The people in these elected positions KNEW what the salary was/is when they decided to run for the office. Did they run with expectations of raises?  I'm sure some kind of COLA is expected, however, I have worked in places where we were told not to expect even a COLA as the coffers were low. So....why should any person who voluntarily runs for a position and gets it expect anything above and beyond, let alone when the current financial situation is dire?

They are saying a year ago they didn't know the financial/economic situation would be so bad. Well, they sure as hell know now don't they?! So NOW knowing the financial/economic situation  - again - why the hell would they propose these kinds of raises?? 

Are the elected people saying they can't live on over $100,000.00 + a year???  Holy SH**!  How about they cut back some of their "toys" and "vacations" "steak dinners"  like the rest of us have had to do? We're back to hamburger patties and mac and cheese so why can't they cut some of the fat from their overall spending???

If these raises are approved, you can bet those supervisors voting "for" will be looking for something to do with their spare time when they are voted out of office.

Thanks for the article Lois.

It’s ironic that those who obtain a salary from the hard earned wages of the producing private sector call themselves “public servants”.

Any person with a retail based job is a public servant.

Where in the private sector does a servant make more money than their employer?

The constant rationalization for higher salaries in tax supported employment is based on the  concept of parity with the private sector. In times of recession, wages fall. It’s time for government pay cuts, not increases.

Not to mention that government employees are far less productive on the basis of total compensation for each unit of work produced over the lifetime of the government employee. This is especially true when we consider that a typical government employee will “work” for 20 years, then draw close to a full tax supported salary for another 25 years for doing absolutely nothing.

In the sprit of parity with the private sector, retirement pay should now be cut by at least 30%, to equal the retirement loses recently suffered by so many seniors in the private sector.

And finally, if any government employee really feels underpaid for their skills or workload, the private sector is always available.

As far as the attracting competent people argument goes, here’s a great example....

Supervisor Ray Watson disagreed with both of us. He will support the raises on Tuesday.

“If we knew (the economic meltdown) was coming, we would have made different decisions a year ago.”

Well Ray, I saw the meltdown coming two years ago. May I please have your salary?

*

E

D

I

T

*

So you disagree with giving a pay raise that seems by my numbers not to exceed $60,000 for all the positions proposed. It seems to me that is a small amount of money that is well spent, Unlike the almost $800,000 that was spent to take Carl Sparks to court to recover $38,000.

There is something wrong with the big picture when you're the Department head and your next in charge makes more money than you do in salary. Each one of these elected officials and department heads are diligently working to efficiently run their agencies in this tough time with the economy. Each one is treating this fiscal year as if it will be next year and cutting to the best of their abilities without losing services.

Each department had all their employees receive at least a 12% raise over the last year and a half and yet funding remained at last years rate for each department. Since most of the department funding is comprised of salaries (85%) funding was not adequate for this fiscal year to begin with. And the department heads are being asked to cut even more funding from this fiscal years budget knowing next year is looking even worse.

So yes salaries need to be comparable across the board depending on classification.

Wright,

Weren't some of  those requesting the pay raise. Involved in the decision process that led to the Sparks law suit?

We haven't even been hit by what the State budget cuts are going to do to our budget and our coffers....they should not be expecting raises right now.

It is arrogant of them to feel they deserve a pay raise. Considering our economic situation, you'd think they'd be a little more respectful of those that are paying their salaries. The taxpayers! Our Government as a whole is who is responsible for our budget deficit. Bad decisions makers, and we should pay them higher wages? I think not! As an employee, I didn't get a raise unless I was productive, or helped cut costs some how. Why should they be any different?

SWRIGHT2:  $60,000 could/should hire possibly 2 more full time "workers" or 3-4 part time workers. At this time of lay offs happening all over, I rather see the money spent on hiring people back or offering jobs to those who are already layed off. Even part time work, at this point is better then nothing. 

There should be a moratorium on any salary increases for upper echelon administrators - anybody who cannot live on $100,000+ a year is not managing very well - kind of like the idiots who are asking for bailout money, bad management, overextending credit, etc.. Nobody is stepping up to bail me out or give me a pay raise to "help out" and there are people below me who make more then I do, but that is because they have been here longer then I have and have.  In actuality, it is the lower echelon people "worker bees" who do the "real" work and should - in a perfect world - make the most money but who make the least!!! Just because someone has a degree does not make them smarter or more qualified (don't get me started down THAT road!).

In my working experience, I have been asked to not take more then a weeks' vacation because nobody else knew how to do my job! They couldn't even answer the phone because they didn't know what button to push!  Yet those very people made tons more money then I ever did because they had some sort of degree. Go figure!

 WOW... Incredible!!    For starters,   the CAO should be fired for his support of these raises.   The fact that he and BOS screwed up by granting huge pay raises for other employees in the past DOES NOT justify doling out these increases in TODAY'S climate.  Is this Wall Street or what??  This guy just does not get it !!!  Kern County will soon be cutting services and perhaps laying off employees.  How does that square with increasing elected officials salaries ???  OMG - is someone serious about this??  Incredibly stupid.  Shame on any member of the Board who votes in the affirmative. 

BTW ... does anybody know if Sheriff Youngblood is also currently drawing a county pension?  If he is,  that has to be a sizeable amount, which must compliment his paltry $ 150K salary nicely.

Ok let me get this straight KOZY and WITTERS;

The money that is gonna be paid which does not amount to very much in the big picture for several people to get raises is a very big deal and they should be more compassionate of the Everyday Taxpaying citizen. And that same $60,000 could be better used to hire two more employees. Hmmm let's see, that amount of money Will not come close to hiring more than one additional employee in the County system

Yes every Board of Supervisor was in place that decided to vote and continue this lawsuit against Carl Sparks, But those same Board members will continue to be on the board to continue making those same decisions because those everyday taxpaying citizens decided to allow those that were up for re election to get voted into office again. So the majority of the taxpaying citizens think the board is making good decisions...unfortunately.

You can call Ken Watson who was re elected into office and thank him for being the lead person in removing the value of the county employee health benefits and not negotiating equitable raises to the line staff employees comparable to other workers in the state. What they called a raise was eaten away by more out of pocket expenses to cover deficiencies in health benefits. They also contract with a health care service provider that routinely delays paying for services or improperly pays bills causing huge credit collection account bills for county employees.

Now then they also routinely change dental service providers which in turn causes more employees to utilize sick leave to update records and information with new medical providers and appointments with the new providers. all in the name of saving the county a few bucks on the backs of the employees.

So there is no rhyme or reason as to what the Board of Supervisor's does and those that are responsible are the Taxpayers for allowing it to continue by re electing them.....................

Now lets talk about those taxpayers you think should have their welfare looked after.

Should we first talk about the taxpayers that mishandled their personal finances by mortgaging their houses to well beyond their means like over 125% loan to value loans. Which is a huge cause of problems in this economy with foreclosures and defaults and also people asking to have their mortgages reevaluated because of their poor decisions.

Or should we talk about those taxpayers countrywide that are 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients. How about those taxpayers that receive school funded lunches that are not entitled to the benefits and there are no checks and balances for these programs.

Or should we talk about those taxpaying citizens that receive SSI because they decided to do too many drugs and fried their brains and seemingly have gotten some quack Doctor to say they cannot function and hold a job any longer. Yes I have one of those in my family somewhere.

So the way I see it, Until these taxpaying citizens realize they have helped to create this economic problem because of their greed, unwillingness to work, inability to vote differently and continually wanting more and more handed to them then nobody has any room to gripe.

It is just like everyone blaming President Bush for all our economic problems. Weren't the Democrats in office most of his term and in control of passing bills related to economic reform. Well we are in their version of reform now, and Obama wants more change with higher taxes. Hmmmm who's responsible for that Taxpayers I'm thinking.

Every social and public funded welfare type program out there was created by Democrats and later butchered more by Democrats. Welfare was not supposed to be long term, now it is. Unemployment was not supposed to be long term, Social Security was meant to assist with retirement and not to be retirement. Nor was it meant to be income for non-credible lazy people that made bad decisions like doing drugs.

I know I certainly hate paying the volume of taxes I pay. Fortunately my wife and I both work and with the medical problems and expenses we must pay for our daughter we are fortunate enough to get our tax rate down to a whopping 27% of our income. That does not include what is also taken out for Social Security, Medical and other required deductions. that 27% equates to $56,000 by the way.

So I would rather see overhaul rather than quibble over government salaries that can be justified otherwise they would not be looking to increase them.

swright2, It may seem small until you times it by city, county, state, and federal government elected people. It then turns what you feel is small, to gigantic! Stupid in this financial climate! Who in the heck do they think they are? I think pay raises for them should be put to a vote by their constituents.

California's budget crisis is in the range of $16 to 18 billion dollars ~ and no plan as to how to tread water let alone bail out.....bad timing to ask for any amount of money.

Sage is right on ....  the timing of the CAO's recommendation is CRAZY!!  Prudent executives would recommend hunkering down, controlling costs, etc... during these uncertain, tough times.  These are proposed pay raises for well-paid employees for crying out loud !  not life threatening issues ...

I tell you this Mr. Errera and Supervisor Watson have lost their senses.

Wright,

I think you have missed my point. My point being:

If they were incapable of making a proper  decision in the Sparks debacle. What evidence do you have to point to a correct decision in this case. Never mind the results of past elections. It is never to late to take a new direction.

Comparing Our county salaries to current comparable salaries may be a fraudulent comparison. Especially when WE KNOW that downward adjustments to all salaries statewide. Are under consideration.

It seems to me, post after post above. There is no complaint concerning the raise except for the timing.  All state employees are facing a 1 day a month layoff. And the elimination of two paid holidays. I maybe mistaken.  But I have heard stories of some of the investments made by both the county and the city being on a bit of shaky ground.

BAD, BAD, BAD TIMING...

The position of Sheriff deserves a raise. Currently there is no checks and balances that cause a rational adjustment to the salary as has been in place in the past. Before the State required the Counties to consolidate court functions the position of Sheriff was tied to the salary of a municipal court judge. This has not been in place since the consolidation in 2002. I also believe the position of District Attorney was also tied to the Municipal court judge pay scale.

The position should be once again tied to some sort of salary scale as in the past. Since there has been no salary tie-in to compare too, the role of the Sheriff has also assumed the role of Coroner and the Office of the Coroner. The salary currently is being attempted to compare with other Sheriff offices up and down the state that also perform the role of Sheriff/Coroner also.

The county never has nor will ever be a great paying county for county employees. The board always tends to be extremely conservative in salary scales. It does not matter whether we are in good times or bad times, the county always postures they have NO money when negotiations come around to pay employees. It is always a take away with the county and the employees will always suffer no matter if times are tough or not.

The employees of Kern County have been way behind the pay scale for a long time and suffering each time they are due some type of raise and then the county hits by taking away medical coverage or increasing the share cost to eat up any raise that may have been given.

The county always says, Next time we'll take care of you. We'll catch ya next time now is not good. Well good or not salary adjustments are due for these positions like it or not these county positions have been behind for quite some time and it would have come due now whether it was flourishing or not. But less not forget the $40 million dollars the County stashed away last year for a rainy day.

Fine, give those positions a raise on the books.  But make it not take effect until the next elections for those offices.  I suspect Jagels may be trying to pad his pension.  The salaries were in place when they took office, I think they should have to live with them as they are.  Kern County is a far cheaper place to live than other places they are comparing their salaries to.  In addition Jagels and Youngblood are the heads of departments smaller than those places they are comparing their salaries to.  They already make more than twice what their rank and file members make (who are the ones doing the work and/or putting their life on the line).  I'm sure their paltry salaries can sustain them until the economy improves and the next election comes around.  Just my opinion. 

They have got to be kidding me...right when everyone is taking it in the shorts,these 'well paid' servents of the community wants more....time to do some drug-testing from the top down...I couldn't believe what I read this morning in the paper...and how much they already make...talk about nerve...

 LOIS:   someone on here mentioned the possibility that the Sheriff might be double dipping - drawing a pension and salary.  Could that possibly be true? surely that is not allowed ??? maybe with your contacts you could investigate that and let us know?

Hey,

Where these people going to go? Greeters at WalMart.

None of them have had a private sector job in years.

And Nobodies hiring.  

But you never know. If they are really short on cash. A couple hours greeting at WalMart might get them through the holidays. 

:>)

“You can call Ken Watson who was re elected into office and thank him for being the lead person in removing the value of the county employee health benefits and not negotiating equitable raises to the line staff employees comparable to other workers in the state. What they called a raise was eaten away by more out of pocket expenses to cover deficiencies in health benefits. They also contract with a health care service provider that routinely delays paying for services or improperly pays bills causing huge credit collection account bills for county employees.”

“Now then they also routinely change dental service providers which in turn causes more employees to utilize sick leave to update records and information with new medical providers and appointments with the new providers. all in the name of saving the county a few bucks on the backs of the employees.”

Awwww, the poor little government supported  socialists. Looks like they are having to make similar sacrifices to those in the private sector. How cruel.

Using sick leave to update records? If it’s paid sick leave, then it’s just more welfare. Boo Hoo.

Fact is, pay could be cut 20%, and few would leave the safe socialist sanctuary of government employment. 

And let’s please stop referring to government employees as “public servants.”

All working members of a civilization are public servants.

“Now lets talk about those taxpayers you think should have their welfare looked after.”

Speaking of taxpayers..........

Only those people who work in the private sector actually pay any real net taxes.

You can’t pay taxes with taxes and realize any net gain to fund government services.

The tax deductions from a government employees paycheck are merely a book keeping illusion.

Just for a moment, let’s assume that taxes paid by government employees are a valid net revenue gain for the government.

If that’s true, then we could solve all of our city, county, state, and federal budget problems overnight, and private sector workers could pay nothing.

Simply give all government workers a 10,000 % pay increase, and tax them for 9,999 % of the pay raise.

The result would be a modest raise for the government employees, and a massive increase in government revenue, yielding a budget surplus. Problems solved!

Of course, the formula wouldn’t work, since government employees pay no net taxes.

If county employees feel that their work compensation is under valued, it’s still a free country, and the private sector awaits.

The people who are looking for these pay raises wrote the following laws.

I have posted both the City and County curfew laws below. They are no more a law than the sky is green. They are a blatant license to harass. These Codes/violations are in fact a list of excuses for beating  a Curfew violation.

For example:

This chapter shall not give any peace officer independent authority to detain any person unless the officer is able to articulate facts creating a reasonable belief such person was roaming, loitering or wandering as defined in this chapter. (Ord. G-5675 § 2 (part), 1991)

The term “roam” shall mean to travel in or on a motor vehicle circuitously or without consistent direction. The term “loiter” shall mean to idly remain or linger at a fixed location either within or outside of a motor vehicle and includes idly remaining or lingering at a place of business open to the public after completing the activity for which the business is open to the public. The term “wander” shall mean to move about other than by means of a motor vehicle circuitously or without a consistent direction.

The law only covers public property:

A. It shall be unlawful for any unemancipated minor to loiter or wander in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds or other public grounds, public places or public businesses, or to roam the public streets, alleys, roads or highways in or on a motor vehicle between the hours of ten (10:00) p.m. and five (5:00) a.m. on the day immediately following.

It does not apply to private businesses that remain open for other legal activities that a minor may participate in.

Even SOCIAL CALLS, after ten PM are permitted.

My youngest daughter is released from Work Force classes at West High, at 9:50PM 4 nights a week. It is impossible for her to be home prior to 10 PM. Infact the following is true under the current law.

She may walk the 5 miles home. She may stop at Burger King and arrive at home at 2AM the next morning. And under the code. Law enforcement would not be permitted to stop and talk to her. (detain)

The code is specific. The officer must:

This chapter shall not give any peace officer independent authority to detain any person unless the officer is able to articulate facts creating a reasonable belief such person was roaming, loitering or wandering as defined in this chapter. (Ord. G-5675 § 2 (part), 1991)

Bakersfield Municipal Code

9.44.010 Hours—Exceptions.

     It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen years to loiter upon the streets of the city, in places of amusement or entertainment, or in other public places within the city, between the hours of ten p.m. and five a.m., of any day unless such person is accompanied by a parent, guardian or other adult person having control or charge of such person under the age of eighteen years; or unless such person under the age of eighteen years has gone to a place of entertainment or amusement other than one at which liquor is sold or served, prior to eight p.m., where a regular program of entertainment has commenced or been arranged for the occasion to commence prior to eight p.m., and has held over or been continued beyond ten p.m., or such person has left such a place, a place of employment or social call after ten p.m., and such person is thereafter returning directly to his/her home or place of residence in a reasonable manner. (Ord. 3188 § 1, 1988: prior code § 10.12.010)

9.44.020 Responsibility of parent or guardian.

     It is unlawful for any parent, guardian or any adult person having the control, custody or charge of any person under the age of eighteen years, to permit, allow or let said person loiter upon the streets of the city or in places of amusement or entertainment or in other public places in said city between the hours of ten p.m., and five a.m., of any day, unless said minor is lawfully upon said streets or public places or places of amusement as permitted by Section 9.44.010. (Prior code § 10.12.020)

Title 9 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE

Kern County Ordinance.

Chapter 9.28 CURFEW FOR MINORS

9.28.010 Legislature findings.

9.28.020 Curfew for minors--Exceptions--Definitions.

9.28.030 Penalty.

9.28.010 Legislature findings.

The Kern County board of supervisors finds that there is a severe and increasing problem with vandalism, usage of drugs and alcohol, public disturbances, violence, “drive-by” shootings, and other crimes fostered and committed by and against juveniles and juvenile street gangs roaming the streets and loitering in public places during late night and early morning hours and that a regulatory measure in the form of a reasonable curfew on minors prohibiting loitering and roaming will enhance the ability of law enforcement officers to control this problem, thereby fostering the safety and welfare of juveniles and the general public. (Ord. G-5675 § 2 (part), 1991)

9.28.020 Curfew for minors--Exceptions--Definitions.

A. It shall be unlawful for any unemancipated minor to loiter or wander in or upon the public streets, sidewalks, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds or other public grounds, public places or public businesses, or to roam the public streets, alleys, roads or highways in or on a motor vehicle between the hours of ten (10:00) p.m. and five (5:00) a.m. on the day immediately following.
B. The provisions of subsection (A) of this section shall not apply when the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, guardian, or other adult person having the care, custody, control or charge of the minor. The terms “loiter,” “wander” and “roam” do not and should not be construed to mean or prohibit the following: proceeding directly to or from work, allowing for incidental stops such as at an eating establishment; attending a church or school related activity, entertainment, recreational or civic activity; proceeding directly home or to other place of residence from a church or school related activity, entertainment, recreational or civic activity, allowing for incidental stops such as at an eating establishment or to drop someone off; or proceeding on an emergency errand for a parent, guardian or other adult person having the care, custody, control or charge of the minor.
C. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings. The term “other adult person” shall mean a person not less than twenty-one (21) years of age. The term “emancipated” shall have the meaning set forth in California Civil Code Section 62. The term “motor vehicle” shall have the meaning set forth in California Vehicle Code Section 415. The term “roam” shall mean to travel in or on a motor vehicle circuitously or without consistent direction. The term “loiter” shall mean to idly remain or linger at a fixed location either within or outside of a motor vehicle and includes idly remaining or lingering at a place of business open to the public after completing the activity for which the business is open to the public. The term “wander” shall mean to move about other than by means of a motor vehicle circuitously or without a consistent direction. This chapter shall not give any peace officer independent authority to detain any person unless the officer is able to articulate facts creating a reasonable belief such person was roaming, loitering or wandering as defined in this chapter. (Ord. G-5675 § 2 (part), 1991)

9.28.030 Penalty.

Violation of this chapter shall constitute an infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) in the discretion of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 601. (Ord. G-5675 § 2 (part), 1991)

You know the head of the Water District IS drawing a pension AND collecting a paycheck while doing the SAME job that he retired from.....YEE-HAW.....

Normally, I'm not on board with Lois.  But there is no way in hell that I agree with these raises. IT'S  NONSENSE.

Lois,

I agree that this is a very hard time to imagine pay raises for the heads of public entities; afterall, City Manager Alan Tandy only makes a little over $200,000 a year. It also must beg another question; who at the Californian decided to increase the daily paper's price by 50% in these times?!?!? Is the paper really attempting to eliminate their physical circulation while remaining an e-paper?? Costs alone cannot account for this as the Californian already reduced costs earlier this year by shrinking the paper. 

As far as COLA raises go, I challenge anyone blogging here to say that they wouldn't take a COLA raise if possbile after the past year of $4 a gallon gas, high food prices, taxes and fees crippling the free market. I know that I would take a COLA raise, but 11% & 22% aren't COLA raises unless they have been working without a contract for several years; say like 2-4 years.  

How about this idea! They are talking about not being payed the same as others in comparable positions, or other cities, counties,etc. Seeing as though we have the state deficit we do, maybe they should all be brought down to Jagels, and Youngblood's salaries. Maybe the two of them would like that idea better. Maybe it would also look very patriotic to our Vice President Elect Mr. Biden. LOL

Hoorah;

Kozy and Donmason have come into the new century and figured out how to cut and paste.

Wright,

I expect performance. This curfew law is embarrassing. If someone is going to suggest he deserves a raise. Then I should be able to expect a explanation for shoddy work performance.

In fact it maybe impossible to create a curfew law that could operate, in real life, constitutionally. If that is the case. Man up and state the truth. Don't throw out some trash like this and expect to get a free pass.

The reality is. That outside another concurrent violation other than curfew. The only possibility for an curfew conviction, under this law, would be a coerced confession. So if a prerequisite violation is required. Why bother with the curfew law in the first place.

America is at a turning point economically. Decisions must be made. Now is a ridiculous time for anyone, anywhere, to expect a pay raise.  

So how does a curfew law come into play, and especially when you quote one from the City when you are concerned about the Sheriff whom is in the County. If you want performance than read the newspapers and get off the blogs because there are all sorts of articles lately about the gang members getting arrested, and so on. If your so concerned about your child being out late at night with what you seem to state as a lawful reason than go pick them up if you don't want them harassed if that is your position.

But most Law Enforcement officers ask all sorts of questions to determine if there is a lawful reason for them being out late at night. Trust me there are a whole lot better things to do than look for someone that looks to be under age at 10:01 pm and look to stop them. However if they are somewhere there seems to be trouble going on, then you should expect them to get talked too.

Trying to determine someones merit based on Municipal code violation enforcement is beyond crazy. So be a responsible parent and set some boundaries for your child, get them a cell phone and they can call you if there is a problem you need to be made aware of. My experience is that if a parent believes their child is being harassed by law enforcement, then the child 98% of the time is doing something they are not supposed to be doing in the first place and they don't tell the entire truth to the parent. You do realize also that municial code violations are fine only type of offenses. just like an infraction on your drivers license, you can't be arrested for them unless you have a higher offense OR the person refuses to sign a ticket.

And every municipal code you quoted was created at least over 20 years ago...........so why does it matter who made them and what Board of Supervisor of City Council signed them into law back then. Those type of laws have been on the books since the 60's when radical expression was out of control and cruising was the cool thing to do by teenagers and adults.

So the Sheriff this year alone has been under budget by cutting wasteful overtime spending to the tune of about 3 million dollars to start with, and he has changed safety equipment on the patrol cars saving another $750,000. He is making a real dent in Gang Violence and making arrests right and left. So with the year not over yet and he has so far saved this type of savings by adjusting shift schedules and cutting out a lot of overtime by under staffing a lot of areas.

And since you are on pay raises you should know that every county union member will be negotiating starting July 1st for new raises. And with this economy a lot of people cannot afford much, especially with the price of gas, commodities, health insurance, retirement to pay for and other things that have increased so much in value.

Bakersfield Police just finally got a raise after negotiating for over 2 years and then only after a contract that was set over 5 years ago. So some are due whether you agree with it or not because they have things to pay for also and families to take care of also.

First, I pick my daughter up. Or my 19 year old son picks her up. Will my son and daughter be harassed by all kinds of unnecessary questions?

Second, the law itself PROHIBITS a law officer from stopping and questioning anyone. So asking all kinds of questions is illegal unless there is another underlaying violation, such as loitering, that the Officer can Articulate fact.

Third, My sons girlfriend is an emancipated 17 year old. Does she have to fear traveling to the drugstore to get Lacie's medication?

Read the law. Suggesting that anyone in the legal profession would support this fiasco as constitutional, is beyond belief.

And to say that 20 years worth of Bakersfield's legal profession, allowed this slop to remain on the books. Suggests a disdain for law and order. This is a new world. Parents work at every hour of the day. Even so. Children are most mischievous between 3pm and 6pm.

To subject citizens to this disgraceful tyranny. Because of the failures of others. Neglects to recognize that criminality dwells in every shadow. Including that of the law profession.

Show me the work product that deserves a pay raise?  

Um most pharmacy's close by 9 pm. So whats the problem. You obviously have a burr somewhere that has to deal with this issue rather than discuss why you think the raise are not warranted despite the timing.  The timing would have come whether or not this was a good time economically or not. The CAO recommends the raises just like he also performs the work evaluations for these positions.

You should know that is you send your kids to do something lawful and they happen to get stopped in a car it is for something to do with the car. But your kids are allowed to stay out past curfew IF they are attending some sort of function, Like a Movie, School function And you have consented to it.

The laws are there for a reason and they work, just like a tool in a contractors belt to build they are all there to serve a function. They get used when the Market Place is running amuck with the kids. I watched a kid open a car, grab a large bag of Marijuana throw it into a backpack and walk into the crowd selling what he was carrying.  Come 11 pm when my movie was over the Marketplace was a ghost town thanks to BPD enforcing those municipal codes you don't like. So maybe when you come back down to reality from the laurels your sitting on, and realize some of us like law and order enforced.

Get off the Conspiracy Theory that Law Enforcement  Officers are bad. Everyone that I know that is paid as an officer would have no problem giving their life for the protection of every citizen in our community if it were necessary and were to occur. So I would change my attitude and realize it might be your butt on the line needing an officer to assist you, protect you and god forbid give their life for even your rotten attitude.

The District Attorney should earn, at least, what the Public Defender is paid.

Wright,

I got into this topic in response to your blog that asked, 'Where are the Parents'. Thinking there are always two sides to a story. In investigating the curfew law. I was appalled to read what I saw before my eyes. Both from the city and the county. (I posted both laws). I had to read it over and over before I could believe what was being thrust onto the citizens of our county.

Mine is no conspiracy theory. What I am speaking about is words jumbled together and passed off as law. It's in black and white.

The Law hinders the performance of a law officer. The law itself PROHIBITS a law officer from stopping and questioning anyone. If the law was not in place. The officer could stop and question a person involved in suspicious activity. This law requires that the officer, 'articulate facts', prior to detaining an individual. Not suspicions. Not even reasonable suspicions.

This law allows for Social Calls at any time of the night. What person could not design a story that would reflect a social call. In fact. Two people meeting under a street light is a social call. And there is no requirement for approval by a parent for this social call.

Who cares what time most pharmacies close. An emancipated minor can go anywhere they should please. At any time of day. The law specifically exempts emancipated minors. Yet you condone their detention. Their inquisition!

As far as the traveling in a vehicle. You make my point. The law is useless. The officer can not pull over a vehicle for curfew violation even if he knows the inhabitants are minors no matter what time of day it is. That's the law. It's not a conspiracy theory.

As far as the 'market place'. No curfew law is required. Even a good one. Trespasser can be given the boot. And the facts are that as long as a business that is legally serving to minors remains open. Including the theater. There can be no curfew violation. It's written into the law. Anyone cited. Would have to be found not guilty. It's written into the law.

This isn't the only case where law enforcement leadership, Judges and law makers have overstepped their bounds. The law prohibiting open containers in ones own front yard. Is also a flagrant disregard for freedoms. If the possession of alcohol is legal anywhere, it would be at ones private residence.

But we allow intoxication on roof tops, in the streets. But to possess a open alcohol container in ones own front yard is a violation.

When our laws show disregard and disdain for our constitution. How do you expect to nurture respect in children.

In our justice system. The accused is allowed two attorney's. First his defense. Second the district attorney. The Accused along with the public are deserving of protection administered by the District Attorney. Protection from bad law. Protection from misapplication of the law.

Kern Counties law enforcement leadership and law markers are failing to do their job.

Show me the work product that is deserving of a pay raise.

Timing has everything to do with everything. There are open positions that will not be filled because of timing. And only timing.

It may be a tough pill to swallow. But you will only promote disdain for our government leadership by pursuing this pay increase.

Laws MUST be just.

But life does not have to be fair.

 All this tells me is the rest are already over paid.