But hey, at least we stopped burying the deceased animals in people's vacant lots.
 

...right?

Are you an animal lover, mattloch, or do you just specialize in witty quips?

georgieboy

georgieboy~while i do not speak for Mattloch...there was a local case of a "animal control officer" burying dead animals on a random empty lot here.That's what the "witty quip" refers too.

I bury dead animals all the time.

I truly hate it. It NEVER gets easier..... The ones I did today, mostly maggot infested, seemed almost alive there was so much movement. That and the ants. Maggots and ants...... thank God for his little scavengers.........

But when I shoveled em into that hole it took me a good half hour ta dig, one of them little dudes looked up at me like he was alive...... I had to look away. I try not to look at their head/faces...... its just too much......

It reminds me of a more unkind time..... a ways back with quick lime and trenches dug....... or even our guys and those black body bags......... It always bothers me..... critter or not.....

I love all God creatures (even some two legged ones) and it pains me every time ......

But it especially pains me when I realize this doesn't have to be........ if people would take care of their animals like they should (spay-neuter, keep apart when in estrus, etc.) then  you all down there wouldn't be having this kinda problem. Its called planned parenthood and I don't even wanna go to the human side of the equation because it makes my already aching head ache some more.....

I love critters, and unless we are going to make them fair game hunt animals (and I'm not sayin we should) then we need to take care of em. And that means

SPAY 

NEUTER 

KEEP EM APART WHEN IN ESTRUS

WATCH EM

ITS CALLED ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

And if you're gonna have pets, you have just as much responsibility for that as the professional livestock man.

Get it????

Right on Chico. Planned Parenthood; now wouldn't that be great not only in Kern County but across America. I hope we can do better for animals than we have done for children.

Mebbe because of the biz, but I always can tell when females are in estrus, and if I don't want pups, etc. I keep em cloistered.

And I don't even live in town. Over population out here means they'll get run over eventually on Ave whatever, Hwy 65, or 155, snakebit, etc.........

Its like anything else (guns, etc.) the irresponsible will force draconian affectations on all of us. In the form of more laws, which, of course, only usually end up punishing the law abiding in the first place.

Remember the taggers and spray can deposits postulate? I lived for years in Europe where you had to have a license for everything! Believe me, we don't wanna go there.......BTDT (and it sux)

Lois, thank you for your ongoing efforts on behalf of homeless pets in Kern County. You have been an unwavering supporter of more progressive ways to deal with what is truly a shameful situation. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this issue.

Chico, thanks for such an eloquent response. As someone who feels much the same as you on this issue, your comment speaks volumes.

Chico and I bet you bury those animals responsibly on your own property~ heck I've got a "pet cemetery" in my own back yard and my placenta  buried there ~~ though all have long ago become one with the earth. The point is I did not pick someone else's property to bury any dead animals with out their knowledge~which is what the local animal control officers did here.

Unfortunately, too many people insist on polarizing this topic into pro-MSN and anti-MSN. I suspect the emotional response over MSN has overshadowed other viable solutions and has caused a great deal of this delay. It's hard to have progress through an emotional quagmire. That being said, they do have the pilot program for license enforcement in the final stages of planning, so there is at least some progress occuring, however slow it may be.

So Pup, you and Carol calling me (and others who have advocated low-cost spay/neuter and enforcement of existing laws instead of MSN) "a breeder" was what exactly? Polarizing seems the right word to me.

You can try to play the logical card in this thread, but you have spent countless weeks bashing all those who advocate anything other than MSN as a potential solution. You are part of the problem Pup because you refuse to see any other solution. That is also the definition of polarizing.

Shwaine..everything pup writes about can be read between the lines and it always goes back to MSN..she just thinks by readjusting her argument she will eventually fit the direction of the conversation back into the different venue but its always the same old rhetoric

Pup you know what I think and you know my reasons..arrrghh..OK first my total agreement on a recent post by Possummomma: 

I never said I had a "solution".  I did have some thoughts and ideas (as did others).  I did bring up some other reasons why the stray animal population seems to be booming.  But, you want someone who will agree with you that MSN is the solution to all of the ills of the animal world.  As I've pointed out before and won't be pointing out again  If you mandate sterilization on all animals, then how do you propose to have dogs in the future?  If you don't approach the problem by figuring out what you'll say to breeders (since, MSN does close down their business), you'll never get this off the ground.  And, what if you say, get all the regular citizens to sterilize, while allowing breeders to keep breeding dogs that develop massive problems because their DNA has been jacked-up from years of inbreedng...what do you do then?  Do you go back in and place and addendum on the mandate so that someone can pump out some mutts or mixed breeds?  There are consequences to MSN that you've not addressed.  Thus, people are hesitant to jump on board

Now a couple of my reasons AGAIN...how do you feel its right to go into some ones home and tell them how to run it?? the fact that they might have a pet that is genuinely talented and they want to continue that animals lines for their friends and family and most importantly to themselves. They love this animal and the fact it would just be gone because of your Mandatory wishes IS NOT RIGHT....If low cost can be achieved peolpe that are on fixed incomes or suffer financial burdens due to todays high cost of gas nd groceries can afford to do so especially if they have multiple pets.

You will never stop the abusers that are breeding irresponsibly..they will take it underground if they have too and make the animals lives even more miserable for those dogs than it has already..

If Mandatory were in affect you would quit possibly be killing more dogs that would have other wise had a home because the owners decided that the cost wasn't something they wanted to deal with..so they dump Rover off at the pound to solve their problem..chances are he would be euthanized.

Now a pro on not having mandatory S/N is that since the other cities have agreed to try it then their citizens will soon begin having to go look in other cities that havent passed the law to find an adoptable pet. Now if our dogs can be out on a decent website with more than 10 dogs at a time so it will attract more people with a better variety of dogs that could very well help find new homes for our poor pups....

as an example I will use cars..seriously who wants to go look at a page that has two Volkswagen's a ford truck and 3 Chevy impalas when they can go to another site that they can see a whole fleet of different makes and models of autos to purchase..we need that type of site available for our dogs and cats..compare puppyfind.com to what our online sites look like now..its a sham..Id never go there and other people looking wont either..they want to see everything available..not go to a site they feel they might miss a dog of their dreams because it didn't happen to be online that particular week..

Hope hasnt worked in the past because who wants to send their favorite pet all the way to Fresno alone with 100 other dogs..how sanitary can that be not too menton other diseases they can pick up from being shipped in mass quantitys....then to be cut on by strangers..people that truely love their animals will never do that..I know I wouldnt and I wouldnt expect anyone else too..its doomed to fail again for just those reasons..and $125 is still alot of money to snip a dog..we need our own clinic here in Bakersfield..how can Fresno afford one and we cant??

Whew I'm done for now..but this gives you the jest of what everyone has been telling pup for the past few months and every time it comes up she wants us to repeat our reasons along side her same old reasons..her posting just make me feel like I need to show the other side of the coin or people will think her side is right basically because they felt no one else cares about another side..but believe me..we are out here...

It would seem that there's a belief, held by some, about the mandatory beating of a dead horse.  ;)

Pup, can I ask you a sincere question?  Do you get much support by using the methods you've employed here (name calling, misrepresentation of another's beliefs or ideas, and/or taking a position of no compromise)?  I only ask because it doesn't seem to be working for you.  You have an audience here and rather than carefully address the concerns or points that other people raise, you play the victim and employ the above three methods.  You're not educating people by tossing the same two facts in their face over the course of, what,...four posts?  You're also not doing the cause any favors by trying to play at the emotions of people with borderline factual examples. I've even seen you tear into another long-time poster (NancyII) with a stunning amount of disdain and vitrol. Why?  Over the last week, I've read every post and comment you've penned and find that when the discussion starts going in a way you don't like, you resort to the whole martyr thing.  You do everything short of accusing those who have more questions and points as puppy killing, animal hating monsters.  Perhaps you should consider the fact that we are the ones who actually cared to respond to your posts and start a discussion.  You keep complaining about the lack of response you're getting on these topics and when people respond, you start drama.  What's your ultimate goal here?  Why continue doing things that aren't helping your argument or the animals you want to protect?  You don't have to agree with every thing someone says.  You don't have to change your opinon.  But, using non-agressive, considerate language can't hurt.  Peace. 

I wont go back and collect all the names of people that have posted against your proposal..that's ridiculous and a huge waste of my time..but if anyone wants to go to pups profile and read her back log of comments to others I'm sure you will see the list  consist of alot more than just  PMmma and myself..that statement is another inaccuracy on your part pup and unfortunately it just showed how blatantly  you will stretch the truth to achieve your goals..

There are tens of thousands of Michelle's in this world...but by you posting that it has bothered you just established that  infact is your real name  think about that one..

PS..it doesn't take a brain child to fully realize what can eventually happen in the animal kingdom if you run around mandatorily slicing off reproductive organs on the main populace of dogs and cats..this is bigger than that..all your worried about is cutting back on the immediate numbers...the few remaining ones intact would create a freak show of genetic defects..put it in the human sense what kind of genocide would that create..Please your an intelligent woman..use that grey matter between your ears for something besides establishing another argument over the same tired subject..

 Any one wish to share my chill pills??? LOL ;=)))

Only kidding folks, put down those baseball bats and take two steps back.

And the attack mouse. ;=)))

then get your act together in your posts PUP..it read like you were upset they called you Michelle which naturally told me that was your name..sorry i cant climb into your brain and cypher through all the deep meaning files..

Geez for someone that puts herself off as a higher intellect you sure do miss the train alot..and DAM HERE I GO AGAIN..the freak show may not  happen today or tomorrow..its called evolution resulting in the mishandling of gods gift to us in the form of a canine.. do you understand evolution and its effects Pup?? Granted designer dogs will have an effect..but that has been happening since the beginning of time...they are called Mutts or they evolve into a new breed..where do you think all the different breeds came from PUP and note the word BREEDS...not cant breed due to no longer having functioning genitallia..

You run me off every blog because I end up getting so frustrated with your constant  redirection of  information to either try and make your opponent  look bad by picking every statement apart to make your self appear IN THE KNOW..or your way  is the only way approach.. or else your  just plain suffering from a severe 24/7 blonde moment..

I'm going to send a picture of my sister's dog to the paper. She adopted her from the SPCA almost seven years ago.

Pup,

From my conversations with at least two supervisors, I got the impression they were ready to jump on this issue but were frustrated by a lack of detailed information from the AC staff. And I do know that at least one supervisor has been in contact with a leading authority on best practices for reducing pet overpopulation.

So I know there is interest. Lets hope for some ACTION and soon.

Lois

Animal control would seem to need an overhaul. I suspect until it is better managed, there will be little headway in the overpopulation problem, regardless of what the supervisors decide to do. It's very easy to write some legislation, but if the animal control is going to be doing enforcement, they need to get their act together first. The UC Davis report had many recommendations for such an effort. Is any attempt being made to implement their recommendations?

Shwaine~ that seems a good place to start,work with what we have first and make that working at it's optimum.

 SouixCity - I'm sure you will see the list  consist of alot more than just  PMmma and myself..that statement is another inaccuracy on your part pup and unfortunately it just showed how blatantly  you will stretch the truth to achieve your goals..

Exactly!  It's kind of funny, really. Basically, anyone who wishes to discuss the other issues that directly tie to the success of keeping tabs on the pet population are put on her "list".  And, the inaccuracies are rampant.  She's quite the comment editor, though.  I noticed she took out most of her pointedly offensive language.  But, you can still see it in the quoted comments of others. 

Possummomma...Peace?  Are you sure about that?

Of course.  Why wouldn't I be? 

I haven't torn into anyone here.  And, I'm going to have to agree with Nancy and others who have said, repetedly, that you are NOT being attacked.  Your method of demanding one-hundred percent agreement gets in the way of reasoned conversation.  You even had the gall, at one point, to say "I am the only one that is tired of spending my money to kill pets in this wanton, disgusting manner."  That was your FIRST post, pup.  You hadn't even opened comments and you were already in full martry mode.  If you go into a debate thinking that you're the only one who cares or has ideas, then it's not a debate.  It's a speech!  And, what's worse was this comment: "Bak.com is one of the worst blogging communities I have ever experienced."  Way to alienate the people who might support your cause if you gave them a chance.  Here's another gem: "I only post here because for me this is about the animals...I understand that some people don't care about animals."  And, then, at one point you said that "no one wanted to discuss this."  Right. 

Sioux...you and Possummomma are the only ones that have been telling me this and attacking every statement that I make.

Wow! Your ability to turn on people is now legendary!  At one time or another, almost ever blogger has been on your naughty list.  You've also implied (though, the comments have been edited), that these were the worst blogs/community you had ever seen.  You went on a tyrade against NancyII for no good reason.  You've called most of us animal haters or "supporters of the massacre". 

I thought I was using non-aggressive, considerate language, my apologies if I haven't -- but what about the way you tear into others?

Please mull this over--the problem we're trying to address is over population of animals, primarily dogs, correct?  Why then are we looking to animal control to step up policing of licenses and vaccinations? I'm not suggesting that those aren't issues, but we must attack one problem at a time.

 License and vaccinate every single dog in this county and that doesn’t begin to stem the tide of unwanted pups, because people will still be breeding and buying for perfection.  But spay and neuter, educate the public on the atrocities of breeding and buying “perfect" dogs and we will see immediate change in all areas of animal control.  Responsible people, who are spaying/neutering their pets and not buying pure breds, will coincidentally help alleviate the licensing/vaccination problem.  Let’s not constantly look to our government agencies to rectify situations irresponsible people have caused.  Of course we need Animal Control’s help to educate the public, but ultimately it is up to each and every one of us to do our part.  The people who are breeding and buying dogs and not spaying/neutering should be held accountable.  I don’t want Animal Control spending taxpayers’ money chasing down licenses and vaccinations—that’s not even remotely the issue at hand.

I can answer that pup~ it is polite to use a posters full nick unless you see otherwise~ like in my case sage not sag as you did at one point. 

Pup, for someone who was done arguing and leaving these blogs, you sure post alot.

Possummomma...if you are going to quote me, please do it accurately,...

I quoted you accurately.  I also used google cache to see the posts and comments you made before editing. 

And I made that statement because I knew I wasn't the only one.  As Lois has pointed out here -- the city and county has been dragging their feet on this issue for over two years.  My assumption was that everyone is tired of this.
If that was the case, then why did you continue saying that you supposed you were the only one who stood between these animals and their "tragic murder"?  People were agreeing with most of your points from the very beginning.  There were even a few of us who said we felt just as badly about bad pet parents.  I was also on the same page with regard to puppy breeders.  But, as soon as I questioned the efficacy and data on MSN, you went off.  It was more important to you to be right than to solve this problem.  You even had the audacity to suggest that because some of us hadn't made MSN our "cause" (and, therefore, hadn't blogged about it), we didn't care.  That's crap and you know it. 

Think about it...I was addressing everyone, (not just animal lovers or haters) -- because everyone is involved -- i.e., local taxpayers are being dragged into this whether they like it or not.

This may very well have been your intent.  But, rather than accept that there would be some people in the middle of the road, you went on a tyrade about how some people (horror of horrors) supported legislation that benefited humans but didn't support MSN.  You then put out that two million a year number and when I asked you how you felt about the $7.4Million per HOUR that is spent on the war in Iraq, you spun off into another argument.  I would love nothing more than to see an hours worth of money from Iraq go towards programs to keep spaying and neutering affordable for all (maybe even free for all).  But, I also know that that hourly rate could do far more for education than the $228 an hour we're spending on dogs.  You'll have to forgive those of us who selfishly believe the 7.4 million an hour could do more for our children and humanity (and animals!) than $228 an hour.

I have seen your comments on many of the blogs and you aren't exactly Snow White.  

Is that supposed to insult me?  Because, it doesn't.  I fully admit I'm not perfect and have said things I'm not always proud of.  But, with regard to the Californian, which is a public blog ran by a business, I have always been polite.  Private blogs are different stories.  That's why it's so silly when you start implying that you have seen Nancy make other comments and...now it looks like you're going to go there with regard to me.  Once again, for someone who is trying to gather support, you sure turn on potential supporters fast.  That's the sad thing.

Possommomma...since you seem to be the blogmaster, can you let us all know what the rules are on shortening long names -- is it ever legal to just use the first three letters for convenience sake

Has anyone ever told you that you're passive-agressive?  I'm only the blog master on my own blog.  Not here.  You know that, though.  Which makes one wonder about your sincerity on other topics. 

P-mom

Yep, there are tens of thousands Michelle's in this world and I'm Michele. Hi everyone!! (just being funny).

I know one thing for certain.  Most people here are sick of this topic. Pup has managed to alienate almost everyone on the blog (as evidenced by the small number of people posting here)  

The only way to put this to rest is for people to stop responding to pup no matter how tempting it is to try to work with her.

Get over yourself.

pup, you have not offended me so there's no need to apologize.  I do however, find your almost ingratiating manner a little off putting.  No matter, that's just my opinion.  What I do find tiresome is having the blog site  inundated with this topic and the sooner it fades away, the better.  It has been beaten to death with absolutely NOTHING new.

Oh, and I will decide whether I'm taking this too seriously or not,  thank you.  You might try starting a blog on another topic.  I'm sure you have other interesting things in your life and that you're interested in besides the spay neuter issue.  At the risk of being "mean" to you again, your single minded posts are falling into the "one trick pony" category....if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all.

I gather you've been bringing up my name (PM referred to it) but you should know that I rarely read your blog and then only the ones that catch my eye on the main page.   You have a nice evening now....y'hear?

Pup wrote:"You say you find this topic tiresome...I don't quite understand what you mean"

Your still posting lead in statements trying to get her goat and then tell her you just want to be friends..theres that passive aggresiveness workin overtime again..you know very well what she means..shes not referring to the overpopulation issue shes referring to your demeanor and delivery of a message.

We all want a solution..but Mandatory is not it..I realize you have a block setup in your head to listen to anything other than your own ideas...this is a matter that concerns alot of people not just you and your agenda..Our council realizes this and is trying to figure something out other than MSN yet you keep side swiping the issue with your own interpretation of what was said. even Lois didn't say anything about being Pro MSN yet your reaction was like she and you are on the same team..she stated they were working on a solution..

EVERY TIME some one comes up with an alternate suggestion you run off half cocked shoving you idea down their throat..We have thoughts ideas and feelings too.. You however are very closed minded to any of those for some strange reason..I still think you work for PETA or another radical group bent on controlling the animal kingdom and everyone involved in it..You can deny it all you want but only they have tunnel vision similar to yours...my way or no way..

we need to work together on this and find a solution that works for everyone not just Pup

LOW COST SPAY ANd NEUTER CLINIC in Bakersfield..The majority of the people wont put their beloved pet in a truck with 100 other dogs and take a chance on them getting hurt or ill to send them up to Fresno

iMPROVE THE WEBSITE TO GET THE DOGS OUT THER FOR PEOPLE TO SEE..ALL FUNDS GO BACK TO THE COUNTY FOR AN IMPROVED HOUSING FACILITYThe ones on the net are raking in the bucks..they can also allow private individuals to post for a small fee..GO STUDY how they are put together and replicate their system..its not that tuff..if need be get sponsers to help get it off the ground..once its up and running it will just be a maintenence issue..Im sure we have capapble people working for the county that can take over the project..if not replace an animal control officer and hire one..if its succesful we can hire more down the road if we need too..

this can be worked out other than acting like a bunch of Nazi dictators through mandatory sterilization..

Everyone,

The debate over MSN is far from settled.

I favor MSN, as you may know from previous columns, but I admit the data isn't clear as to whether it works.

I think a key issue in counties/cities where MSN has done well (such as Los Angeles) is that the government first established widespread, low-cost spay/neuter options and stepped up education campaigns (in all languages).

Once you get the ball really rolling on educating people about spay/neuter and make it accessible to all citizens, you stand a much better chance of sucessful mandatory spay/neuter laws, with exemptions for breeders and others.

But we are FAR FAR FAR FAR from that place.

In listening to others who are more involved in our Animal Control efforts than I have ever been, I think we have really done a disservice to the many people who are willing to give their time/money/efforts on a voluntary basis.

We can talk about adding more laws and enforcement, but what about the multitude of people who want to lend a hand? There's no leadership, no organization and no talk, even, of how to use that vast untapped resource.

We can't even get an education campaign underway! What about billboards and fliers and even TV commercials (in Spanish too!) that talk about the importance of altering, licensing and vaccinating your pet and giving info on how to get that all done? NOTHING!

Anyway, we can fight about MSN if you want, but I'd like to see some grassroots solutions coming from our leadership that make sense.

Just my thoughts this morning.

XCUSE ME PUP..at one time i told you how we personally ran a nonprofit dog club here..we gave to the SPCA and ALPHA K9..held fundraisers and car washes..pot lucks to raise money..we gathered sponsors gifts  to auction off and the money was given to the dogs and cats of our community..we also gave to the pound in outlying areas blankets and washing machines..we took in strays and have picked up injured animals taken them to the vet spayed ferril cats put on exhibitions at the SPCA during their dog days celebrations..and assisted the vets onsight..etc etc..we were on our own doing these things..we didn't wait for others to help..

when the building commission was trying to cut back on the number of animals per acre and it turned into a huge deal down town..complete with media coverage and standing room only... who do you think put out the first flyer's in all the stores and ranches and wrote articles and organized the first groups to go out and spread the word on how it would effect our animal community...my wife and I.....

I coined the phrase "SAVE OUR ANIMALS" that was used on a regular basis back then..

The information came from the paper and no one else had taken the time too look because who really reads it?? Pretty dry stuff ..but its important to our community to be aware of whats going on down there....it was  a law which effected large animals that would have impacted the whole County down to the 4H kids..and it was stopped

This just really ticks me off when people who don't do anything more than blog and maybe pick up a rescue now and then are so intent on controlling other peoples descions.. MSN is not the answer you would like everyone to believe..hows it fair to people on fixed incomes to have to put out that kind of expense just to satisfy your wishes..hows it fair that if a family has a fantastic dog they should not be able to have the chance to pass his bloodlines down...the list goes on..you are trying to restrict everyone because of a few..and like I've said before You will not stop those who are the real problem ..they will just get sneakier and continue breeding mutts for euth down at the pound..

Now lets stop all the fighting and do something real that everyone can deal with...

Well apparently you missed 'my point'  which was it can still be done if people once again band together and got the low cost spay clinics we need here in Bakersfield..not Fresno..we can wear our own big boy pants..we don't need them...gee on that thought..how are they surviving just taking care of their area..cant we do the same here?? ..

sittin on your butt yappin wont accomplish anything..however in your case I would much rather your remained as you are.. you wont ever convince me MSN is the right way to handle this..

 NancyII...the only time I bring up your name is within the same blog that we have mutually conversed in.  (In case you haven't noticed by now, you can't always believe everything PM says -- I am not even sure she believes it all). 

*ding ding ding* We have a hypocrite!

"A 'bogger' is someone who bogs down discussions with off topic remarks and/or personal insults against other bloggers" - Pup

You also had the audacity to say that the thread was way better before other people deleted their comments.  Yet, you readily admitted to deleting quite a few of your own.  You then said this was one of the "worst blogging communities" you'd ever seen and no one but poor, little you cared about the animals.

I hope you realize that you've officially lost credibilty with almost every blogger here - even those who share the same values in terms of pet overpopulation.  Within 24 hours, you insulted: Nancy, Witterpitters,  SouixCity, Vanity Fair, Shwaine, SageFever, Lingtaowoo, and myself.

At one time or another, you questioned the integrity of every single person who held a different opinion.  With that in mind, you can think or say whatever you choose about the B.com community - the reality is, though, that no one trusts you and you've alienated just about everyone who showed any interest in helping or discussing this.  Nice job.

Susan Madigan here, the newbie (as of March 2008) on the AC Commission.  I'm a long time reader, but rare poster on these blogs.  I'm not here to push this or that position, just want to make some clarifications. 

I could have misunderstood, but I believe the vote by the BoS in August is going to be a licensing enforcement option, not a breeders permit option.  That is what I gleaned from being at the meeting and watching the video again after the meeting.

The second thing, Dr. Fleeman, the part time volunteer vet, who we all met at the ACC meeting on June 18th, resigned from KCAC on June 19th.

And third (for the other blog about the Director position), based on my observations, and if I were to guess, I would say that although Denise has expressed her interest in the position, she will probably not get it.

The last thing, while I have many opinions on all of these issues, feel the frustration as much as everyone else, and am an extreme animal lover, I prefer not to argue.  (Too much childhood trauma I guess.)  I try to use my energy to see what I can get done, and appreciate constructive and realistic recommendations in order to accomplish that.  I'm still new and learning, but hope to be a small instrument of change if I can.  If anyone wants to send me a direct email about constructive change, I'm all ears (or maybe fingers):  accommission5@gmail.com.   I very much appreciate the recommendations about upgrading the KCAC website.  That is the kind of useful stuff I want.  Please keep in mind, however, that even though we are appointed officials, our power is very limited.  I do my best to use what little power I have in a positive and constructive way, but have to realize the limitations of the position.

A few more clarifications.  Dr. McDougle started in September, 2006, and her last day was June 6th.  I don't know when Dr. Fleeman started, in fact had never heard of her until the ACC meeting on the 18th.  Don't have information on Dr. Fleeman's reason for leaving.

Regarding the BoS recommendations.  I suggest anyone curious view the video again http://kern.granicus.com/Me....  Supervisor Maggard makes his motion at about 2:59:30, and re-states it again at about 3:55:23.  You can draw your own conclusions about what he wants from there.

The New Director position is above Denise Haynes, Division Chief, and below Dave Price, Director of RMA. 

Squeaks!