Contra Costa Herald

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

Civil rights group sends formal legal letter to Contra Costa supervisors to ensure county stops violating churches’ constitutional rights

By Leave a Comment

Claims “Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection”

“…the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship.”

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 a formal legal letter was by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty, to members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, to ensure county health services staff follows through with their commitment to change the requirement to a recommendation that places of worship gather names and contact information of those who attend services and provide it to the county upon request. (See related articles, here, here and here). In addition, the letter points out that the county’s health order limiting indoor services to 12 people also violates the Constitution. – 2020.06.10_HDhillon CAL Letter to Contra Costa County

June 10, 2020

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

651 Pine Street

Martinez, CA 94553

Re: Unconstitutional Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17, Specifically Regarding “Additional Businesses” (section 3 of Appendix C-1, Updated June 5, 2020)

Dear Board of Supervisors:

We write today, on behalf of clients in Contra Costa County, to demand the immediate rescission of Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 (the “Order”). The Order is concerning for two reasons: (1) Its requirement that houses of worship—and only houses of worship—keep and upon request disclose “a record of attendance” to Contra Costa Health Services violates both state and federally protected rights of associational privacy; (2) Restricting religious gatherings to no more than 12 participants violates First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. And while we appreciate the County’s recent announcement that it plans to revise its requirement that houses of worship keep and disclose attendance lists, until such plans manifest, we reiterate our objection over its current text.

  1. Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government actors from enforcing any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U. S. Const. amend. I; see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940) (applying the First Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment). Under strict scrutiny, the government cannot burden religious activity unless it first establishes (1) a compelling interest for imposing such burdens, and (2) that the burdens are the “least restrictive means” necessary to further that compelling interest. Federal courts routinely enjoin the enforcement of laws and policies under this standard. See e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 U.S. 520, 524 (1993).

The County’s Order severely burdens religious expression. The Order’s restriction on indoor religious services—limiting the number of participants to 12 persons or 25% of the building’s capacity, whichever is less—does not survive exacting scrutiny in that it is not the least restrictive means to accomplish the County’s interest in public health. Simply put, there are better ways for the County to accomplish its interest in public health that do not burden religious expression as much. For example, restricting participation on a percentage basis only—with respect to facility seating capacity—is a better solution. Twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one thousand looks very different from twelve people in a sanctuary that holds one hundred people.

In other words, percentage-based restrictions accommodate larger houses of worship while satisfying the County’s interest in public health and social distancing.

  1. Restricting Religious Gatherings to 12 Participants Unconstitutionally Violates Right to Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Equal protection requires the state to govern impartially—not draw arbitrary distinctions between

individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objection. City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985).

Here, the County’s 12-person limit on religious gatherings is nothing if not arbitrary. This is more restrictive than statewide health guidelines, according to the California Department of Health for places of worship, which currently limits attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is less; it is unclear where Contra Costa County’s “12 person” idea originates.

Additionally, no other establishment in Contra Costa County is subject to these more restrictive and draconian requirements. Costco, laundromats, marijuana dispensaries, and countless other purely secular entities are not burdened by this arbitrary, 12-person limitation.

On April 14, 2020, the United States Attorney General, William Barr, issued a statement addressing the disparate treatment being afforded to houses of worship.

As we explain in the Statement of Interest, where a state has not acted evenhandedly, it must have a compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship and must ensure that those restrictions are narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest. While we believe that during this period there is a sufficient basis for the social distancing rules that have been put in place, the scope and justification of restrictions beyond that will have to be assessed based on the circumstances as they evolve.

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true more so than ever during this difficult time. The pandemic has changed the ways Americans live their lives. Religious communities have rallied to the critical need to protect the community from the spread of this disease by making services available online and in ways that otherwise comply with social distancing guidelines.

The County may not treat houses of worship as second class entities; at a minimum, it must treat them equitably with respect to secular counterpart. Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17 does the opposite—it targets houses of worship with more burdensome restrictions.

III. The Order Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Right to Privacy Under State Law

The right to privacy is an inalienable right under California law.3 This privacy interest irrefutably extends to participation in religious gatherings.

In Church of Hakeem, Inc. v. Superior Court, Alameda County, 110 Cal. App. 3d 384 (Ct. App. 1980), the court expressly declined to mandate disclosure of member names and addresses, even after allegations of criminal activity or wrongdoing by the church. In City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 2 Cal. 3d 259 (Ct. App. 1970), the court affirmed a list of freedoms afforded constitutional protections, such as the freedom of association and privacy in one’s associations, encompassing privacy of the membership lists of a constitutionally valid organization. In Pacific Union Club v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. App 3d 60 (Ct. App. 1991), the court provided a robust analysis of associational rights and ultimately upheld a private club’s right not to disclose member lists.

Applied here, Contra Costa County’s Order requiring houses of worship to create and preserve the names and contact information of those in attendance at a worship service or ceremony, and then disclose such information “immediately upon request” unconstitutionally violates privacy rights while chilling religious expression. Whether gathering for political, social, or religious reasons, the right of association is sacrosanct. Unfortunately, the County’s Order deprives Californians their right to pray, worship, repent, and seek spiritual guidance privately. Rather, the Order subjects their most intimate religious activities to potential publication.

3 “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 1
  1. The Order Violates Right to Privacy Protected by Federal Law

The “Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Ala. Ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958). Citing American Communications Ass’n, C.I.O., v Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402 (1950), the Court explained,

‘A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature.’ Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particular where a group espouses dissident beliefs.

Here, Contra Costa County’s Order tramples Californians’ right to privacy and in doing so, violates the Due Process Clause. Similar to the state of Alabama in NAACP v. Alabama, Contra County is requiring houses of worship to disclose the identities of congregants gathering to worship. And similar to the state of Alabama, this mandatory disclosure of religious expression “curtails the freedom to associate,” “denying “the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and is “subject to the closest scrutiny.” Id. at 460-61.

  1. Attendance Recordation Requirement Violates Equal Protection Protected by Federal Law.

By the Order’s express terms, the Order discriminates against places of worship by requiring places of worship to create and maintain attendee lists, yet the Order places no other such burdens on any other non-religious establishment whatsoever. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “a law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993). Further, “A law is not generally applicable if its prohibitions substantially under include non-religiously motivated conduct that might endanger the same governmental interest that the law is designed to protect.” Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 542–46). So, “In other words, if a law pursues the government’s interest ‘only against conduct motivated by religious belief,’ but fails to include in its prohibitions substantial, comparable secular conduct that would similarly threaten the government’s interest, then the law is not generally applicable.” Id.

The County fails this standard. Houses of worship are uniquely burdened by this public disclosure requirement. And again, no other entity appears to be subjected to this standard.

In conclusion, we believe the County’s Order violates federal and state law while unashamedly discriminating against houses of worship. For these reasons, the Center for American Liberty respectfully requests that Contra Costa Health Services Order NO. HO-COVID19-17, requiring houses of worship to record and disclosure attendance at religious services, be either rescinded or amended to cure its constitutional defects. We look forward to hearing your response.

Regards,

Harmeet K. Dhillon

cc: John Gioia, Candace Anderson, Diane Burgis, Karen Mitchoff, Federal D. Glover

Richmond unions including police and firefighters to protest Tuesday over proposed service cuts

By 4 Comments

Video screenshot of Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 9, 2020. From YouTube.

“Denounce and decry…tone deaf, irresponsible and unreasonable actions.”

Car caravan protest to be held Tuesday in downtown Richmond.

By Chris Flink, Communications Specialist, SEIU Local 1021

During the Tuesday, June 9 2020 meeting of the Richmond City Council, Mayor Tom Butt facetiously introduced a motion to “defund the police department and save seventy million dollars”. (See https://youtu.be/hZ5RTBtwxu8?t=16934; at the 4 hours, 42 minutes, 14 seconds mark) Richmond is facing budget shortfalls, and has been investigating ways to close gaps between income and expenditures. During that process five unions worked to identify creative and common-sense ways to close those gaps without layoffs and service cuts, which would deny Richmond residents important services and take good jobs away from the city.

After Mayor Butt’s announcement, the unions and Contra Costa Labor Council wrote the Mayor and all City Council members the letter below.

A car caravan protest will be held Tuesday, June 16, at 4:30 p.m., starting at Richmond’s Main Library located at 325 Civic Center Plaza.

June 11, 2020

Richmond City Council

440 Civic Center Plaza

Richmond, CA 94804

Mayor Butt & Councilmembers,

The Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO and Richmond City Employee Unions copied herein (Fire Fighters Local 188, IFPTE Local 21, RPOA, RPMA and SEIU Local 1021) denounce and decry the Mayor’s tone deaf, irresponsible and unreasonable actions at the Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 9. When the community stands up, proclaims Black Lives Matter, and demands change, that community deserves better than a Mayor sarcastically making a motion to do away with Richmond’s police force. The Mayor’s comments were intended to be divisive and trivialized the serious work Richmond City Employee Unions have done to find needed solutions to the City’s budget shortfall.

Richmond City Employee Unions and their membership come to the bargaining table in good faith, intending to serve the community and make Richmond a fair, equitable place that works for all of its residents. It is clear and disappointing that the Mayor is not engaging in these conversations in good faith. In this time of global pandemic and a looming economic crisis, Richmond’s residents and workforce deserve leadership from the Mayor’s office, not trolling and tantrums.

On Tuesday, June 16, at 4:30 p.m., community and labor groups will join together for a car caravan in Richmond to continue the serious dialogue in the need for city services.

Signed,

Contra Costa Labor Council, AFL-CIO

Fire Fighters Local 188

IFPTE Local 21

Richmond Police Officers Association

Richmond Police Managers Association

SEIU Local 1021

The motion by Butt was tabled on a 4-3 vote led by Councilmember Nathaniel Bates to  “table the entire discussion”, with Council Members Eduardo Martinez and Melvin Williams joining the mayor in opposing it, wanting further discuss ion of the idea.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Con Fire and Concord Police arrest transient woman for Concord RV fire

By 1 Comment

Emergency crews extinguish RV fire on Port Chicago Highway under the Hwy 242 overpass. Suspect Jade McCoy, a Concord transient was arrested. Photos courtesy of ConFire.

By Steve Hill, Public Information Officer, Con Fire

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) announced today the arrest of a suspect in the recreational vehicle (RV) fire that burned under Highway 4 in Concord earlier this week.

The fire in question took place June 8, 2020 with the first call coming in at 3:27 p.m. An investigation was immediately conducted by the District’s Fire Investigations Unit, and Concord Police with a suspect identified and arrest made without incident on June 8 just after 5 p.m.

Arrested was Jade McCoy, a Concord-area transient, date of birth April 22, 1993.  McCoy, who was on probation from a previous arson conviction for setting an exterior fire in 2019, was arrested after investigation by FIU and Concord PD revealed she intentionally set the fire in the RV. McCoy and her boyfriend had been living in the RV parked on Port Chicago Highway under Highway 4. The arson occurred after a verbal altercation between the two parties. Her possible involvement in other recent fires in the area is currently under investigation.

McCoy is in custody in the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Detention Center in Martinez.  Concord Police filed the case with the District Attorney on June 9 and action is pending.

Investigation revealed a woman seen at the scene around the time of the fire to be the likely responsible party. A short while later, around 5 p.m., Concord Police located the suspect in the vicinity near Olivera Road and Esperanza Drive. Con Fire FIU investigators responded to that scene, interviewed the suspect and determined she was responsible for the blaze, placing her under arrest. She was handcuffed and transported to the Martinez Detention Facility by Concord Police where she was again interviewed by FIU.

The RV fire was initially reported by several parties beginning just before 3:30 p.m. on June 8. Arriving on scene moments later at 3:41, Con Fire’s Battalion Chief 2 reported a fully involved RV on fire under the highway.

In all, 21 fire personnel from Con Fire and the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord’s Federal Fire Department responded to the fire with two Type 1 fire engines, three Type 3 fire engines, two ambulances, a medical supervisor and a fire investigator. Concord Police and the California Highway Patrol also responded to the scene. At 3:42 p.m., the incident commander reported the fire under control.

There were no injuries to responding personnel or civilians.

As fire season arrives, reduction of services ahead for East Contra Costa Fire Protection District

By Leave a Comment

By Steve Aubert, Fire Marshal/Public Information Officer, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District

Brentwood, CA — East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD), the local fire agency serving Brentwood and Oakley Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory announced Wednesday, that due to severe under-funding, it has been forced to take new, urgent measures to maintain its extremely limited operations and keep firefighters safe.

Starting July 1, the Fire District will only send firefighters inside a burning building if human life is at risk. Due to the extreme conditions resulting from a 3-station deficit, ECCFPD firefighters are being forced to spread themselves across 3 stations not 6, covering 250 square miles. This is pushing our firefighters to their limits as they respond to twice as many calls for help. Furthermore, the added strain of unbalanced “automatic aid” agreements with other county fire departments are becoming unsustainable. ECCFPD must now focus on containing the fire to the structure involved. Unfortunately, this defensive first operation strategy raises the safety risk factors for families, businesses, and for property within our communities just as the 2020 fire season is getting underway. Also announced by ECCFPD on Wednesday: all public outreach events and station visits will be eliminated indefinitely.

The safety risk of being under-funded and short 3 fire stations is real and growing, according to ECCFPD Fire Chief Brian Helmick. “In fire emergencies, every second counts. When a fire or emergency strikes, you need help fast. Response times matter. Delayed response times can allow a fire to double in size every 30 seconds. But our reality is that East Contra Costa communities, your homes, businesses, and your families will, on average, face slower responses than national standards recommend, when you call 911.”

“Due to severe under-funding, our firefighters are continually overrun responding to calls, maintaining required training and trying to be active in public education. We must take necessary steps to save lives and provide the safest environment for our workforce, so firefighters are ready and able to answer the call when it comes,” Chief Helmick added.

“These are not steps we want to take – and candidly, they may not be the last. We may have to consider other, even more drastic measures” said Chief Helmick, adding, “The reality is, we have to live within our means and keep our firefighters safe. We are working tirelessly to address our severe funding shortfall, including correcting past oversights and renegotiating developer fees and other fees that should have been put into place decades ago. We are also practicing full transparency, asking our community for input, and continuously LISTENING in every direction. Our goal is to find common ground that helps shape a local ballot measure that our community can support, authorizing a new, stable and reliable (i.e. guaranteed, sustainable and sufficient) local funding source that secures adequate ECCFPD fire protection in the future and that doesn’t take resources away from our public service partners.”

Learn more at www.eccfpd.org.

ABOUT THE EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT:

The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) is a rural-funded fire district that currently operates 3 fire stations and has a 3-station deficit. The District protects a population of more than 128,000 across its 249 square-mile service area. ECCFPD provides firefighting personnel, emergency medical services (basic life support) and fire prevention to the residents and businesses of the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and unincorporated communities of Discovery Bay, Bethel Island, Knightsen, Byron, Marsh Creek, and Morgan Territory. Learn more at www.eccfpd.org or social media via Facebook (East Contra Costa Fire Protection District), Instagram(@east_contra_costa_

Civil rights organization issues legal statement on Contra Costa’s requirement churches gather worshippers’ information

By 1 Comment

May also challenge 12-person or 25% capacity limit for indoor services

Following is the statement from the Center for American Liberty’s Founder Harmeet K. Dhillon concerning the Contra Costa Health Services Order No. HO-COVID19-17. (See related article)

“The Center for American Liberty was contacted recently regarding the June 5, 2020 Order issued from Contra Costa Health Services (Order No. HO-COVID19-17). This Order was concerning for several reasons and we intend to formally reach out to Contra Costa County with an analysis of our concerns.

The June 5, 2020 Order, as presently written, specifically singles out places of worship by requiring that places of worship in Contra Costa County create and preserve a list of persons in attendance, and then disclose such attendance list upon request to the government – a burden that is notably not placed on other establishments in Contra Costa County. Such burden is unconstitutional and is discriminatory on its face.

The California Constitution provides certain inalienable rights, including the right to privacy, to freely assemble, and to enjoy one’s religion – Californians deserve to freely worship and assemble without fear that his or her name and address will end up in a government database. The Center for American Liberty welcomes any official change to this June 5, 2020 Order and will continue to be vigilant about any attempts to discriminate against houses of worship or people of faith in California.

Additionally, the June 5, 2020 Order currently limits houses of worship to a 12 person or 25% limit (whichever is fewer), which is arbitrary, and we will also be monitoring, and potentially challenging, this disparate burden on places of worship and people of faith in Contra Costa County.”

Contra Costa backs off requiring worship service attendees give names, contact info, will now recommend churches gather it

By 5 Comments

By Allen Payton

Contra Costa County health officials are backing down on their requirement in the latest order issued June 5 that places of worship gather names and information of all attendees, keep it for 14 days and provide it to the county immediately upon request. According to a statement issued Tuesday morning, “health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement.”

The action comes following a series of email exchanges between the Herald and county supervisors and staff over the past several days about the requirement, an article on the matter and public outrage on social media challenging the constitutionality of the requirement, the inconsistent and unfair application to only places of worship, and no other organization or business, including protesters or restaurants offering outdoor dining in which people sit for extended periods of time with their masks off in order to it.

A legal effort was in the works as of Monday, with several residents agreeing to sign on to a legal demand letter to be sent to the county. But that now appears to be unnecessary.

Following is the Statement Regarding Requirements for Religious Gatherings

“In the health order issued June 5 by Contra Costa Health Services, religious organizations were required to maintain a list of attendees at religious services and cultural ceremonies in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. The intention was to facilitate quick, complete contact tracing if a participant at the event tests positive.

Health officers will be working with county attorneys to revise the order to reflect this as a recommendation but not a requirement. If a participant tests positive for COVID-19, the host will be asked to assist CCHS with contact tracing associated with the gathering.

To mitigate the risk of transmission to the greatest extent possible, CCHS encourages participants to wear face coverings at all times, maintain social distance when possible, practice good hand hygiene, and stay home if sick.”

According to Kim McCarl, Assistant to the Director of Contra Costa Health Services for Communications, “As we revise the language, the recommendation will apply to any allowed gatherings.”

Two from Antioch die in crash on 680 in Danville by wrong-way DUI driver from Concord Sunday

By 1 Comment

By CHP – Contra Costa

Early yesterday morning, Sunday, June 7, 2020, at about 3:45am, Contra Costa CHP was advised of a wrong way driver traveling southbound in the northbound lanes of I-680 near El Pintado road, in the Danville area. The wrong way vehicle then collided head on into a vehicle traveling in the northbound lanes of I-680. Upon emergency personnel and CHP arrival, the solo female driver of the wrong way vehicle was located and detained and had suffered non-life-threatening injuries. Tragically the female driver and male passenger of the victim vehicle that was hit by the wrong way driver, were both declared deceased at the scene. A secondary non-injury collision occurred with the victim fatality vehicle shortly after the original wrong way collision. The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Coroner’s Office will be handling the release of identity of the deceased female driver and deceased male passenger.

In our initial investigation, it appears the female driver of the wrong way vehicle (Camille Veraanne Kimball, 27 years old from Concord, driving a 2020 Ford Fusion) was driving southbound in the northbound lanes of I-680, north of El Pintado road. The victim vehicle (2012 Honda Civic) driven by a 46-year-old female from Antioch with her 26-year-old male front passenger also from Antioch, was traveling in the northbound lanes of I-680 at El Pintado road. Kimball continued to drive her Ford wrong way on I-680 and crashed head on into the victim’s Honda, just north of El Pintado. Tragically the driver and the passenger of the Honda did not survive and were both pronounced deceased at the scene.

Kimball suffered non-life-threatening injuries and was transported to John Muir hospital. Kimball was also suspected of driving under the influence/impaired. While at the hospital, Kimball was investigated and arrested for felony DUI and vehicular manslaughter. Due to her injuries, she was admitted to the hospital and will remain there until discharged into police custody for booking into the county jail.

This incident is still under investigation. If anyone witnessed this collision, the wrong way Ford Fusion vehicle prior to the collision, or the events leading up to the collision, please contact Contra Costa CHP in Martinez at (925) 646-4980. Thank you.

Contra Costa’s updated Road Ahead includes indoor religious services, bars to reopen July 1st

By Leave a Comment

According to Kim McCarl, the county health services communications assistant, the “guidelines will be the same as the state’s”. No word on if the requirement to create lists of the names and contact information of all attendees to be given to the county upon demand will still be included. (See related article)

Brentwood Councilwoman issues statement on murder of George Floyd, violence and policing

By 35 Comments

From Karen Rarey – Brentwood City Council Facebook page, June 6, 2020

Brentwood Councilwoman Karen Rarey. From her City Council Facebook page.

REVISED 6/10/20 – To honor the request of my daughter-in-law, a small portion of my statement has been edited to keep private matters private.

MY SINCEREST MESSAGE TO OUR COMMUNITY:

As a White woman, I can tell you that I will never fully understand the pain, fear, anger and sadness that a Black person may encounter in their lifetime. Emotions as a human being, equal to all others, that NO PERSON should EVER have to go through.

What I can share with you is that along with the love I have for my son and his wife, a beautiful Black woman, and my two beautiful granddaughters, I also experience fear and worry for them. Why? Because there are people in the world who can’t look past the color of someone’s skin.

I’ve feared and worried for them when they’ve talk about moving to a new town, as not all towns are accepting of African Americans or of an interracial couple. They have been fortunate to find one that is, but that is not true for everyone.

I want the world, or at least I’d like to start with Brentwood and help to make it more inclusive, not just for my daughter-in-law and my grandchildren, but for every person, no matter the color of their skin.

On Friday, at my League of California Cities Public Safety Policy Committee, we all agreed it was vital for us, as the Public Safety Policy Committee, to make a statement relative to combating violence, condemning the murder of George Floyd and actionable measures for cities moving forward.

We spent several hours crafting a statement, which is being forwarded to the League Board for consideration at its next meeting.

Whether the League Board publicly issues this statement, or some form of it, as the person who seconded the motion on the original statement, I feel it is important to share the six main principles of our message:

  • We condemn the murder of George Floyd as horrific, tragic and unacceptable, not only in Minneapolis, but in any community in this country.
  • We denounce violence in all its forms; including against people and property, but recognize the urgency and significance of this moment, and call for special attention to be given to violence against black lives, and call on all cities and communities in California to create spaces dedicated to listening to and taking the action steps necessary to address the concerns raised by citizen-based movements, such as Black Lives Matter.
  • Cities must lead by working toward structural reforms that build public trust for law enforcement by focusing on the action steps that will ensure black, brown, indigenous, and other communities of color are safe and equal members of society.
  • Call on all cities to advance policies that promote the hiring of officers who reflect the communities they serve.
  • Provide greater access, transparency, and community oversight to issues of police misconduct as a means of building trust and restoring justice to impacted communities.
  • Ask all cities to adopt the pillars of 21st Century Policing and to support review of existing policies and practices to ensure the equitable protection of the freedoms and rights of all citizens.

Back between 2002-2012, Brentwood had a Diversity Committee, formed to foster racial harmony within our community. The co-chair of the committee has already reached out to our Police Chief to let him know that he has been reactivating members to help spur discussions as to what needs to change.

I spoke with our City Manager this week and told him that I too wanted to be part of that group.

I think it’s important to say that I believe the members of the Brentwood Police Department are professionals and they do a phenomenal job, something I’ve experienced firsthand during ride-a-longs, in the police station and out in public.

Does that mean that there aren’t changes that need to take place? The answer is no, there is ALWAYS room to improve the way we do things.

After the incident in Minneapolis, our PD’s Defensive Tactics Instructor Cadre viewed the incident as an opportunity to revisit relevant aspects of the department’s Use of Force policy and to review appropriate tactics for controlling a prone, handcuffed suspect.

Your voice is important to me – If you feel there is change that needs to take place here in Brentwood, I want to hear from you. I can be reached at krarey@brentwoodca.gov.

For now, I will pray for healing and acceptance in our nation, but especially for healing and acceptance in our community.

Yours Sincerely,

Karen Rarey

Council Member

City of Brentwood

#blacklivesmatter #wecandobetterinbrentwood

 

New Contra Costa health order requires churches gather names and contact info of all worship service attendees and give it to county upon demand

By 41 Comments

By Allen Payton

In his Friday, June 5, 2020 order, Contra Costa County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano now allows religious services to hold outdoor worship services of up to 100 people and indoor worship services of up to 12 people. (See related article)

However, buried deep within the order, in Section 3, Subsection B3 of “Appendix C1 – Additional Businesses” the order requires “A record of attendance, including the names and contact information for each attendee at a service or ceremony, must be created and preserved by the Place of Worship for a minimum of 14 days, and provided to Contra Costa Health Services immediately upon request in the event that a COVID-19 case is linked to the event.”

An email was sent to all five members of the County Board of Supervisors and county health services communications staff, in an attempt to reach Dr. Farnitano, Saturday evening with the following questions.

  • Are you also requiring protest organizers to provide a list of those who attend them?
  • Or restaurants to provide you a list of diners who enjoy outdoor dining at their locations?
  • How would anyone know a COVID-19 case was linked to an outdoor worship service of up to 100 people or an indoor one of up to 12 people?
  • Don’t you think you’ve infringed on the First Amendment rights of people of faith in our county enough already?
  • Don’t you think this goes way too far?
  • Was the county counsel consulted before this was included in the order?

Four of the members of the board were also sent text messages asking them to check their emails for the message.

Supervisor John Gioia, who was an attorney before being elected to the board in 1998, responded first via text message with, “Yes. It’s to keep track of people who are in contact with someone who tests positive. For contact tracing. And have them isolate for 14 days if they test positive.”

When asked again if protesters are required to give their names and information and what about restaurants that serve outdoor diners, he simply responded, “It’s a fine balance. I understand the arguments on both sides.”

Board Chair Candace Andersen responded by email with, “Karen (Mitchoff) and I chair at COVID Ad Hoc Committee each Thursday at 1:30 pm (available to all via Zoom). This week we had Dr. Farnitano explain this provision at our meeting. It’s simply there so that if there is a COVID outbreak, a church could make the names of attendees available so that they could be traced/tracked and notified that they may have been exposed. The only time these names would be requested is if there was, in fact, someone who came down with COVID in the congregation.”

“In a workplace or at a school the Health Department would also request the names of everyone who was present and exposed to someone who tested positive for COVID. In those settings the names would already be available because of the nature of the business,” she continued. “I will ask our Health Team to put an FAQ up so that its purpose can be clarified.”

In response, another email was sent to Andersen, Mitchoff, and the county health services communications staff, asking for answers to the questions from the first email that were not answered by Andersen.

The requirement from the June 5th order was shared on social media and almost all the comments about it were negative such as, “Do businesses with thousands of people going in and out need to record all of this? I go to many businesses and my name is never recorded, unless it is a dentist or something,” and “That is so crazy…are we still in the USA? Or is this a bad dream?”

Another commenter asked, “How about the names of the thousands of…protestors before they go out and the looters too?” Another comment reads, “I’ve wondered how they are tracking all the people at Walmart, Target and Home Depot. They don’t take attendance there.”

“Ridiculous! Control! Why not other businesses? Only churches?” asked another commenter. “I won’t attend until that changes. My name isn’t going on any list,” wrote another.

One pastor wrote, “That’s too far” and another wrote, “I’m not doing that. They don’t do that with Walmart, Home Depot, etc.”

The Bill of Rights are limitations on the power of government. It can be argued that the requirement in the county’s health order violates both the First and Fourth Amendment rights religion, peaceful assembly and privacy, of both the worship service attendees and those of the places of worship.

The First Amendment mentions religion first in the list of rights, because that is the first reason our nation was founded, going back to the Pilgrims in 1620. It reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That applies to any state law, county or city ordinance, regulation or order, as well.

The Fourth Amendment refers to what is described as the right to privacy. It reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So, a church or other place of worship could require the county to provide a warrant to obtain the information the order requires.

6/7/20 UPDATE: Chair Andersen Responds

In an email received by the Herald on Sunday afternoon, June 7, Board of Supervisors Chair Candace Andersen offered the following responses to some of the questions posed to her and the rest of the board members and Dr. Farnitano:

“How would anyone know a COVID-19 case was linked to an outdoor worship service of up to 100 people or an indoor one of up to 12 people? That’s why we have contract tracing in place. We would track/trace people at both venues to make sure others who were exposed are tested, thus preventing a serious outbreak.

Don’t you think you’ve infringed on the First Amendment rights of people of faith in our county enough already? In a worldwide pandemic of this scope we are continually balancing the health of the community versus any limitations we need to impose upon the public. I really miss going to church. For my entire life I have gone every single Sunday unless I was home sick. However, I can see how it is for the greater good to NOT have live church services where we could potentially be exposing each other to a horrible virus. And, I continue to worship at home with my family, with fellow church members via Zoom and YouTube, through reading scriptures, listening to uplifting music, and finding new ways to connect spiritually. Yes, it’s different than it was, but I also know it is only temporary. More importantly, “the State” is not telling me how or who I should be worshipping, only that it is unsafe to gather as a congregation right now. As you know, the State Supreme Court has agreed that in this emergency we’re in, this is an acceptable limitation.

Don’t you think this goes way too far? Was the county counsel consulted before this was included in the order? All Health Orders have County Counsel’s review before they are implemented. I would be concerned if churches were mandated to report attendance each week, but they’re not. No one is reviewing the attendance or calling out who is or is not there. Churches are just being asked to be in a position to identify who was present at a service so that if there is an outbreak, the affected people can be notified and tested.”

However, the recent ruling in the case before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with government requiring places of worship to collect the names and contact information of those who attend worship services and provide it upon request.

A more complete question was sent to her and Dr. Farnitano asking, “how would anyone know a COVID-19 case was linked to an outdoor worship service of up to 100 people or an indoor one of up to 12 people if that same attendee participated in a number of other activities, both indoor and outdoor, during the week?

Possible legal action can be expected against the county in the very near future.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.