Contra Costa Herald

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

Writer disagrees with Op-Ed on Prop 15 – Schools and Communities Funding Act of 2020

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to the recent Op Ed by Jon Coupal and Ernest Dronenberg about Prop 15, the Schools and Communities Funding Act of 2020. Prop 15 will, in fact, preserve all the protections that the 1978 Prop 13 provided to homeowners. And Prop 15 will preserve those property tax protections for Homeowners, Renters, Agricultural properties, and Small Business owners. Prop 15 will only reassess large commercial properties, currently assessed at over $3 million. The rest of the country regularly reassesses commercial properties. I’m sure our county assessors are capable of this work as they did it for many years before 1978.

Mr. Coupal and Mr. Dronenberg did not mention that Prop 15 will close a loophole that presently allows commercial properties to change ownership without being reassessed at their purchase price. When we homeowners purchase property, we have no such avoidance loophole. This loophole has allowed commercial properties to go under-assessed for many years. When this loophole is closed and reassessments are in place, Prop 15 will bring an annual revenue of an estimated $350 million to Contra Costa County.

This is money, that before 1978, the county collected almost equally from homeowners and commercial properties to pay for schools, libraries, street maintenance, local parks, and first responders. Now homeowners pay 72% of these costs.

It is important to note Prop 15 supports small businesses by allowing them to write off 100% of business personal property purchases. Large commercial businesses get to write off $500,000. of these purchases annually.

Prop 15 is about everyone paying their fair share to benefit our communities and our schools. Passing Proposition 15 will help California recover from years of under-investment. Now is the time to reinvest in our future and pass Prop 15.

Sincerely,

Carol Murota

Lafayette, CA

Writer responds – Schools and Communities First: Prop 15

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

This is in response to the recent Op/Ed from Dronenburg and Coupal.

Most of us want similar things: good schools for our children, a healthy family, and safe neighborhoods. But for more than four decades, big corporations have not been paying their fair share, leaving California’s school funding falling behind. California now has the most overcrowded classrooms in the U.S. and some of the worst ratios of counselors, librarians, and nurses per student. This has taken an enormous toll.

Schools & Communities First is not an effort to undo Prop 13- it is simply an effort to ensure that our schools and communities come first – with the resources to educate all of our kids and the services to support all of our families.

It accomplishes this by closing commercial property tax loopholes only- not residences, not agriculture and not small businesses. In fact, it will impact only a small fraction of large corporations.
SCF will reclaim $12 billion every year to fund world-class schools and strengthen local economies to lift up all Californians

It’s time to invest in California again- we cannot afford to wait.

Janet Hoy

Walnut Creek

Election 2020: Proposition 19 is latest assault on taxpayers

By Leave a Comment

OPINION

By Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

The assaults on California property owners and taxpayers never stop. And once again the California Legislature has advanced a massive tax increase at the last possible moment when they thought no one was paying attention.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA11), approved by the California Legislature, takes away Proposition 13 protections that California families have under current law and replaces them with a billion-dollar tax increase. Voters will have an opportunity to reject this scheme come November, as ACA11 will appear on the ballot as Proposition 19.

After the historic passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians finally had certainty about their future property tax liability because increases in the “taxable value” of property were limited to 2 percent per year. Property would be reassessed to market value only when it changed hands. To prevent families from getting hit with huge tax increases, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 58 in 1986, changing the state constitution to ensure that transfers of certain property between parents and children could occur without triggering the sticker shock of reassessment.

Under Prop. 58, a home of any value and up to a million dollars of assessed value of other property may be transferred between parents and children without reassessment. Proposition 19 (2020) would repeal Proposition 58 (1986) and force the reassessment of inherited or transferred property within families. The only exception is if the property is used as the principal residence of the person to whom it was transferred, and even that exclusion is capped.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the repeal of the “intergenerational transfer protections” guaranteed by Props. 58 and 193 will result in 40,000 to 60,000 families getting hit with higher property taxes every year. Prop. 19’s massive tax increase has been included in this initiative to offset another proposed constitutional change: the expansion of the ability for older homeowners to move to a replacement home and transfer their base-year property tax assessment from their previous home to the new property. While this “portability” expansion has some merit, voters rejected this idea in 2018. Oddly, the backers of the proposal think they can sell it again by adding a tax increase.

As ill-advised as Proposition 19 is as matter of policy, the contortions executed by the California Legislature to place it on the ballot were nothing short of bizarre. The primary sponsor of ACA11 was the California Association of Realtors (CAR) which first wrote a similar proposal as an initiative and gathered signatures to put it on the ballot. It appears CAR is motivated by the desire to churn more home sales, even at the expense of a multi-billion-dollar tax increase.

For reasons related to placating progressive Democrats in the Legislature as well as labor unions, CAR wanted to withdraw its previously qualified initiative and have the Legislature replace it with a similar tax increase proposal.

But something funny happened on the way to the ballot. CAR missed the constitutional deadline for withdrawing its initiative, so as a matter of law, it appeared that there would be two nearly identical measures on the ballot, causing confusion, not to mention additional costs. So, Secretary of State Padilla dutifully took the CAR measure off the ballot even though he had already certified it under the procedures set forth in the California Constitution.

Our current political establishment ignores all rules and laws when it comes to achieving a desired political end. And, as usual, the desired end here is billions of dollars in higher property taxes.

In spite of Gov. Newsom’s order, churchgoers will be singing while wearing masks

By 3 Comments

“Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Psalm 94:8

“Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” Acts 5:29

By Allen Payton

As part of his new statewide health orders issued on Wednesday, July 1, California Governor Gavin Newsom included a new requirement that “*Places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities” during worship services. (Note: The asterisk does not refer to anything else in the document) See https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf

Section from California’s July 1, 2020 COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies.

Under the section entitled Considerations for Places of Worship it reads, “Discontinue singing (in rehearsals, services, etc.), chanting, and other practices and performances where there is increased likelihood for transmission from contaminated exhaled droplets.

 

The state’s document, entitled COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies refers to the practice of one’s faith as “personal” as if it’s not supposed to be done in public, like other activities such as protesting.

“Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” the document reads.

However, in response after contacting county officials, leaders of Golden Hills Community Church, one of the larger churches in Eastern Contra Costa County with campuses in Brentwood and Antioch which will hold their first in-person service in 17 weeks on Sunday, July 5, shared with their members that singing while wearing masks will be allowed.

In an email on Friday, June 3 Senior Pastor Phil Ward wrote, “This week both the state and the county announced a ban on ‘singing and chanting’ in houses of worship. Since we now have the ability to gather for in-person worship, and since singing is an essential aspect of Christian worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), we found this prohibition unreasonable because it dictates what is permissible in worship. As a result, we reached out to the governing authorities to express our concern. In response, we were told that singing is permitted so long as masks are being worn—something we already planned to do.”

Although the sanctuary at their Brentwood campus has a capacity of 1,700 people and could easily accommodate 350 people while social distancing, the church will be following the limits of only 100 people per service. They will also utilize their former sanctuary, now used as a multipurpose room, which can also meet the state and county’s limitations of 100 people maximum or 25% of room capacity whichever is less. Finally, the church will be offering four services this Sunday and adding a fifth service, beginning next Saturday night, July 11.

Debate Over Following All Government Laws & Orders

International evangelist and San Francisco native Mario Murillo wrote this week in response to the governor’s order that Christians should not follow such laws or orders because they are evil and go against what God teaches His followers.

“I can’t think of a worse idea than to stop praise and worship because Gavin Newsom told you to,” he wrote. “It’s time to wake up to the sad truth that California has declared war on the church. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to obey them no matter what? Absolutely not. And it is shocking how many believers do not know their Bible or have been given false teaching. There is no verse in the Bible that tells you to obey evil government or laws.”

Many believers often quote a section in the book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7 to support following the government’s orders: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore, you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

However, Murillo quotes other Bible verses that offer the opposite perspective, that believers are only to follow rulers who aren’t evil and laws that aren’t evil.

“It seems to say that we are to honor government in every form, right? Wrong,” he wrote. “Lost in all the quoting of this verse on submission to government is the most important part: The description of the ruling authority.”

Murillo shares that description writing, “they are not a terror to good works” and “they praise good works.”

He also shared what Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3, “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, but do not do.”

“Do what they say, but don’t partake of their hypocrisy,” Murillo explains. “Watch them for that moment when they cross the line and come between you and your God.  Just as our conscience should drive us to obey the law, we should also know when our conscience tells us not to obey an evil law.”

“Here’s when Peter reached that tipping point, speaking to those very same Pharisees,” he continues, quoting Acts 4:18-20, “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’”

Murillo then quoted Acts 5:29 writing, “Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’”

Newsom’s Order is an Evil Law That Must Not Be Followed

“God not only does not endorse evil government: He will have no part in it,” Murillo continues. He then quotes Psalm 94:20 writing, “Can a corrupt throne be allied with you—a throne that brings on misery by its decrees? The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”

“There is your answer. A corrupt throne (government) cannot be allied with God,” he wrote. “In fact, evil laws are the worst form of sin. They provide legitimacy to evil.”

Murillo concludes by quoting German pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident and Christian martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Wearing a Mask While Singing or Chanting Works

So, ordering followers, of at least Christianity and Judaism, to discontinue singing violates what God wants practiced during worship. As it is written in Psalms 98:4, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Therefore Governor Newsom’s order is an evil law that must not be followed. But, for safety’s sake the spirit of the order can be met by wearing masks while singing or chanting in church.

Contra Costa residents urged to celebrate Independence Day by staying at home, to stay safe from COVID-19 on July 4th and remaining dependent on the government

By Leave a Comment

Contra Costa Health Services Coronavirus Dashboard statistics as of Thursday morning, July 2, 2020 at 11:30 a.m.

“the more we come together in groups, the more COVID-19 spreads in the community.” – Dr. Chris Farnitano

By Allen Payton

In a rather ironic announcement Thursday, with reports of COVID-19 spreading rapidly in many Bay Area neighborhoods, members of the Association of Bay Area Health Officers (ABAHO) representing thirteen jurisdictions, urge residents to protect themselves and the community by celebrating Independence Day while remaining at home, under what amounts to house arrest, during the July 4th holiday weekend.

The Fourth of July, the day on which we as a nation celebrate the declaration of our independence from the tyrannical rule of England’s King George III, with his oppressive regulations and taxation, is traditionally a time to celebrate with firework shows, parades and cookouts. But this year the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many community leaders cancelling public events. Gatherings with others from outside your household, such as members of the extended family, are also considered potentially risky, according to the Association of Bay Area Health Officials (ABAHO).

Health officers from across the greater Bay Area say staying home this year is a healthy choice.

“Nobody wants to be cooped up, or to miss out on the holiday,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County Health Officer, a member of ABAHO. “But the more we come together in groups, the more COVID-19 spreads in the community. And the more it spreads, the more it endangers older adults and others at high risk of serious illness.”

So, instead of merely requiring those older adults and others at high risk to stay home, he wants all of us to.

“You can spread COVID-19 even if you don’t feel that sick,” the ABAHO explained in a their press release announcement. “You can pass the disease to someone else before you have symptoms, and even if you never develop any symptoms at all. When infected people come in contact with others who are high-risk, there can be deadly consequences.”

Those deadly consequences have so far amounted to 78 deaths out of 1,115,000 residents in Contra Costa County, or one death in every 14,300 people. Currently there are a total of 41 patients with the virus in our hospitals and not all of them are from our county. At the same time, some county residents who have tested positive are in hospitals in Alameda County. In addition, according to the Contra Costa Health Services Coronavirus Dashboard, as of today at 11:30 a.m. a total of 76,139 people have been tested in our county and 3,326 have contracted the virus. The good news is, to date, 2,311 who have tested positive in Contra Costa have recovered, which means there are currently 896 residents in our county who have the virus and should be staying home under self-quarantine.

Yet because of the risks they have outlined, Bay Area health officers recommend people who are not members of the same household remain physically distant. Unless you choose to follow the county’s guidelines for sexual activity, which can be found, here and recommend that “If you do have sex with others, have as few partners as possible.”

According to the ABAHO, the best ways to protect yourself and slow the spread of COVID-19 include:

  • Continuing to stay home as much as possible
  • Practicing physical distancing outside the home
  • Wearing face coverings or masks when outside your home
  • Avoiding gatherings with people outside your immediate household – (even though Contra Costa allows gathering in groups of 12 people, and as many as 100 if you’re attending an outdoor or indoor worship service or protest. So, be sure if you’re number 101 or more, to please leave and either worship or protest on your own.
  • Washing your hands thoroughly and frequently
  • Staying home from work, school or daycare if you feel sick

Bay Area residents who have symptoms are also encouraged to get tested for COVID-19, and to do so immediately. Check with your local health department for more information about testing and about efforts in your community to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. For more information, please visit cchealth.org/coronavirus.

ABOUT THE ABAHO

The Association of Bay Area Health Officials (ABAHO) represents health officers and other public health professionals from thirteen jurisdictions. ABAHO coordinates and communicates regional messages to save lives, promote and protect health, prevent injury and illness, and improve wellness in the region’s diverse communities. According to an article on CaliforniaHealthLine.org “The alliance, formally called the Association of Bay Area Health Officials, was born in 1985 in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.” That article, entitled “The Inside Story Of How The Bay Area Got Ahead Of The COVID-19 Crisis”, is dated April 21, 2020 a week after Contra Costa experienced it’s peak, so far, of 44 Coronavirus patients in county hospitals on April 14.

The members of the ABAHO and other government leaders have returned us to the days before 1776 with even more oppressive regulations than those of King George, III – who still allowed the colonists to freely worship, go to work, operate their businesses (unless they were seditious newspaper publishers), earn a living, and go about their daily lives – while instilling fear into the populace about the virus, as well as by releasing inmates from federal and state prisons, and county jails, and increasing the national debt in order to keep providing unemployment payments, grants and loans (with interest, further burdening business owners) to most, but not all those who qualify and have been approved, yet who are still waiting to receive even a penny from either the state or federal government, while at the same time allowing the homeless, protesters, looters, vandals, Antifa members, and CHOP and CHAZ residents to enjoy maximum freedom, in effect guaranteeing only to them the full exercise of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, while restricting most of the rest of us from enjoying them.

Enjoy celebrating your freedom on Saturday!

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

 

OP-ED: Antioch councilman is fed up, comments about recent unrest

By 1 Comment

Quotes Dr. Martin Luther King – “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

By Lamar Thorpe

I was a nine-year-old when I saw Rodney King viciously assaulted on Univision 34 in Los Angeles. I remember everyone seemed to be in disbelief, but I wasn’t sure why.

For a little over a year, the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial became part of our daily lives. As the days and weeks progressed, I was confused by the public’s outrage regarding the King beating. Having grown up in a Mexican foster home, discrimination towards Black people wasn’t always apparent to me. After seeing the video over and over on TV, I personally felt the police were just doing their job. Some of my peers expressed different sentiments, while others were indifferent.

After the verdict, my city literally went up in flames. School was cancelled. Some businesses closed. It snowed ash. We lived under a strict curfew. I can distinctly remember the smell of burnt charcoal, like what many Americans cities are experiencing today.

While my immediate family felt differently, how my community seemed to feel about Black people was clear. We talked about Black people like they were the scum of the earth — except those who entertained us on TV. As we saw it, Black folks were just lazy, living on government handouts, and prone to criminality. Therefore, as a young child, I believed Rodney King, nor I, deserved to be treated with dignity.

My lack of empathy stemmed from my deep seeded hatred for Black people. Obviously, retrospectively, I hated Black people because I always felt abandoned by Black people. I did not have Black parents, Black siblings, Black friends, or Black neighbors. Growing up in East LA, all I had was “la raza.” As a result, I was embarrassed to be Black, I hated being Black, and I certainly didn’t feel Black.

After I moved to New England, the world started to box me into Blackness, whether I liked it or not. I could feel people looking at me with suspicion. I could feel my senior chief in the Navy look at me as undeserving and lazy. I could feel white people’s discomfort in elevators. I could feel I did not belong in certain places, especially predominantly white establishments. This feeling is so overwhelming, you internalize it and move through life avoiding it.

It is not to say these forms of discrimination did not happen in East LA, but no one imagined I spoke Spanish; I was able to make them feel uncomfortable and turn it into a joke. The world outside of my sheltered East LA existence, however, was very different. And no matter how hard I wished away my Blackness, to the world, I was just another suspicious Black man. I bought a U.S. Navy license plate holder for my car in the event I would get pulled over by the police. I thought maybe just maybe they will see me as anything other than Black. It never failed but once.

To say the least, race in America is complicated. So, I’m not going to write pointless political platitudes that mean nothing to those seeking change and make white people feel comfortable. Instead, let’s be honest with ourselves. From peaceful protests and demonstrations to looting and violence, the consciousness of America is on full display all across this Nation. The fabric of this collective consciousness is laced with race as a concept, racism as an institution, and racist people. As a result, today, that conscious is angry, sad, disappointed, grieving, complicit, sorrowful, mad, enraged, willing to look the other way, unable to look the other way, and God only knows what else.

It’s the story of America, and it’s not always pretty. It can be downright stank.

Today, I’m 39 years old and a proud Black American. Three decades have passed since I first saw a “brotha” get brutally beaten at the hands of police. In those 3 decades, it hasn’t stopped. Here we are today, bearing witness to another unnecessary, cold blooded murder of George Floyd by police, Ahmad Aubery by wannabe police and so on. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once lamented, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” For three decades people have gone unheard. We’ve allowed this to fester in our consciousness long enough.

And now, our collective consciousness is being manifested by our young people in the streets of many cities throughout this country. They are fed up. I am fed up. You should be fed up. And, we all should be willing to acknowledge that the racist ideas we’ve been raised to believe created this moment.

As we move through this time, I’ll be expanding the focus of my “Community Conversations” to include youth voices and topics related to the current unrest. Join me in figuring out how we realize our aspirations of wanting to be a full just and fair society.

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton issues statement on murder of George Floyd

By 4 Comments

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

Today, Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton issued a statement regarding the murder of George Floyd:

“I am heartbroken and horrified by the murder of George Floyd and the other unjust deaths of Black men and women in this country. As the chief law enforcement official of Contra Costa, I took an oath to ensure justice for everyone under the law. The fight for justice does not end at the borders of our County or in our communities. We all have a responsibility to speak out against and eradicate injustices wherever we find them. The officers responsible for the murder of George Floyd must be held accountable.

The right to peacefully assemble and protest are a vital part of the fabric of this nation, and the majority of participants have been peaceful and even inspiring. I am disappointed that the righteous marches and gatherings are being infiltrated and hijacked by a small minority of people with other agendas. The individuals who are exploiting the pain, and the cause of so many in our community by committing acts of violence and destruction will be held accountable. We must not let the acts of the detractors deter us from the issue at hand. We must never stop working to eradicate racism and bring about systematic change throughout all systems, especially in our criminal justice system. I will continue to fight for criminal justice reform not only just in Contra Costa but throughout this nation.”

Contra Costa District Attorney, others want to prevent police unions from contributing to DA candidates during elections

By 2 Comments

Call on state bar to create a new ethics rule claiming it “would help restore the independence, integrity, and trust of elected prosecutors by preventing them from taking donations from police unions.”

“They’re trying to hamper pro-law enforcement candidates who will run against them” – law enforcement official (who chose to remain anonymous)

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

SAN FRANCISCO – Today, Monday, June 1, 2020, in the wake of mass protests following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, a coalition of current and former elected prosecutors representing millions of Californians in diverse counties banded together to call on the California State Bar to cure the conflict of interest created by police unions’ outsized influence in local elections.  The new rule would explicitly preclude elected prosecutors – or prosecutors seeking election – from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions. (Read letter, here).

“The legal representation of an accused officer is generally financed by their law enforcement union,” said Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton.  “It is illogical that the rules prohibit prosecutors from soliciting and benefiting from financial and political support from an accused officer’s advocate in court, while enabling the prosecutor to benefit financially and politically from the accused’s advocate in public.”

“District Attorneys will undoubtedly review use of force incidents involving police officers,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. “When they do, the financial and political support of these unions should not be allowed to influence that decision making.”

“When videos emerge like the one depicting the killing of George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery, the damage it does to the entire criminal justice system cannot be overstated,” said former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón. “That damage, however, is further compounded by delays in the condemnation, arrest, and charging of the involved law enforcement officers. These feelings, these protests, and the pain we’re seeing, would not be as raw and widespread if we had seen police held accountable by local prosecutors quickly and with regularity.  An important step in curing this pain is curing the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police do not face consequences swiftly – or at all – due to the proximity and political influence of their union.”

“We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us to restore trust in our profession, but trust must be earned, it cannot be demanded,” said San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar.  “The first step to earning that trust back is ensuring the independence of county prosecutors is beyond reproach.”

Prosecutors are in a unique position of having to work closely with law enforcement and simultaneously evaluate whether crimes have been committed by these same officers.  Recent events involving police misconduct in which prosecutors either delayed or failed to file charges have shined a light on the importance of prosecutors making decisions regarding law enforcement officers’ conduct without any undue influence or bias.  Yet when prosecutors initiate an investigation or prosecution of an officer, the law enforcement unions often finance the legal representation of the accused officer. Prosecutors who have received an endorsement from the entity that is funding the defense of the officers being investigated or prosecuted creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest for elected prosecutors.

By precluding elected prosecutors—or prosecutors seeking election—from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions, the State Bar will reduce the presence of conflicts of interest and ensure independence on the part of elected prosecutors.  This proposal also aspires to help reestablish community trust in the integrity of prosecutors at a time when national events have damaged that trust.

For more information, follow #CureTheConflict.

In response, the following questions were sent to Becton’s public information officer, Scott Alonso:

“Is she saying that currently a prosecutor cannot solicit and benefit from financial and political support from an attorney representing a police officer accused of a crime while in court or during the court case? But the police officer’s attorney can support the prosecutor financially and politically when not in court or during the court case?

Please clarify who the accused is in her comment about the ‘accused’s advocate’. I assume it’s the same accused officer she refers to twice before in her comment. But, not sure.

Also, are she and the rest of the DA’s willing to forgo any financial contributions from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? How about no financial support from any organization and only from individuals who live within their counties? How far should this go to ensure fairness in prosecutions? Isn’t this really one-sided? Also, if the police unions have so much influence in our county and they all backed Becton’s opponent in the last election how did she still win? Isn’t she in effect attempting to violate the free speech rights – which political campaign contributions have been defined as by the courts – of the police unions?

June 2 UPDATE: Alonso responded with, “Any questions about political contributions I cannot answer as a public employee. You would need to direct those to DA Becton’s campaign.”

This reporter then emailed him, “Please pass on my questions to DA Becton. I’m not asking you to answer them. I’m asking for her to.”

Alonso responded, “Her statement speaks for itself. Not sure what else to provide. Her reference to the advocate is the law enforcement union.”

A further email was sent to him with, “Her statement and the effort is clearly one sided and doesn’t answer my questions that I emailed you. Did you pass on my questions to her?  If not can you, please? I really don’t want to have to write that she’s refusing to answer them. Surely neither you nor she expects the media to just run press releases on controversial matters unchallenged and without question.

Thanks for the partial answer to my one question. But it still doesn’t clarify what she’s saying in that quote. How would a prosecutor solicit and benefit from financial and political support of a law enforcement union in court? I seriously don’t understand that.

I really need to hear back from her on the questions I sent. I don’t want to just write she refused to respond.”

Alonso responded with, “With all respect we do answer your questions. Your comment that this ‘effort is one side’ is odd. Not sure what you mean by that. There are standards in place for prosecutors in terms of receiving or benefitting from opposing defense counsel. This is outlined in the letter that you were provided. In terms of any questions on donations I cannot answer that as I have said.”

This reporter further responded by email with, “Yes, in the past you’ve answered my questions and I appreciate that. But I’m talking about this press release on a very controversial, political issue, which is rare if not the only one I recall ever receiving from you.

About the effort being one sided, that’s because all the DA’s and former DA quoted in the press release are attempting to silence one side in the political battle for who should be elected DA. Diana wasn’t backed by any of the police unions in the county, if I recall. They backed her opponent, DDA Paul Graves. Now she’s trying to prevent police unions from contributing to her potential opponents in future elections in effectively silencing their voice during a political campaign. Yet, I don’t see anything in the press release in which she or the other DA’s call for limiting the contributions to candidates from those on the criminal defense side.

Again, I’m not asking you to answer my questions. I’m asking you to pass along my questions to DA Becton, who as an elected official can answer them and should. You sent out on official CCDA letterhead a press release about a political matter. Frankly, that should have gone out on her campaign letterhead if you or she aren’t going to answer questions about it.

Now, please quit being a gatekeeper for her and pass on my questions to her. Another day has passed since you sent me the press release and I still don’t have but one question answered.

I’m trying not to go around you. I do have her cell phone number and have called her before when it was after hours. But I am avoiding calling her. I guess I’ll have to if I can’t get you to simply forward my questions to her.

So, let’s please stop the back and forth. I’m not asking you any questions about a political matter. I’m asking her.”

No response to that email was received.

When reached for comment, Becton said she was in a meeting and to “send questions to Scott.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report and responses from the DA.

Payton Perspective: Gov. Newsom isn’t really allowing places of worship to reopen, his guidelines are too restrictive

By 2 Comments

Some churches to participate in civil disobedience this Sunday and open for services.

“Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights”… “the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship” – 5/19/20 US DOJ letter to Gov. Newsom.

By Allen Payton

Yesterday, Monday, May 25, 2020 – Memorial Day, the day we honor and commemorate those who died for our freedoms, some of which are seriously limited, right now – California Governor Gavin Newsom issued guidelines for reopening places of worship. At first, I was hopeful that he was doing something good in response to President Trump’s directive to all the governors and the directive to California from U.S. Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, last week.

But the guidelines don’t really allow most places of worship to reopen. Why? Because they’re too restrictive, limiting attendance to just 25% of building capacity or 100 people whichever is less. Plus, Newsom is leaving it up to each unelected county health officer to approve of the guidelines or not.

Now, it’s worse because they’re allowing more and more businesses to reopen – which is great – but not the churches. Our officials already considered all the vice serving businesses, including all the locations of the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, liquor stores, and marijuana dispensaries essential. But not the churches or other places of worship. And as of today, the governor said barber shops and hair salons can reopen.

Which part of “shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and the other First Amendment right of freedom of peaceful assembly, don’t our officials get?

Civil Disobedience

Following in the footsteps of the black Christian ministers who led the efforts during the civil rights movement, it appears some churches will be participating in some civil disobedience with the ministers leading the effort for their rights, when they hold services this next Sunday, May 31st in defiance of state and local orders. Those in attendance will probably only be issued citations and the maximum fine is $1,000, which they can collectively fight. Plus, with $0 bail, right now none of them will go to jail. Most likely only the ministers will be cited and fined. But who knows? The Lord does and we will see just how far the government officials will take this and just how much they want to continue this fight.

Time to Elect New Leaders

It’s definitely time we elected only those who agree that places of worship are essential, not only to those who attend, but society as a whole, and will actually uphold their oaths of office, in which they swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Event the CDC recognized that in the statement for its Interim Guidance for Communities of Faith, unlike our governor in the statement included with his guidelines. The CDC wrote, “Millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. In addition, we note that while many types of gatherings are important for civic and economic well-being, religious worship has particularly profound significance to communities and individuals, including as a right protected by the First Amendment. State and local authorities are reminded to take this vital right into account when establishing their own re-opening plans.”

What did the governor include in the statement about his guidelines? Just more warnings about how public gatherings can cause more deaths. That statement includes, “There have been multiple outbreaks in a range of workplaces, indicating that workers are at risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19 infection. Examples of these workplaces include places of worship, long-term care facilities, prisons, food production, warehouses, meat processing plants, and grocery stores.”

“Further, it is strongly recommended that places of worship continue to facilitate remote services and other related activities for those who are vulnerable to COVID19 including older adults and those with co-morbidities. Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and group recitation negate the risk-reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” Newsom’s statement continues.

Nothing about our First Amendment rights which should be protected or that corporate worship or even churches being essential to at least some Californians or society as a whole.

Support Legal Efforts

We also need to support the legal efforts of those suing the state and governor to get the courts to force him to allow the churches to reopen. One way you can do that is by supporting the Center for American Liberty, based in San Francisco and led by my friend, attorney Harmeet Dhillon and her fellow attorney, Mark Meuser, a former Contra Costa resident. Read about their cases and make a contribution, here – https://libertycenter.org/pf/covid-19-litigation/.

Another lawsuit by churches in California against Newsom and the state, which was joined by Dhillon, lost last week at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 decision of a three-judge panel. Not surprising the judges who voted with the governor were appointed by Clinton and Obama, and the one judge that voted with the churches was appointed by Trump.

“These are emergency appeals,” Dhillon explained on Monday. “We filed for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court” in the recent case before the 9th Circuit.

“The DOJ sent a letter to the governor that his policies were discriminatory against churches,” she continued. “Today’s guidelines are still limiting. They’re totally arbitrary. There is no limit of 100 people for any retail establishment. Retail has a 50% capacity limit for some and none for others.”

“To tell people how they can worship, this is more unconstitutional and very problematic,” Dhillon added.

DOJ Letter to Newsom

In the DOJ letter to Newsom about “several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship” due to the governor’s stay-at-home order, as well as “documents relating to the California Reopening Plan” it states “Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.” USDOJ 5.19.20 Ltr. to Hon. Gavin Newson

“Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the letter continues.

“Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3” of Newsom’s reopening plan, the letter explains. “However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified” in the decision of another case “in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship.”

“Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest…” the letter states.

It then refers to the recent case before the 9th Circuit and states, “Other decisions around the country…make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done.”

“We believe…that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.”

An email has been sent to the DOJ asking for their views on Newsom’s guidelines and if they comply with the May 19th letter. (Please check back later for updates to this column.)

Time for Action

It’s time for action and to stop living in fear, my friends. The governor’s guidelines are too restrictive and continue to clearly violate our God-given – the meaning of “unalienable” – and constitutionally protected rights of both freedom of religion and assembly. Until Newsom complies with the directives from the federal government, churches should feel free to reopen within the guidelines applied to nonreligious activities and businesses.

As the DOJ letter states, “Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines.” Local churches can do the same. We shall see if any actions are taken against the ministers and those who attend this Sunday’s services.

DOJ Letter to Governor Newsom

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Office of the Assistant Attorney General                                               Washington, D.C. 20530

May 19, 2020

 

The Honorable Gavin Newsom

Governor of California

1303 10th Street, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Newsom:

We are writing to you to raise several civil rights concerns with the treatment of places of worship in Executive Orders N-33-20 and N-60-20 and documents relating to the California Reopening Plan.

Of course, we recognize the duty that you have to protect the health and safety of Californians in the face of a pandemic that is unprecedented in our lifetimes. You and other leaders around the country are called on to balance multiple competing interests and evaluate the constantly changing information available to you about COVID-19, and make your best judgment on courses of action.

Attorney General William P. Barr recently issued a statement on Religious Practice and Social Distancing, in conjunction with a Mississippi case in which the Department of Justice participated regarding restrictions on worship. In the statement, the Attorney General emphasized the need to practice social distancing to control the spread of COVID-19. He also noted that temporary restrictions that would be unacceptable in normal circumstances may be justified. But, “even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.” Simply put, there is no pandemic exception to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Laws that do not treat religious activities equally with comparable nonreligious activities are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Laws that are not both neutral toward religion and generally applicable are invalid unless the government can prove that they further a compelling interest and are pursued through the least restrictive means possible. Religious gatherings may not be singled out for unequal treatment compared to other nonreligious gatherings that have the same effect on the government’s public health interest, absent the most compelling reasons.

Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020) ordered Californians to remain at home except to engage in authorized necessary activities as laid out by the Public Health Officer at the time and as modified going forward. The Public Health Officer’s April 28 “essential workforce” list does not appear to treat religious activities and comparable nonreligious activities the same.

The list includes “faith-based services” but only if “provided through streaming or other technologies.” In-person religious services are thus apparently prohibited even if they adhere to social distancing standards.

The list of nonreligious workers who are not so restricted by the Executive Order and essential workforce list when telework “is not practical” is expansive. For example, the list includes “Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing.” Likewise, “workers supporting ecommerce” are included as essential, regardless of whether the product they are selling and shipping are life-preserving products or not. This facially discriminates against religious exercise. California has not shown why interactions in offices and studios of the entertainment industry, and in-person operations to facilitate nonessential ecommerce, are included on the list as being allowed with social distancing where telework is not practical, while gatherings with social distancing for purposes of religious worship are forbidden, regardless of whether remote worship is practical or not.

Even more pronounced unequal treatment of faith communities is evident in California’s Reopening Plan, as set forth in Executive Order N-60-20 (May 4, 2020), and in the documents the California Department of Public Health produced pursuant to it, including the “Resilience Roadmap” (https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/) and “County Variance Attestations” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Local-Variance-Attestations.aspx). Places of worship are not permitted to hold religious worship services until Stage 3. However, in Stage 2, schools, restaurants, factories, offices, shopping malls, swap meets, and others are permitted to operate with social distancing. And as noted, ecommerce and entertainment industry activities are already permitted with social distancing. This constitutes precisely the kind of differential treatment the Supreme Court identified in the Lukumi decision in which the government is not willing to impose on certain activities the same restrictions it is willing to impose on constitutionally protected religious worship. While it is true that social distancing requirements applied to places of worship may inevitably result in much smaller congregations than some faith groups would like, in our experience with other controversies around the country, many places of worship are quite content to operate at 15-25% of capacity in a way that allows for social distancing between family groups.

The Department of Justice does not seek to dictate how States such as California determine what degree of activity and personal interaction should be allowed to protect the safety of their citizens. However, we are charged with upholding the Constitution and federal statutory protections for civil rights. Whichever level of restrictions you adopt, these civil rights protections mandate equal treatment of persons and activities of a secular and religious nature.

We recognize that three U.S. District Courts have denied Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) sought by plaintiffs against Executive Order N-33-20, Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683 (S.D. Cal. April 10, 2020) (no written opinion); Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-CV-755 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020); Cross Culture Christian Ctr. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-CV-00832 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2020), and one denied a TRO against the Reopening Plan, which is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 3:20-cv-865 (S.D. Cal. May 15, 2020) (oral transcript ruling). These TRO decisions do not justify California’s actions. The Abiding Place, Gish, and Cross Culture TRO decisions do not address the Stage 2 reopening, and South Bay United Pentecostal does not describe why worship services can be distinguished from schools, restaurants, factories or other places Stage 2 permits people to come together. Other decisions around the country have followed Lukumi to make clear that reopening plans cannot unfairly burden religious services as California has done. See, e.g., Robert v. Neace, No. 20-5465 (6th Cir. May 11, 2020).

Religion and religious worship continue to be central to the lives of millions of Americans. This is true now more than ever. Religious communities have rallied to protect their communities from the spread of this disease by making services available online, in parking lots, or outdoors, by indoor services with a majority of pews empty, and in numerous other creative ways that otherwise comply with social distancing and sanitation guidelines. We believe, for the reasons outlined above, that the Constitution calls for California to do more to accommodate religious worship, including in Stage 2 of the Reopening Plan.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you wish to discuss further, please contact United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California McGregor Scott at (916) 554-2730 or mcgregor.scott@usdoj.gov.

Sincerely,

           Eric S. Dreiband

                             Assistant Attorney General

                Civil Rights Division

McGregor W. Scott

United States Attorney

Eastern District of California

Nicola T. Hanna

United States Attorney

Central District of California

David L. Anderson

United States Attorney

Northern District of California

Robert S. Brewer

United States Attorney

Southern District of California

cc: The Honorable Xavier Becerra

Attorney General of California