Antioch Council Places City Manager on Leave Despite Unanimous Community Opposition

The Antioch City Council voted 4-0 in closed session to place City Manager Bessie Scott on a paid leave of absence and immediately install an acting replacement — a decision that drew passionate objections from every one of the nine residents who spoke during public comment. The action, taken at a special meeting scheduled for 4 p.m. on a Tuesday, deepens leadership instability in a city that has cycled through multiple city managers in six years while still navigating federal scrutiny of its police department.

• Council sidelines City Manager Bessie Scott, voting 4-0 (one abstention) to place her on paid leave effective May 6 and appoint Ana Cortez as acting city manager

• All nine public speakers opposed the move, praising Scott's record of securing roughly $35–$40 million in grant funding, negotiating with the DOJ, and restructuring city departments

• Speakers blast 4 p.m. scheduling of a special meeting on a major personnel decision, calling it a deliberate barrier to public participation

• Budget study session tabled to May 12 after the closed session ran approximately three hours, pushing critical fiscal-year deliberations closer to deadline — and into the hands of new interim leadership

• 23-year city employee announces retirement, citing frustration with repeated evaluations and the political environment

Scott Out, Cortez In: A Leadership Shakeup Mid-Budget Cycle

Why it matters: City Manager Bessie Scott, appointed city manager in October 2024, had become a focal point of community confidence for her work negotiating with the U.S. Department of Justice over the Antioch Police Department, securing tens of millions in state grant funding, and restructuring housing services and code enforcement. Her removal mid-budget cycle — and the immediate appointment of an interim replacement — signals the council majority's intent to move on from her leadership despite broad public support.

Where things stand: After a closed session that lasted roughly three hours, the city attorney reported the outcome: Scott is on paid leave effective May 6, 2026, with compensation continuing. Ana Cortez was appointed acting city manager effective immediately. Councilmember Tamisha Torres-Walker abstained; the remaining four members — Mayor Ron Bernal, Vice Mayor Donald Freitas, Councilmember Louie Rocha, and Councilmember Monica Wilson — voted yes. A second closed-session item addressing "significant exposure to litigation" related to employment claims produced no reportable action, a signal that potential legal proceedings may be unresolved.

The agenda for the special meeting listed three closed-session items in sequence — performance evaluation, litigation exposure, and appointment of an acting city manager — a lineup that multiple speakers identified as choreographed groundwork for removal. Allen Payton, a media representative, said he only discovered the third item late and called for a postponement.

"I think the timing is not good, just as you're about to finalize a budget for this next year. But transparency is a big issue and that needs to be a priority for this city," said Payton.

Decisions: The vote was 4-0 (For: Bernal, Freitas, Rocha, Wilson; Abstain: Torres-Walker). Scott's paid leave begins May 6; Cortez assumes the acting role immediately.

What's next: The council's next regular meeting is May 12, where it will now need to take up the budget study session without the city manager who prepared the fiscal framework. The unresolved litigation-exposure item suggests potential legal action that could impose additional costs on the city.

Community Rallies Behind Scott, Questions Council's Motives

Why it matters: Not a single public speaker supported the council's direction. The unanimity — and the emotional intensity — of the public comment period underscored a widening gap between the council majority and vocal segments of the community on the question of city leadership.

Where things stand: Nine speakers used the public comment window to catalog City Manager Bessie Scott's accomplishments, question the council majority's motives, and warn about the consequences of yet another leadership change.

Public commenter Melissa laid out a detailed case for Scott's value, asking the council:

"Explain how removing someone who has increased the city staff productivity, secured 40 million in grant funding, help align this council on budget priorities, help reduce the deficit, reorganize departments for efficiency, and consistently engage with the community moves this city forward."

Public commenter Andrew Becker drew a sharp contrast between Scott and her predecessor, recounting how housing funding discussions under then-City Manager Bernal went nowhere in 2020.

"City Manager Scott stepped into her role, and she said to me, we're going to do whatever we need to do to get these dollars, $35 million," he said.

Several speakers pointed directly at Mayor Ron Bernal's prior tenure as city manager from 2017 to 2021, arguing that fiscal and policing problems the council attributes to Scott actually originated under his leadership. Dr. Jamilia Land was blunt:

"You were the former city manager, currently the mayor. It was under your watch that a lot of the things that happened within the Antioch Police Department came to light. Yet we have not heard from you as to what level of responsibility and culpability you're going to assume."

Public commenter Devin Williams framed the issue as institutional self-sabotage:

"Every time we do this, we don't just lose a person, we lose momentum. We lose consistency, we lose time, we lose money. We lose the same money we constantly say we don't have."

Downtown business owner Debbie credited Scott with supporting the formation of a downtown association and directing city funding to downtown projects. Public commenter Ron Muhammad urged the council to evaluate leadership on deliverables, not personal loyalty:

"The measuring stick on how we see our elected officials should be the deliverables. Not if I like you. Strictly deliverables."

The other side: No council members spoke publicly in defense of their decision or explained their reasoning before or after the closed session, as is typical for personnel matters conducted under Government Code 54957. The council did not respond to speakers' requests to postpone the closed session.

4 p.m. Meeting Time Draws Fire

Why it matters: Multiple speakers said the special meeting's weekday afternoon start time effectively shut most working residents out of a decision that will reshape city leadership.

Public commenter Portia Taylor noted that earlier in the day, NBC, ABC, the Contra Costa Times, and the East Bay Times had all been present for a press event supporting City Manager Bessie Scott — contrasting the packed parking lot at noon with the near-empty room at 4 p.m. Allen Payton asked:

"Why do it at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, in the middle of the day, when most people can't be here? People you represent, people elected you, can't be here to give input."

He called for the closed session to be postponed to 6 p.m. the following Tuesday. The council did not act on the request.

A Veteran Employee Says Goodbye

Assistant City Clerk Christina Garcia, a 23.5-year city employee, used public comment to announce her planned retirement. She questioned why the city manager's performance evaluation had come before the council roughly 10 times in a single year.

"I just want to understand why the city manager evaluation has to be up here 10 times within a year," she said. "I just want to know why we can't move forward and work together and just make this city the great city that it can be."

Her departure adds to concerns about institutional knowledge loss at a time of leadership transition.

Minor Items

• Budget study session tabled: Councilmember Rocha moved, Councilmember Torres-Walker seconded, and the council voted 5-0 to postpone the fiscal year budget study session to the May 12 regular meeting after the closed session consumed the evening.

• Litigation exposure: The city attorney reported nothing out on the closed-session item regarding significant exposure to litigation related to employment claims — leaving the city's potential legal liability unresolved.