So typical - if you can't play by the rules, change them!  I'm sure Weir has his other council buddies behind him - Sullivan, Scrivner and Hanson. It's all about who lines their pockets - big busness and developers. Never mind the destruction of one of the few beautiful areas of this county - show him the money!

 When is the election and what's the deadlne for declaring?

 Weir isn't up until 2010. Sullivan, Hanson and Benham are on this fall's ballot, and the deadline to file is Aug. 8.

You coming back to town to run, Tom, or know someone who's interested? I hope the citizens in his ward give him a call and let him know what they think of his behaviour in this matter. And with the housing market in such a slump and the recent story on the "City in the Hills" development fiasco, do we really need "The Canyons"? More torn up land, more half-built houses, more traffic congestion, promised parks not built, etc. etc. We need to respect landowner's rights but also need to to balance the public good and the good of the land itself.

 Ken Weir was a developer bought-and-paid-for BCSD board member, so why should he change now that he is on the City Council!  Those of us who are his contituents will apparently have to suffer with his less-than-candid representation for special local and out-of-town interests UNLESS someone of character steps up to represent us, and the greater needs of the City and County.

 AnonCon, I just might.  I love Bako and I get real tired of these jokers screwing up the town.  I would actually be willing to do some work for anyone running against him and we've got some pretty great politicos here.

Of course, if I did run I'd probably have to delete my entire comment history here.  :)

 Tom - you can sign me up as your 1st campaign volunteer! Better you than me - I don't have the temperment for it - let's just say you wouldn't be the only one deleting comments.

willwin - talk to your neighbors. Show up at the Council meetings for the public statements and let your displeasure be known. It never hurts to let them know that someone is paying attention. Remember the Palm-Olive annexation ladies?

Mr. Geluso - thanks for keeping up on these things.

 “During my campaign for city council, voters expressed their concerns for responsible property development that is fair and equitable to all with good long-term planning and respect for property rights,” Weir wrote in an e-mail.

Then say what you mean, Ken, and mean what you say!  If you truly care about "responsible property development "and truly care about "good long-term planning and respect for property rights," then you would wait your turn.  Why the hurry to unseat Commissioner Russell Johnson.  Why don't you come clean and show your real motives.  It's been exposed over and over by the Californian.  It's Gordon and Joyce Downs and their affiliation with the bluffs and General Holdings.  What is "fair and equitable" is to let a planning commissioner be the independent vote and serve the public interests of the residents of Bakersfield, not the personal or political aspirations of their appointee or the personal client of Ken Weir's CPA firm.

You really oughta be ashamed of yourself, Conflict Ken.  You shared office space with Mike Maggard for years.  He was a personal friend and professional contemporary of yours.  No wonder you walk around with your head hung down, slinking around town.  You are a disgrace.

Mr. Geluso, what can we do as average citizens to stop this train wreck?  Why is Ken Weir allowed to continue this momentum unchecked?  Why isn't some legal action taken against an elected offficial whose judgement and thinking is so clouded by his involvement with the principles of General Holdings that he is making irrational decisions and motions.  You can't keep changing the goal posts in the middle of the game!

InTheKnow, you've got it! 

When Ken Weir ran for City Council he gave no hint that he was tied to General Holdings and favored the Canyons Project (against the newly passed Hillside Ordinance).  Just another element of his "clandestine" character.  Subsequently, he falsified his Form 700 by refusing to disclose his business relationships (prejudices).  It was only after the Californian exposed him and the resultant public outcry that he relented and divulged his development biases.  While on the BCSD Board he oversaw the accumulation of a $100 million dollar infrastructure deficit that the District had to place a $100 million Bond on the ballot for voter approval.  (All they had to do was raise the woefully low development impact fee, but guess who was against that?)  Then he had the audacity to state in his campaign literature that if elected to the Council he would straighten out the City's $160 million deficit.  Now that the real estate market has turned sour, partially because of overbuilding and speculative development by outside LLCs, Mr. Weir is still trying to drive development by his friends down our throats.

Why are we tolerating this??

 Russell Johnson is a good friend of mine. His only fault is that he's a Republican. But, quite frankly, I blame that on his mother and some of his kooky Republican friends (they know who they are).

What he also is is a man of solid integrity. He doesn't deserve to get fired from anything. He is his own man and he is making the decisions he feels are correct for the commission. That's a dedicated public servant who deserves to stay in that position.

 InTheKnow,

There will be public comment, and Weir needs to get four others to vote with him.

What he's doing is legal and within the system. The city code specifically says the planncomms serve at the pleasure of the council. It's unusual, but the council does unusual things sometimes.

Mr. Geluso, in your article:

Officials split on planning commission changes

BY JAMES GELUSO, Californian staff writer
e-mail: jgeluso@bakersfield.com | Thursday, Mar 27 2008 6:20 PM

It states, "Bakersfield City Councilman Ken Weir pitched the idea at the end of Wednesday night’s council meeting and sent the issue to the council’s Legislative and Litigation Committee."

Doesn't Weir at least have to wait for the Legislative and Litigation Committee's official ruling?  Doesn't the "city code" have to be amended before Weir can simply "fire" a commissioner? 

If  I were Russell Johnson, I would move into Weir's district and unseat the lame duck!

 InTheKnow, as James aid earlier, Weir isn't up until 2010.  It's not too far off, but maybe there is already a rule for granting an early challenge.

 InTheKnow: The current code allows for removal of a planncomm by a vote of five of seven. Weir's proposal would change it to four.

It would also redefine the terms of planncomm entirely. Currently, they have staggered terms, losing two a year (except just one every four years, including this one). Every city council member gets to select one commissioner at one point in the term, but some only get to do it at the end. Sullivan, for example, gets to appoint a commissioner this year, but could be voted out in November. Under Weir's proposal, councilmembers would appoint planncomms as they take office, so voters are effectively electing a councilmember (name on the ballot) and a planning commissioner (name not on the ballot).

Johnson may already live in Weir's district. I'm not sure.

SAT: Most likely public comment will be at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. This is not a hearing item, so probably you'll have to fill out a speaker card before the meeting and speak at the beginning of the meeting, and then I expect the action to be near the end. The mayor could hold comment until the item comes up, but that is rare. We'll know more late Friday when the agenda comes out. Check Tuesday's Californian.

 More road use, pollution, taxes, schools, and a lack of public services, greater drain on water, and energy, all to be subsidized by the taxpayers.  More money to developers, contractors, realtors, banks, deep pockets of officials collecting more taxpayer dollars to destroy our environment.  I wonder how long it will take for the buyers of the property to see their driveways crack and house foundations crack, walls crack as the land slips down the hill.  A once beautiful area for all to enjoy will be an eyesore, and an added collection of vacant homes and buildings to be added to the slums of Bakersfield. 

Now let's see.  Zach Scrivner calls Russell Johnson and gives him the choice of resigning as Vice-chair of the Planning Commission (he's due to assume the chairmanship soon), or be summarily fired by five members of the City Council (Weir plus who?)  So, can we deduce that Scrivner is on Weir's chain, or are they both on someone else's chain (like lap dogs)?  Perhaps the community needs to look at all the ones who are dancing to the tune of special interests and vote them all out. 

 Veritas, you got it right!  Weir, Scrivner and Sullivan are the "lap dogs" as you put it for Mark Abernathy.  Follow the money.  Abernathy holds the purse strings to their campaign funds.  They haven't paid him off for getting them elected the first time...and when you sold your soul to Abernathy, you are his minion.  Which means, Bill Thomas is still in control.  Did you see how they voted on the Hwy 58 to connect the Westpark alignment?  They all caved in to Thomas' spanking. 

Check out The Californian's Article:

Thomas Spanks Squabbling Road Planners

By Robert Price, Associate Editorial Page Editor -

http://people.bakersfield.c...

posted by firedup on Friday, September 7, 2007 at 03:47 PM

 Steve

It's an outrage that a half dozen people can squash the rights of Kern County citizens for their own profit.  I'm willing to donate to anyone who runs against Weir/Scrivner/Sullivan/Hanson  when they come up for reelection.  By then they'll be shields for bigger, slimier deals.  When are the people of Bakersfield going to figure out that this foursome is in the pocket of out of town business interests?

Anyway Steve, thanks for having the fortitude to share your personal insight.  I trust your judgment about Williams. 

I hope TBC keeps after this story because it's results with have long lasting effects on every resident in Kern County and their children.

In the meantime, each city counsel member needs to make their position public.   Speak out.     Do you agree with having a man fired because he stands in the way of Weir and his conflict of interest issue?

 What in the heck is going on???  Ken Weir is acting weirdly desperate about this, like there's some shadowy figure out there threatening to break his kneecaps.  I understand "politics is politics," but when are we gonna get some local leaders who can refrain from acting like unsophisticated teenagers?  What next?  Is Ken Weir gonna have his girlfriend  pass a note to Johnson in the hallway telling him to meet him behind the bleachers after school?  Unbelievable!

 Will a petition to put it on November's ballot do it?  How about adding Sullivan and Scrivner to it too? 

I agree with Mr. Swenson.  I have attended a number of planning commission meetings over the past year (for my job) and I have been particularly impressed with Commissioner Johnson's thoughtfulness and thoroughness in deciding planning matters.

As for Councilman Weir's quote, "The successful implementation of the voters’ wishes will require a planning commissioner that shares the community’s vision and understands the value of a long-term plan."  This doesn't pass the smell test for me.  Is it the voter's wishes or the Councilman's?  Because, from what I've witnessed, Commissioner Johnson shares that vision and considers the long term.  I'd like to know the real motivations for this.

 AudreyB:

Sullivan is already on the November ballot and already has a declared opponent.

Russell - you've got my vote. The canyons should not be destroyed. Please leave this naturally beautiful geography in place. Wier can wait until 2009- taking his turn like everyone else.... unless he'd like to resign.... perhaps he should have been the one receiving a call this morning.

Bakersfield resident Mark McCallum has formed a campaign finance committee to unseat the four-term incumbent.

If no democrat comes forward to run against her, where do I send my contribution to his campaign fund?

County Planning Commissioners AUTOMATICALLY lose their seats when a new representative is sworn in to represent that District.  This applies to Russell Johnson's boss, Supervisor Mike Maggard.  Why does the Californian deem it perfectly OK for the county to do the exact same thing Councilman Ken Weir is proposing, but not the city?

Kern's planning commissions have never been free to chart their own courses, and for good reason (does anyone remember Ken Hersh?).  Planning Commissioners serve under the direction of our elected officials.  For the system to function, they are intended to reflect the general philosophical views of the elected official they serve under, and by extention, those of local voters.  This isn't micro-management, it is merely implementing our General Plan in a way that neighbors, commuters and land owners all understand what to expect as inevitable growth occurs.

That's OK, Steve.  We Republicans don't hold your Trotskyite politics against you, either.

 To indoorfootballfan: Because the City's protocol is different from the County's, and you follow it until it's changed.  And why are you shouting?

 Why would General Holdings want to stir up this hornet's nest if the Planning Commission is out of the picture? Their fate and tens of millions of financing is in the Council's hands. That's where the votes are needed.

Maybe we should question how Mike Maggard replaced his district's planning commissioner when he was elected to the Board of Supervisors. Why is that acceptable behavior for Supervisors but not Councilmembers?, especially when one is leaving the office..

Try fair and balanced reporting please!

 Audrey, I don't think I'd support McCallum out of the gate, even if he is running aganist Sullivan.  McCallum worked for Pombo who was a pretty corrupt guy.  Just a bit here, but it sounds like the type of thing we're trying to rid the city of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

In September 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchgroup founded in 2005 by liberal and Democratic Party activists^[17] released a report naming Pombo as one of the 17 most corrupt members of the House of Representatives; he had also been named in the group's prior report in January. The organization said "His ethics issues stem from accepting campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, keeping family members on his campaign payroll, and misusing official resources."^[18]

 Hmmm

I need to do my homework. 

If there's no viable candidate, I'll write in my dog's name.  She'll do a better job than Jacquie Sullivan.  And, she's smarter too because she knows not to piss where she lives.

Here's the city code, by the way:

2.28.030 Planning commission—Creation— Members.

     A.    There is created a planning commission of the city which shall consist of seven members who shall be nominated and appointed by the city council.

     B.     The order of right to nominate is designated by ward according to the following table:

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;   Corresponding Commissioner

        & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;       &nbs p;    Appointment Number

Sequential Order of         ;  Commencing April 2000

Right to Nominate        ;       and Continuing Thereafter

1.Ward 6                 & nbsp;       &n bsp;       1. April 2000

2.Ward 3         & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;      2. April 2001

3.Ward 5         & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;      3. April 2001

4.Ward 2         & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;      4. April 2002

5.Ward 4         & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;      1. April 2002

6.Ward 1         & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;      1. April 2003

7.Ward 7         & nbsp;       &n bsp;       &nb sp;      1. April 2003

     C.     A commissioner need not be a resident of the ward represented by the nominating councilmember, but shall be a resident of the city at the time of nomination. A majority vote of the full council shall be required for appointment of the nominee as a member of the commission. If any nomination for appointment of a member of the commission fails to secure a majority vote, then the councilmember making the nomination shall be entitled to make further nominations until an appointment is made. For purposes of filling vacancies as set forth in subsection E of this section, each commission appointment shall be designated by number to correspond to the ward of the councilmember making the nomination.

     D.    Commissionmembers shall be appointed for a term of four years commencing on the expiration date of the expired term being filled. All commission members shall be residents of the city during the entire term of appointment. Members may be reappointed for an unrestricted number of terms. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the council and may be removed at any time by the affirmative vote of five members of the council.

     E.     Any vacancy on the commission, other than by expiration of term, created by a member appointed after the effective date of this section, shall be filled as provided in this subsection. The councilmember of the ward which corresponds with the commission vacancy, as provided for in subsection C of this section, shall nominate a replacement member who, upon approval of a majority of the full council, shall be appointed for the unexpired portion of the term. (Ord. 3926 § 1, 1999: Ord. 3918 § 1, 1999: Ord. 3272 § 1, 1990: prior code § 1.40.030)

Crankpin: The county's planning commission ordinance (not protocol) was changed fairly recently to oust the prior supervisor's commission appointee, and three of the sitting incumbents voted in favor of this change.

As for "shouting," I didn't know that medium type meant gigantic to the Californian's IT staff.

 Is it a stupid idea to have the planning commission voted in instead of appointed? 

 By the way, Mike Maggard, when he became county supervisor, had the option of replacing a planning commissioner, but chose to keep the incumbent.

But, as was said, the county system is to have planncomm terms concurrent with supervisor terms. The city system is not, but Ken Weir has proposed to make it be that way.

 I don't care what all the other moms and dads said.  If all the rest of your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it too?

(Just because one civil department does something, that does not make it a "good" idea )

 Thanks again Mr. Geluso for setting the record straight about Mike Maggard!  Maggard did not have a personal agenda when he came to the board so he didn't need to remove the former Supervisor Barbara Patrick's commissioner.  He and Russell Johnson are above the fray.  They are honest, decent men who really care about Beautiful Bakersfield, which is more than I can say about some of our elected councilmen whose name will remain anonymous...but his initials are K.W.

 We've learned more about the county system.

Planncomms serve two-year terms, and the expiration date is Jan. 1. So often, a new incoming supervisor will immediately have the chance to make a nomination. If a nomination isn't made, the sitting commissioner remains in place.

In Maggard's case, he had the chance to nominate to replace Kay Pitts when he took office in 2007. He didn't, but he didn't renominate her either. He did nominate Jeff Flores this year, though, replacing Pitts. Flores will now serve until Jan. 1, 2010, according to the county Web site.

 Also, some notes about the siginificance of this vs. the county:

Last month, the council had an appointment to make to the Historic Preservation Commission. The expired-term incumbent applied for another term, but the council went with someone else. This is highly unusual for the council; normally, the incumbent is returned to office easily.

For the council to remove someone mid-term is so unusual that I've had council members ask me if there's ever been a comparable case.

But, again, the municipal code allows it, and just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Why is Scrivner acting as a bullyboy for Weir, and why the rush to fire Planning Commissioner Russell?  Both are Mark Abernathy’s playtoys or as Mark says: “Team Players not for Bakersfield, but for Team Abernathy.”  So why fire Russell now?  Abernathy has conceived a great play:  Scrivner states that he has 5 votes on City Council to fire Russell, including Councilmember Carson.  Carson will go along to get along with the Weir-Scrivner-Sullivan crew.  Scrivner will fire Russell.  Weir will then appoint Matt Brady, a long-time Abernathy team player and recent recipient of a $10,000 fine by the state for his inablility to comply with state law. (I guess following laws is not an important quality for judgeship)   Matt Brady needs headlines to win the judicial election in June.  What better place for getting headlines than the Planning Commission.  Abernathy has sewn up local politics, but doesn’t enough have Superior Court judges.  Matt Brady will be Abernathy’s lead into Superior Court.  Why should Councilmember Carson care?  Carson has endorsed Prosecutor Holly Mitchell.  Carson’s vote to oust Russell will end up giving Matt Brady the judicial election.  Abernathy, Scrivner and Weir are laughing it up on how they control not only local politics, but now judicial races too. 

Oh and don’t forget that  Matt Brady will give a standing ovation to the General Holdings’ project “The Canyons” when it comes this fall.  No need for any thoughtful concerns or input, just approve that project as requested by Weir’s former client. Or else be fired by Weir.   

I am going to have to take a shower after reading this~ dirty,dirty,dirty! Thanks citybeat for the heads up on all this mess...Weir,Sullivan and Scrivener do not have our,or the county's best interests at heart. Nor does Mr. Abernathy"I got the money"

 I am not clear why Wier wants to get rid of Johnson. What is the real "deal".here?

How does Bill Thomas fit into this picture?

 If you want to get information on how to recall a state or local official, call Pamela Mccarthy, City Clerk at the City of Bakersfield 661-326-3767 or 661-326-3074 and ask for the packet of information.  It is called Procedure for Recalling State and Local Officials.  It is prepared by the Office of he Secretary of State, revised 2007.

 Mark McCallum should not be impuned by his past association with Pombo.  God forbid that the people we have had relationship with should make us good or evil, trustworthy or crooked.  His most recent term of work with an outstanding Assemblyman such as Bill Maze, certifies him as well qualified and of good character.  I know Bill Maze well and he would never knowingly employ anyone of unethical/bad character.

 I hear a lot of talk in this little blog.  But I will believe your intense opposition when I see all of you out getting signatures and protesting at city council meetings.  If your government is misrepresenting people then make your voice heard.  The blog sphere is convenient, but it just shows me your laziness to actually get out and be seen.  Maybe you are too afraid that someone you know might see you and disagree.  Better to be safe and hide behind a fake name on a blog.  I'm here too...but I don't mind Mr. Weir.  So I'm not the one who needs to be out in the streets.

Just like you posted Bonnyloon...talk. The reasons to use a"fake name" or nick or adpot a pen name are numerous...usually not to hide behind, but the net is full of some not so nice folks,so some level of protection only makes sense.

Good for you Veritas, if we're talking corrupt politicians...why isn't anyone doing anything about Weir, Scrivner and Sullivan.  Talk about corrupt.  He has had four conflicts of interest in his short term in office since November 2006. 

And since when is Wikipedia a valid source of information against Pombo?  Anyone can edit the content (or like Conflict Ken "change the rules" midstream).  I also know Mark McCallum personally.  He would be a great city council person.  He already said he would not have caved in to the pressure and voted along with the other council members to allow Caltrans to once again try and run a freeway through the Westpark neighborhood.  Already he's taken a tough stance! 

The problem with Bakersfield is that everyone complains, but when a fresh new, talented, experienced face comes up for vote, no one will take the plunge.  If he doesn't hold true to his word, then VOTE HIM OUT.  Something you can never do with the Abernathy folks.  You can never get rid of them.  They're like an ugly boomerang...they keep coming back!!!  Bill Thomas was forced down our throats for 14 terms, 28 years.  And what do we have to show for it - a statue at Meadows Field and the TRIP monies that have to be matched in order to be utilized, which means...BINGO...we have to be taxed to build our own roads!

IntheKnow~ check out that Wiki article a touch more,sources too many to be listed to verify Polamo was less than stellar...however I agree that should not relect on McCallum.

 BakRes,

Does the process define the relevant jurisdiction as the city, or his ward? That will make a huge difference in determining the numbers a recall campaign would have to collect.

Rich Pombo is corrupt?  And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. 

Why can't these Marxist-Leninistshave an honest, philosophical disagreement with a conservative?  I didn't work for Congressman Pombo, but one of his colleages (not Bill Thomas).  I had enough contact with Pombo to know he is a person of extraordinary integrity, who took a huge pay CUT to serve in Congress.

 Well, Pombo's not corrupt anymore, at least on our dime.  Heh.

There are plenty of conservatives I have friendly disagreements with, but then I don't know any Marxist-Leninists either.  Well, one, but he's a special case.  My "disagreement" with Pombo wasn't over his position on EITCs, it was on taking money from Abramoff and the nepotism on the taxpayers' dime.

I'm sure McCallum is a good guy, I just question his judgement.  Maybe he wasn't placed that highly or he stopped working for Pombo a while back.

As a side note, why is it that some people can't actually disagree with people without calling names?