were given time off, African American sailors were forced to return to the same unsafe working conditions that killed their colleagues, having never been properly trained in safe munitions loading and handling practices. When 50 of these men understandably refused, they were discriminately charged and convicted of mutiny.

Since coming to Congress, Congressman DeSaulnier has been actively working to seek justice for the Port Chicago 50, including through amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), introducing resolutions to exonerate the sailors in the 114th, 115th, 116th, 117th and 118th Congresses, and in calling on then-President Obama and past and current Secretaries of the Navy to remove the racially-based convictions from the sailors’ records. After Congressman DeSaulnier successfully included a provision to an NDAA requiring the Navy to investigate the circumstances surrounding the treatment of sailors at Port Chicago, the Navy acknowledged the injustice that was served against the Port Chicago 50. DeSaulnier has also called upon the Smithsonian Institution to include information about the Port Chicago 50 in the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

President Biden Posts on X

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), President Biden shared the following about the Navy Secretary’s actions on Thursday:

“Today, the U.S. Navy rights a historic wrong by exonerating 258 Black Sailors who were unjustly convicted following the Port Chicago explosion 80 years ago. They fought for a nation that denied them equal justice. Let us remember their service and sacrifice.”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III Issues Statement on the Exoneration of American Sailors Unjustly Accused After the Port Chicago Tragedy of 1944

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin, III also issued a statement honoring the exoneration. It reads, “Today, the Department of Defense has moved to rectify an old injustice—and face up to a painful episode in our own history.

I applaud the Secretary of the Navy’s decision to exonerate 258 Black Sailors who were unjustly court-martialed in the wake of the devastating explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in California, which killed 320 Sailors on July 17, 1944. After the blast, these 258 Sailors refused to keep loading munitions in the same unsafe and inhumane conditions that contributed to the catastrophe. Eighty years later, we recognize that those 258 Sailors were right, and the segregated Navy that unnecessarily risked their lives was wrong.

The NAACP, Thurgood Marshall, Eleanor Roosevelt, and others recognized the case as a travesty at the time. The Department of Defense must continue to learn from our past, and today’s decision reflects our commitment to reckoning with our history—even when it is painful.

I am deeply grateful for all the people of conscience in the U.S. Navy who have worked diligently to make this day possible, and to the advocates and family members who have pushed hard for so many decades to remedy this injustice.

We honor the memory of the 320 dedicated Americans who lost their lives in the Port Chicago explosion, and we honor the service of the 258 brave Americans who refused afterward to bend to racist and cruel treatment. The Department of Defense must always ensure that our Service members, our military families, and our civilian employees are treated with fairness and dignity, especially within our military justice systems.”

Glazer Thanks President, Navy Secretary

State Senator Steve Glazer, in whose district the Port Chicago Memorial is located, also commented on X writing, “Thank you to @POTUS and the Navy Secretary for bringing an important element of justice to the families of these now departed seamen. We’ve waited a long time to see this recognition of historical racism. The historical ledger bends toward justice and we are thankful.”

Source: EBRPD

East Bay Regional Park District Lauds Full Exoneration of Port Chicago Black Sailors by U.S. Secretary of the Navy

The East Bay Regional Park District General Manager Sabrina Landreth made the following statement today about Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro’s full exoneration of African American sailors who were charged in 1944 with mutiny after the explosion at Port Chicago, the worst home front disaster of World War II:

“Today’s historic decision by Navy Secretary Del Toro shows leadership unmatched for the preceding 80 years. The Park District has long supported the resolution calling on the Navy to exonerate the Port Chicago 50. We hope today’s significant announcement creates momentum for us to realize our dream of a world-class visitor center where people can learn and share important stories of social injustice and civil rights that have shaped history, as well as providing an opportunity to heal and reflect on our collective past, as we look toward a future inclusive of all.”

Background:

East Bay Regional Park District Support for Exoneration of the Port Chicago 50

The Park District listened to the community and named the associated park in Concord, Calif. on the site of the former Naval Weapons Station “Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50.”  By doing so, the Park District became the first agency to identify a regularly accessible space for people to discover the courage and legacy of these sailors. The nearby National Park Service Memorial site serves as the final resting place for the sailors who died. The events that occurred at Port Chicago served as a catalyst for civil rights and social justice locally and nationally.

In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2009. Included in that legislation was language that specifically authorized the National Park Service to partner with the Park District to establish a future visitor center within a regional park near the Memorial. A visitor center at the future regional park will provide broader access to the important history of Port Chicago due to access restrictions for the public to reach the actual National Memorial site located within an active Army base.

To learn more about the Port Chicago Memorial visit Friends of Port Chicago National Memorial (portchicagomemorial.org) and Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov).

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Concord: Healthcare Services Group to settle EEOC national origin discrimination charge

By Leave a Comment

Federal investigation found housekeeping company restricted nursing home housekeeper from speaking Spanish

En Español, tambien

By Christopher Green, Deputy Director, EEOC San Francisco District Office

SAN FRANCISCO – Healthcare Services Group, Inc., which provides housekeeping and other services to healthcare facilities with 35,000 employees in 48 states, agreed to provide monetary and injunctive relief to an employee following an investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

In a charge filed with EEOC, a woman employed as a “light housekeeper” at a nursing home facility in Concord, California, alleged that Healthcare Services Group prohibited her from speaking her native language of Spanish while in the workplace. The EEOC’s investigation found evidence confirming that her employer maintained a limited “English-only” rule. If applied at all times in the workplace or unless justified by business necessity, this type of policy violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin.

After the investigation, the parties engaged in a pre-litigation conciliation process resulting in a settlement. Healthcare Services Group will pay monetary damages to the housekeeper and will provide training for all California employees as well as separate training for all California managers and human resources personnel. The company also agreed to revise its California policies and procedures to include a clear statement that Healthcare Services Group will not restrict languages spoken by employees not performing patient care, and that employees have the right to speak their preferred language in the workplace. These policies will be issued in English, Spanish and any other language spoken by 5% or more of its California workforce. In addition, the company agreed to remove English fluency requirements from the light housekeeper job description, and to post a notice of the agreement for a period of two years.

“Restrictive language policies are only allowed if they are required to ensure safe or efficient business operation and is put in place for nondiscriminatory reasons. Client relations and customer preference do not justify discriminatory policies,” said Rosa Salazar, acting director of the EEOC’s Oakland Local Office. “We commend Healthcare Services Group for making important changes in their policies and training their entire California workforce to recognize and prevent this form of national origin discrimination.”

For more information on national origin discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination. For related resources for small businesses, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/small-business-fact-sheet-national-origin-discrimination.

The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Grupo de Servicios de Atención Médica Resolverá el Cargo de Discriminación por Nacionalidad de la EEOC

La Investigación Federal Encontró a la Empresa de Limpieza de Restringir a sus Empleados a Hablar Español

SAN FRANCISCO – Healthcare Services Group, Inc., que brinda servicios de limpieza y otros servicios a centros de atención médica y emplea a 35,000 empleados en 48 estados, acordó pagar $15,000 y brindar otras medidas cautelares a un empleado luego de una investigación realizada por la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades en el Empleo de EE. UU. (EEOC), anunció hoy la agencia.

En un cargo presentado ante la EEOC, una mujer, empleada como “simple limpieza” en un asilo de ancianos en Concord, California, alegó que Healthcare Services Group le prohibió hablar su idioma nativo, el español, mientras estaba en su centro de trabajo. La investigación de la EEOC encontró evidencia que confirma que su empleador mantenía una regla limitada de “solo inglés”. Aplicándose esto en todo momento en el centro de labores o a menos que esté justificado por una necesidad comercial, este tipo de política viola el Título VII de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964, que prohíbe la discriminación basada en la nacionalidad.

Luego de la investigación, las partes iniciaron un proceso de conciliación previo al litigio que resultó en un acuerdo. Healthcare Services Group pagará una indemnización monetaria al ama de llaves y brindará capacitación a todos los empleados de California, así como capacitación separada para todos los gerentes y personal de recursos humanos de California. La compañía también acordó revisar sus políticas y procedimientos de California para incluir una declaración clara de que Healthcare Services Group no restringirá los idiomas hablados por los empleados que no atienden a pacientes y que los empleados tienen derecho a hablar su idioma de su preferencia en el centro de labor. Estas políticas se emitirán en inglés, español y cualquier otro idioma hablado por el 5% o más de su personal en California. Además, la empresa acordó eliminar los requisitos de fluidez en inglés de la descripción del puesto de simple limpieza y publicar un aviso del acuerdo por un período de dos años.

“Las políticas lingüísticas restrictivas sólo se permiten si estas son necesarias para garantizar una operación comercial segura o eficiente y se implementan por razones no discriminatorias. Las relaciones con los clientes y las preferencias de los mismos no justifican políticas discriminatorias”, dijo Rosa Salazar, directora interina de la Oficina Local de Oakland de la EEOC. “Felicitamos a Healthcare Services Group por realizar cambios importantes en sus políticas y capacitar a toda su fuerza laboral de California para reconocer y prevenir esta forma de discriminación por nacionalidad”.

Para obtener más información sobre la discriminación por nacionalidad, visite https://www.eeoc.gov/es/discriminacion-por-origen-nacional. Para obtener recursos relacionados para pequeñas empresas, visite https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/small-business-fact-sheet-national-origin-discrimination (en inglés).

La EEOC promueve las oportunidades en el lugar de trabajo al hacer cumplir las leyes federales que prohíben la discriminación laboral. Más información está disponible en https://www.eeoc.gov/es. Manténgase conectado con las últimas noticias de la EEOC suscribiéndose a nuestras actualizaciones por correo electrónico .

 

Governor Newsom appoints new judge to Contra Costa Superior Court bench

By Leave a Comment

New Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Michael Nieto. Photo source: Office of the Governor of California

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, his appointment of 15 Superior Court Judges, which include one in Contra Costa County; two in Los Angeles County; one in Marin County; one in Napa County; one in Riverside County; one in Sacramento County; three in San Diego County; one in San Francisco County; two in San Joaquin County; one in San Mateo County; and one in Santa Clara County.

Michael Nieto, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Nieto has served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office since 2022 and has been a Deputy District Attorney there since 1997.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Nieto worked in private practice as an associate attorney for McCutcheon Doyle Brown & Enersen from June 1994 to Dec. 1996 and earned a Bachelors of Arts in Government from Harvard University.

He has served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of California College of the Law (formerly Hastings), San Francisco since 2013. Nieto earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Clare Maier. Nieto is a Democrat.

The annual compensation for each of the judicial positions is $238,479.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

CA Supreme Court removes Taxpayer Protection Act from Nov. ballot

By Leave a Comment

“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – California Supreme Court

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

By Allen D. Payton

In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed to continue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize

According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election

In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”

Proponents

Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative.  The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”

Supporters included the California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The campaign had received $17.8 million in contributions.

According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats.  They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”

View materials on the proposed ballot measure.

Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts

In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.

We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.

Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.

This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.

In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher.

We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.”

Opponents

The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, AFSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”

Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”

In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.

Court’s Decision

According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”

The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”

“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.

The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.

See Court ruling, here.

For more information about the ballot measure and the coalition that supported it visit www.taxpayerprotection.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

No arbitrations yet for 10 fired Antioch cops, APOA attorney confident “all will get their jobs back”

By Leave a Comment

6 face possible permanent decertification as peace officers

There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date according to City staff

“Virtually all will get their jobs back.” – APOA & defense attorney Mike Rains. May call mayor, councilwoman to testify.

“…we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.” – APOA VP Sgt. Loren Bledsoe

By Allen D. Payton

A report in the East Bay Times on Monday, June 17, 2024, provided information that’s been sought for months by local media about the number of Antioch Police Officers who have been terminated as a result of both the FBI and text scandal investigations over the past two years. According to the report, 10 officers have been fired and the information was based on “recently obtained emails department commanders sent to city officials.”

In the report he cited three more officers who had quit because they, “knew that harsh discipline was imminent, city documents say.” The Times also reported, “six officers were given unpaid suspensions…one received a written reprimand” and “One officer was cleared of wrongdoing.” That doesn’t include former Officer Matthew Nutt who was acquitted by a jury last Thursday of assault against a man he arrested two years ago.

That information was confirmed by Antioch District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica on Monday which he had just confirmed that with City staff and was given authorization to share it with the media. He said, “10 officers were terminated, three resigned prior to any discipline being implemented, two were demoted, six were suspended and one was cleared of all charges from an independent investigation, not including Matthew Nut.”

The Times’ report claimed, “city officials attempted to fire or discipline several more officers who ultimately won arbitration hearings and got the decisions reversed or reduced, according to multiple officials with firsthand knowledge.”

However, asked about the arbitrations Barbanica said, “I am not aware of any arbitrations that have yet occurred. It doesn’t mean they haven’t.”

Following a call to City staff, in a brief, follow up conversation Barbanica clarified saying firmly, “There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date.”

Of the 10 officers who were terminated, six also face decertification as peace officers.

APOA Attorney Confident Officers “Will Get Their Jobs Back”

When asked about the 10 terminations, defense attorney Mike Rains, who also represents the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA), said, “I am confident they will get their jobs back. There were terminations who were charged criminally and those who sent the text messages. We (his law firm) conflicted out of the criminal cases.”

“Nutt wasn’t involved at all in the text case,” he added, referring to former Officer Matthew Nutt who was acquitted by a jury last Thursday of assault for punching and kicking a man who was handcuffs during a traffic stop in 2022. Nutt was fired last June. (See related articles here and here)

“Virtually all will get their jobs back,” Rains stated. “Six cases are pending right now for the texting that were terminated that we represent, that I’m confident they’ll get their jobs back.”

“This is a way overreaction for the text messages on their personal cell phones,” the attorney continued. “The guys who just received them or sent the message back that the City thought was not a condemnation, the City claimed Biased-Based Policing. They threw that out in most of these cases, which is ridiculous. That’s based on officers targeting individuals in the community, that they’re going to get them because of their race and wouldn’t consider targeting people of other races.”

Bias-Based Policing is also known as profiling. According to civilrightspolicing.org, is “Profiling is presuming that someone is involved in criminal activity based on who they are rather than what they have done.”

“The City said, ‘you used a bad word we don’t like, that we think is a racist term and we’re going to fire you for them,’” Rains continued. “Amiri and Rombough had texts that were really offensive. But many of them they were sending they were putting out on chains including 15 people. Some of the officers said they weren’t even reading them.”

As previously reported, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe called for the firing of all the officers investigated for the text scandal in May 2023 and again the following month. In May 2023, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Waker also called for the immediate firing of “officers involved in the racist texting scandal.”.

Asked if that tcould affect the officers’ efforts to regain their jobs Rains said, “I’ll probably subpoena Thorpe to testify. I may call her, too.”

“The mayor’s comments about the entire department are completely misleading,” he added.

APOA Responds

In response to the information released about the 10 terminated officers, APOA Vice President Sgt. Loren Bledsoe wrote, “We acknowledge the recent developments regarding the disciplinary actions taken against several Antioch officers. As a union, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity within our ranks.

It is important to note that the APOA cannot comment on ongoing personnel matters. However, we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.

Moving forward, our focus will be on rebuilding relationships with the community and restoring public trust. We understand the significance of fostering positive connections between law enforcement and the people we serve. We are dedicated to working collaboratively with community leaders, organizations, and residents to ensure public safety and promote a sense of security for all.

We remain committed to continuous improvement, education, and training within our department. We will strive to create an inclusive and equitable environment that reflects the values and expectations of the diverse Antioch community.”

Information as of Monday, June 17, 2024. Source: POST

6 Face Possible Permanent Decertification

Beyond being terminated from their positions, six former Antioch Police officers face possible decertification. According to the California Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) police officers can face decertification for Serious Misconduct. That is defined by the Commission as follows:

  1. Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer.
  2. Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
  3. Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.
  4. Sexual assault as described in subdivision (b) of Penal Code §832.7, and shall extend to acts committed amongst members of any law enforcement agency.
  5. Demonstrating bias on the basis of actual or perceived race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
  6. Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public.
  7. Participation in a law enforcement gang.
  8. Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct.
  9. Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances.

Five Types of Decertification

The commission publishes the names of any peace officer whose certification is suspended or revoked and the basis for the suspension or revocation. There are five types of decertification:

Ineligible – An individual has been disqualified from eligibility to be a peace officer based on a disqualifying event as set forth in Government Code section 1029.

Revoked – The peace officer has been decertified and may not exercise the duties and powers of a peace officer. A revocation is permanent, and the certification shall not be reactivated.

Voluntary Surrender or Surrender – A person who holds a certificate issued by the commission, knowingly and willingly, returns the certificate to the commission, forfeiting all rights and privileges associated with that certificate. A “surrender” has the same effect of a revocation in that it cannot be reactivated.

Immediate Temporary Suspension or Temporary Suspension – The immediate suspension of a peace officer’s certification, pending the outcome of an investigation related to allegations of serious misconduct, pursuant to Penal Code section 13510.8(d). The “temporary suspension” may be issued under the following circumstances:

  • When a peace officer is arrested or indicted for a felony or other crime listed in GC§ 1029,
  • When a peace officer is discharged from a law enforcement agency for serious misconduct, or
  • When a peace officer has separated from employment as a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct.

The temporary suspension remains in effect until either a final determination is made by the Commission or the Executive Director withdraws the “temporary suspension” if a withdrawal is deemed to be warranted

Suspension – a disciplinary action of the Commission wherein a peace officer certification has been suspended for a specified period of time, not to exceed three years. A peace officer whose certification has been suspended may not be assigned duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers.

The six officers have all been fired from their positions with the Antioch Police Department but each of their certifications as police officers are currently under Temporary Suspension as of Monday, June 17, 2024. The list is updated weekly on Monday mornings:

Current APD Staffing

Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington reported earlier this month to the Police Oversight Commission the names of all the sworn officers currently on the force, including 17 currently on paid leave. As of yesterday, there are now 76 sworn officers in the department out of 115 in the budget approved by the city council and additional officers will be sworn in next week.

Elder Abuse Signs and Legal Remedies virtual workshop June 14

By Leave a Comment

June is Elder Abuse Awareness Month; June 15th is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

Deadline to register: June 13 at 8:30 AM

By Susan Kim, Executive Director, Family Justice Center

Did you know…One in ten Americans aged 60 or older experiences some form of elder abuse? Elders who have been abused are 300% more likely to die than their peers.

Emily Milstein , Staff Attorney for Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, will provide training on Elder Abuse Signs and Legal Remedies during a virtual workshop training on Friday, June 14, 2024, from 10:00-11:30 AM.

The Contra Costa Elder Abuse Prevention Project (EAPP) prevents and combats elder abuse through an active community network that raises awareness and coordinates services.

Visit cocoelderjustice.org for more information about EAPP.

To register for the training click, here.

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

By Leave a Comment

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.

CA Department of Justice clears Antioch Police of criminal charges in 2021 officer-involved shooting

By Leave a Comment

Cover of CA DOJ Policy and Practice Recommendations for APD and Figure 1. photograph from Brentwood Police Department drone footage showing Guadalupe Zavala taking aim and shooting at a police drone. Source: CA DOJ

Guadalupe Zavala caused 6-hour stand-off ending in his death while unarmed; son later sued City of Antioch

CA DOJ “commends APD” for manner in which they handled situation

CA Attorney General issues “policy and practices recommendations”

By California Department of Justice

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), today released a report on Guadalupe Zavala’s death from an officer-involved shooting involving the Antioch Police Department in Antioch, California on December 10, 2021. The report is part of the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ongoing efforts to provide transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. The report provides a detailed analysis of the incident and outlines DOJ’s findings. After a thorough investigation, DOJ concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate in this case. However, DOJ recognizes the important lessons to be learned from this incident. As required by AB 1506, the Attorney General has issued specific policy and practice recommendations related to the incident.

Figure 2: Distance between Mr. Zavala’s house and the location where Officer Duggar and Sergeant Chang were when they fired their shots. Figure 6: This image shows that the distance between Officer Rombough and Detective McDonald (both positioned on the Antioch armored vehicle) and were about 103 feet from Mr. Zavala when they fired. Source: CA DOJ

“Loss of life is always a tragedy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “AB 1506 is a critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope for this report is to provide some understanding and aid in advancing towards a safer California for all. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to working together with all law enforcement partners to ensure an unbiased, transparent, and accountable legal system for every resident of California.”

Figure 11: Bullet holes photographed in residence neighboring Mr. Zavala’s home where neighbors reported shots fired by Mr. Zavala. Figures 11A&B: Bullets holes in neighbor’s vehicles outside Mr. Zavala’s residence. Source: CA DOJ

On December 10, 2021, Antioch Police Department responded to multiple calls regarding a man who was barricaded in his home with a rifle after shooting at neighboring homes and vehicles. A standoff lasting more than six hours ensued, during which Mr. Zavala fired multiple rounds from various locations towards law enforcement personnel, vehicles, and nearby residences. De-escalation measures, communications from the crisis negotiations team, and attempts to coerce Mr. Zavala from his residence were unsuccessful. At one point, Mr. Zavala exited his front door carrying what appeared to be a “full AR-15 style rifle.” Two snipers with the Antioch Police Department each fired one round hitting Mr. Zavala, causing him to fall back. However, because Mr. Zavala was wearing body armor, he was able to regain his footing and moved back inside the residence. Later, a fire started in Mr. Zavala’s home, and he ran out and took cover in his backyard. When law enforcement knocked down the fence of Mr. Zavala’s yard with an armored vehicle, Mr. Zavala ran towards the armored vehicle and was fatally shot.

Zavala’s son, Diego Zavala, joined in a 2023 federal lawsuit against the City of Antioch and six Antioch Police officers. (See related articles here, here and here)

Figure 25: Still frame from armored vehicle video of Mr. Zavala getting up halfway after the first round of shots were fired by officers. Figure 4: Mr. Zavala lying prone outside the North side of his home, under a barbecue, with what the helicopter reported to possibly be a handgun in his hands (circled). Figure 9: Cellphone image from Mr. Zavala’s phone from the day of the incident. Source: CA DOJ

Under AB 1506, which requires DOJ to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state. DOJ conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that the evidence does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers. As such, no further action will be taken in this case.

Figure 19. Assault rifle found in the hallway of a bedroom in Mr. Zavala’s residence. Figure 21. Ballistic vest recovered from the backyard. Figure 23: A box of unfired .40 caliber S&W ammunition found in the safe of the master bedroom of Mr. Zavala’s residence. Source: DOJ

CA DOJ “Commends APD” for How They Handled Situation

In addition, the report shows the California DOJ Police Practices Section conducted a supplemental review of the information and “PPS commends APD for the manner in which they handled this volatile, dangerous situation, coordinating with neighboring agencies, exploring less-lethal options, and rapidly deploying the SWAT and CNT teams to the incident to attempt to achieve a peaceful surrender.”

Source: CA DOJ

CA DOJ Recommendations

As part of its investigation, DOJ has identified several policy recommendations that it believes will help prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. These recommendations include:

COMMUNICATION

Antioch Police Department should ensure that officers are equipped with effective communications devices that can operate in the hilly areas covered by their department. Antioch Police Department can seek additional coverage or upgrades through their department-issued cell phone or radio carriers or, if that is impracticable or not feasible, examine whether there are other cell phone carriers or radio channels that would work in all areas they serve.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

Antioch Police Department should ensure that their officers can effectively and efficiently communicate with officers from other agencies in future incidents by setting up regional radio channel systems for interagency communication.

See CA DOJ APD Policy Recommendations from Zavala_AB1506 Report

Emails were sent early Friday afternoon to Acting Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington, Antioch Police Officers Association leaders and their attorney, Mike Rains for comment on the report, as well as City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Addington and Rains with questions regarding the 2023 lawsuit that included Zavala’s son. The efforts were unsuccessful prior to publication time, except for a response by Rains.

Early Friday evening he said, “That was good news from the DOJ. I think the findings were appropriate. The DOJ does a very good job, in my opinion, in these 1506 cases analyzing the facts and clearing the officers of any wrongdoing. I also see the PPS commends the department for de-escalation.”

About the lawsuit Rains said, “I don’t know on the civil side if the lawsuit is settled or not,” as Rains’ firm does not represent former officer Eric Rombough.

“We represented the officers in the 1506 case, including Duggar and Chang, who were the two primary officers who fired their weapons and were part of the DOJ investigation,” he added.

A copy of the complete report can be found here.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.