I'll be in Denver attending my grandfather's funeral.

Please, talk amongst  yourselves while I'm gone.

This is the last of my grandparents to go. He was 98 and on dialysis for the last year so it' s shouldn't be surprising that he died. But he was such an independent, tough guy I think none of us really believed he actually would die.

But that's how it goes.

He lived a good life, always on his terms. He was a creative thinker who didn't waste many words and didn't suffer fools easily. I loved all my grandparents, but always felt a special affinity for him.

Why does the federal government hate Kern County’s children?

I ask because of the Environmental Protection (and I use that term loosely) Agency’s decision last week to keep California from requiring lower auto emissions by 2016.

The general reasoning was the energy bill recently signed by President Bush will lower emissions by 2020 (assuming of course the EPA actually implements those standards, which this administration has shown no zeal for accomplishing).

So, the feds said, California could just hold off.

Really?

Maybe EPA director Stephen Johnson, who overruled his own staff in denying California’s request, needs to spend next summer with his kids, or grandkids, in Arvin to get a firsthand feel for how urgent our air troubles really are.

Consider this:

21.6 percent of Kern children ages 1 to 18 have asthma, compared to 16.1 percent of California children overall, according to a 2005 California Health Interview Survey.

Nearly 22 percent? You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a kid with asthma!

And a 2006 Cal State Fullerton study showed how much our dirty air costs:
In the San Joaquin Valley, there are 3,230 cases of acute bronchitis in children.

We average 188,000 lost school days valleywide.

There are 23,000 asthma attacks each year in the valley.

Adults in the valley lose an average of 3,000 work days a year.

Bad air is blamed for 260 hospital admissions.

And 460 valley residents each year die prematurely because of conditions brought about by our bad air.

All that adds up to a cost of $3.2 billion annually.

As bad as those stats are, our air is actually cleaner than it was 20 years ago, according to data from the  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Valley industries and businesses have done their part, reducing emissions significantly since 1980.

Spare the Air days dropped from 41 in 2003 to 6 this year. And the number of federal eight-hour violations for ozone in Arvin went from 116 in 2003 to 41 in 2007. Even so, that’s more than a month of really terrible air days!

But we still don’t meet federal standards. And new regulations adopted by the district will cost businesses an estimated $20 billion going forward without any assurance that after that we’ll be in compliance.

The air district is also trying to bring developers into the game through its “indirect source” rule, which would force builders to pay a fee or otherwise address pollution created by new subdivisions. Developers have sued. The case went to trial in Fresno Dec. 14 and the judge is expected to rule in 90 days, according to Seyed Sadredin, executive director of the air district.

But the real problem is us.

Our cars. Our trucks. Our SUVs.

These so-called mobile sources make up 80 percent of our pollution.

The air district can only tackle stationary sources, not tailpipes.

That’s up to the feds.

And the feds haven’t bothered to require lower emissions in more than 20 years.

So, in 2004, California set out to deal with the situation, saying new cars sold here starting with the 2009 model year had to have 30 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the Clean Air Act, the state needed a waiver, which California has sought and received dozens of times over the years.

First the EPA tried doing nothing, saying it didn’t have authority to regulate tailpipe emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court had to whack them upside the head last April saying, Duh! Of course the EPA can regulate emissions! (Not an exact quote, but you get the picture).

Now the EPA is using the energy bill to avoid forcing automakers to join the lower emission party. Yes, California will appeal and there are already calls to investigate the EPA for possibly putting politics above the nation’s health (ya think?).

The EPA’s excuse that we should have one national standard rather than a “patchwork” of rules in different states is just about as hard to choke down as a lungful of late-summer Kern County air.

First, that never stopped the EPA from granting us waivers before.

Second, and more revealing, the concept of “states’ rights” has always been part of the Republican DNA. This administration is apparently willing to chop out its own genetic code to avoid demanding more of automakers.

 How pathetic.

So what does it all mean to us?

“There’s no air relief in sight at this point,” Sadredin acknowledged.

We should not have to wait for the November election to be able to take control over our own air and our children’s health!

Just ask one of every five kids here who struggle to breathe.

Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. E-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.

We had our company holiday luncheon on Friday.

The executive staff served lunch to the employees. And they had to do it wearing jolly "headgear." With the exception of our CEO Richard Beene.

I like the holiday luncheon better than the big parties we were having for the last couple of years. It's simpler and you get to sit with co-workers and chat, less stressful than dressing up and going to a big nighttime party. (plus the parties were always dry which makes them not a party in my book!)

 

My Christmas list for Bakersfield and Kern County.

(If you are philosophically, historically or just plain crochetarily opposed to the word “Christmas” please substitute whatever word won’t get your panties in a twist while I move on.)

Which brings me to my first wish.

PLEASE drop the angst over “Christmas” versus “Holiday.”

Here’s the thing, Dec. 25 is whatever it is to YOU. No one else has control over how you feel about it, except YOU.

If other people chose to call it something else, so what? That neither infringes on your rights nor does it force you to change your beliefs.

If you’re an atheist and someone gives you a big, cheery “Merry Christmas,” I doubt it’s gonna make you drop to your knees and seek salvation from a deity you don’t believe in.
Similarly, if you’re a devout Christian and some minimum-wage earning retail worker wishes you “Happy Holidays,” is it going to cause you to turn your back on God and start pouring whiskey on your corn flakes? Probably not.

People are trying to wish you happiness, no matter how they’re saying it. Be gracious, accept their good wishes, give ’em a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or Have a Nice Day, right back and don’t be so Grinchy.

Whew! Glad I got that off my chest.

On to my list:

• A viable candidate to replace Kern High School Trustee Chad Vegas when his term is up in June 2008. With test scores in the toilet and an abysmally low percentage of KHSD grads going to college compared to the rest of the state, it’s borderline criminal neglect to waste time on Vegas’ religious-based social engineering attempts. If he’s doing these things to attract attention for a try at higher office, please, go. !Vaya con Dios! (ha, get it?) Our students need serious people focused on education.

• The Board of Supervisors must hold fast to the rule it approved a couple years ago limiting septic tanks to lots six acres or larger. Landowners looking to break up their holdings know it’s easier to sell a one-acre lot than something larger and they’re pushing to have the rules changed. Aside from the obvious potential environmental problems, large swaths of homes on septic tanks pose major problems as areas are urbanized because sewer lines can’t exactly “jump” over those spots.

• County and city politicians simply HAVE TO stop being such chickens and realize that developers will pay for infrastructure if they know the costs up front. They’re already doing it for farmland and air mitigation courtesy of Sierra Club lawsuits. It’s long past time for our politicians to get on the ball. The county got a good start by more than doubling the traffic impact fee paid by developers. Now city and county politicians need to work together (oh boy, I AM wishing, aren’t I?) to set standards on other infrastructure issues.

• Metrowide recycling — mandatory or otherwise. Again, the city and county need to work together (heavy sigh) and figure out sooner rather than later how to recycle more of our trash. And remember, whether it’s mandatory blue bins or a facility that takes all our trash together and somehow sorts out recyclables, it will cost money. I repeat: IT WILL COST MONEY. So folks need to get a grip and deal with that. Or perhaps all those people in knee-jerk opposition would rather have the next landfill built next to their homes?

• Can someone please keep a better eye on county department heads? Enough with the moonlighting, cell calls to Africa, taxpayer-funded valet parking and who knows what else. Seriously, it’s embarrassing. 

• Focused attention from regulatory agencies on the Big West of California refinery on Rosedale Highway, which wants to expand despite semi-regularly belching toxins into the air and sitting atop a soup of poisons leaked into the ground over the last 20 years. Expansion would be good for the independent oil industry in Kern County, but not until Big West and former owners clean up. That requires the state Water Quality Control Board to stop nodding off at the wheel. Two years ago, former owner Shell stopped its cleanup efforts totally unbeknownst to the agency. Then when The Californian exposed a plume of toxins that was dangerously close to drinking water wells, the agency harangued the paper instead of, I don’t know, doing something about the pollution! Turns out later, the agency quietly ordered an investigation of the full extent of the plume and whether it’s a public health threat because, as the paper said, they didn’t know . Sheesh. Leave it to them and we’ll all be glowing in the dark and sprouting arms out of our foreheads.

• An overpass spanning the evil Landco Spur, where the railroad crosses Rosedale Highway! Grrr.

• Finally, and most importantly, an end to public apathy. This is your community. All of the people listed above work for you. If it seems like they’re not listening, it may be because you aren’t talking. I’ll supply some “how to” info but you, your neighbors, your friends, your enemies, whoever, need to get in the game.

I could go on and on. And, guess what? I will. But I’ll stop here because there are only so many elves, after all.

Who knows if I’ll actually get any of my Christmas wishes. I suppose it depends on whether I’ve been naughty or nice. And that’s between me and Santa.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. E-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.



How to contact your public officials

• City Council
The Bakersfield City Council meets twice a month, generally on alternating Wednesdays in Council chambers at 1501 Truxtun Ave. The main meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Harvey Hall can be reached at Office: 326-3770 Fax: 323-3780 or e-mail him at AdmMayor@bakersfieldcity.us
Council members can be reached through the City Clerk at 326-3767
Or:
Irma Carson, Ward 1,  325-4327, term expires December 2010
Sue Benham, Ward 2,  325-8273, term expires December 2008
Ken Weir,  Ward 3,  619-2472, term expires December 2010
David Couch, Ward 4, term expires December 2010
Harold Hanson, Ward 5, term expires December 2008
Jacquie Sullivan, Ward 6, 834-4943, term expires December 2008
Zack Scrivner, Ward 7, 304-4065, term expires December 2010
Councilmembers don’t have individual e-mails, but you can send your thoughts or questions to:  City_Council@bakersfieldcity.us
You can look up City Council agendas on the city’s website at: http://www.bakersfieldcity....
And you can also look at Council committee agendas at: http://www.bakersfieldcity....
If you want to send a letter, the mailing address is City of Bakersfield, Attn: (Councilmember), 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301

• Kern County Board of Supervisors
The Kern County Board of Supervisors meets every Tuesday at 9 a.m. and then at 2 p.m., in the Supervisors chambers at 1115 Truxtun Ave.
Supervisors can be reached at:
General number: 868-3601, or general e-mail: board@co.kern.ca.us
Jon McQuiston, District 1, Office: 868-3650, Fax: 868-3657, or e-mail: district1@co.kern.ca.us
Don Maben, District 2,  Office: 868-3660, Fax, 868-3666, Mojave office: 1775 Highway 58, Mojave Phone: 824-7000 ext. 1, Mojave Fax: 824-8970, or e-mail: district2@co.kern.ca.us
Mike Maggard, District 3, Office: 868-3670, Fax: 868-3677, or e-mail: district3@co.kern.ca.us
Ray Watson, District 4, Office: 868-3680, Fax: 868-3688, or e-mail: district4@co.kern.ca.us
Michael Rubio, District 5, Office: 868-3690, Fax: 868-3645, Lamont office: 12014 Main Street, Lamont Phone: 868-5815, Lamont Fax: 845-6357, or e-mail: district5@co.kern.ca.us
You can look at the Board agendas, minutes and even video of meetings at: http://kern.granicus.com/Vi...
You can also subscribe to have the minutes and agendas sent to your e-mail account by going to: http://www.co.kern.ca.us/cl...

• Planning commissions
City
The Bakersfield Planning Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. on alternate Thursdays, the first and third of the month, in the City Council Chambers at 1501 Truxtun Ave.
The agenda is available at www.bakersfieldcity.us under the Development Services Department link.
Planning general number: 326-3733
Jim Movius,  Planning Department: 326-3992 or jmovius@bakersfieldcity.us
Jim Eggert, assistant Planning Director: 326-3754 or jeggert@bakersfieldcity.us
E-mails to the commissioners may be sent care of Robin Gessner, Planning Commission secretary, at rgessner@bakersfieldcity.us.
County
The Kern County Planning Commission meets at 7 p.m. on alternate Thursdays, the second and fourth of each month in the Board of Supervisors chambers at 1115 Truxtun Ave.
The commission’s agenda and meeting schedule are available online at www.co.kern.ca.us/planning, under the “Planning Commission” link.
Planning staff can be reached at 862-8600 or through Janet Bowtell, senior secretary at 862-8615.
Or by e-mail.
Ted James, planning director, tedj@co.kern.ca.us
Lorelei Oviatt, special projects division chief, loreleio@co.kern.ca.us
Jim Ellis, operations division chief, jime@co.kern.ca.us

I don't know why, but we get excited around here when we all wear the same color...

What is it about Bakersfield and environmental impact reports?

The city just can’t seem to get a win on EIR lawsuits.

First the Marketplace back in 1995-96, then the Wal-Mart Supercenters and now the hillside ordinance.

(Note to city: Maybe you shouldn’t have hired the same lawyer who lost the Wal-Mart case for the hillside case, just a thought.)

Oh, and last week, itty bitty Shafter beat down Bakersfield’s EIR suit against them over the ongoing water issue. Judge threw out the case over a procedural issue, but still, for Bakersfield, it was another “L.” (The city has vowed to appeal.)

The latest loss for Bakersfield, the hillside ordinance, could mean more than just another do-over, as with the Marketplace (Castle & Cooke voluntarily did an EIR and came to a settlement with opponents in 1996) and Wal-Mart, where the city did a wider EIR looking at urban decay, which was recently blessed by the council.

In the hillside case, Kern County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Twisselman said the city should have done an EIR before passing the ordinance.

His official ruling has yet to come out, so we’ll have to see exactly what he wants the city to do. But requiring an EIR on ordinances could be a big deal, City Manager Alan Tandy told me.

“If we have to do EIRs on consideration of changing ordinances, if that is what evolves out of this...(it could have) a massive impact on the city,” he said.

The judge’s ruling could open up all kinds of quesitons. What about a parks ordinance, for instance, where the city requires land be set aside by developers? Will an EIR be needed to avoid a lawsuit?

At $250,000 a pop, EIRs aren’t cheap. And an EIR is no guarantee against lawsuits demanding even more study.

In the Wal-Mart case, for example, studying the urban decay effects of a project hadn’t been a requirement. The Bakersfield case, which the city also lost on appeal, changed EIRs throughout the state, Tandy said.

Huh, Bakersfield as a trend setter, who’da thunk it?

I’ve said this in previous columns, but it bears repeating: Planning by lawsuit is not helpful.

EIRs may be expensive and time-consuming and still someone may say they didn’t go far enough, but their main benefit — public access — is invaluable.

They give the average schmo the ability to see exactly what the plans are, how much traffic will be created, what roads will be affected, if water is an issue and what the plans are to mitigate any problem areas.

Regular people can point out flaws and even have an impact.

It gives the entire development process a thoughtful, reasoned pace so we don’t end up with some crazy, unworkable, white elephant of a project. (Ahem, Highway 58?)

So, fine. If Twisselman wants an EIR on the hillside ordinance, lets get ’r done.

While we’re at it, maybe we can get some dentures made so it has some actual teeth.

Expand it it to cover all the hills instead of cutting out some areas, ban cut-and-fill grading (no La Jolla-like landslides please!),  have a solid setback from hill edges starting at each home’s back fence, not the house (no crumbling hillsides covered with black tarp a la Santa Clarita, thanks), and incorporate fire safe building standards for homes and roads (SoCal?? Nuff said).

Let’s have a do-over. Only this time, let’s do it right.

Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. E-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.

Years ago, I got caught inside the perimeter of a police manhunt. Bank robbers were on the run. I wasn’t covering it, I was just among the civilians trying to get out of the way.

A very, er, rotund, um, large — who am I kidding, he was HUGE —  sheriff’s deputy came to direct traffic.

As he got out of his patrol car, he grabbed his shotgun. His weight knocked him off balance. He lurched and stumbled, swinging the muzzle of the gun in our direction. I never ducked so fast in my life.

Ever since that day, I’ve been keenly interested in physical fitness for public safety employees.

So I was excited to learn that a fitness program had been recently adopted as part of the Kern County Sheriff’s contracts with its sworn personnel and will go into effect next year.
It is, however, a voluntary incentive program, rather than mandatory.

I gotta say, I find that a bit irksome.

I mean, if you’re gonna be a cop, or a firefighter, shouldn’t you expect that you’ll occasionally need to run, jump, lift, tackle, climb, drag, or, say, get out of your car without accidentally mowing down bystanders?

You have to pass a mandatory fitness test to get those jobs. That focus shouldn’t go out the window once you sign on.

And taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay extra to encourage public safety employees to meet the basic expectations of their jobs. I can only imagine what my bosses would say if I told them I needed incentive pay to TYPE!

The Sheriff’s incentive pay, by the by, is either a 2 percent or a 4 percent boost in salary depending on what level of fitness the employee can attain.

Most people I talked to from union reps to police and fire officials to Kern County Supervisors (who OK’d the program) agreed that paying public safety people extra to stay fit might leave a bitter taste with taxpayers.

But, they all said, there are numerous pros:

• Voluntary incentive programs have proven successful in getting results.

• They are legally bulletproof, unlike many mandatory programs proved to be over the years.

• They will, hopefully, cut health care and worker’s comp costs so the incentive pay might add up to a wash.

• They will increase employee performance.

• They will, over the years, create a culture of fitness among employees.

• Mandatory programs can cause more injuries as unfit employees strain to meet the standards.

• And mandatory programs could cause a mass exodus if unfit employees can’t meet the standards and must be retired.

That’s all well and good, but it turns out the county fire department, which also adopted the incentive program under its union contract last year, has had a mandatory fitness program for more than 20 years, according to Chief Dennis Thompson. The mandatory program was created for both existing and new employees.

If employees don’t meet the minimum standard they can be benched from regular duty until they do.

Though Supervisor Michael Rubio, who has been pushing for better fitness among public safety employees, told me the existing program is a paper tiger, others in the department emphatically disagreed. Either way, at least there is a standard.

And as for all those dire warnings about mandatory programs: Lawsuits? None. Injuries? None.

The fire department did lose two people in the first few years, one because he was found to have heart disease he didn’t know about — but leaving the department actually saved his life. The other retired because he couldn’t overcome his weight problem, Thompson said.

County fire is a bit different because, in order to fight fires in wildlands, which our folks do a lot, firefighters must meet the Forest Service’s extremly rigorous fitness test every two years. (No extra pay for that, either!)

Still, if the county fire department can run a successful mandatory program, why not the Sheriff? Or the Bakersfield Police Department, which has no program at all? Or the Bakersfield Fire Department, which is considering the same incentive program as the Sheriff’s Department in its upcoming union negotiations?

Even if we want to stick with a voluntary incentive program to achieve very fit levels, I still believe each department can and should have a mandatory program for minimum fitness standards.

Despite my little scare with the big deputy and his shotgun, I will say that the vast majority of firefighters and law enforcement personnel I’ve met are concerned about staying in shape regardless of department programs.

And they, more than any one else, have a vested interest in making sure their co-workers are fit. It could easily be a matter of life and death.



How the incentive program works
Both the Sheriff’s and County Fire Department have adopted voluntary incentive-based programs to encourage fitness among their sworn personnel.

Employees can opt to be tested on a treadmill for METs, or metabolic equivalent, which measures the amount of oxygen your body burns.

For example, your body burns 1 MET just sitting or watching TV.

It burns 3-6 METs doing moderate physical activity.

Anything over 6 METs is vigorous activity, according to the Central Valley Occupational Medical Group, which administers the test.

In order to get the 2 percent salary boost, personnel must achieve 11 METs.

For 4 percent, they must hit 12 METs.

This is the same for both departments. But the fire department has a minimum standard sworn employees must meet of 10 METs in order to stay on active duty.

The fire department is using 2007 as its baseline year and will begin the incentive pay next year.

The program is very new to the Sheriff’s department, which is still sorting out when and how to implement it.


Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. E-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.

I've been having an email debate with a reader who feels I insulted "Christian values" (the quote marks are hers, not mine!) by calling the In God We Trust posters approved by the Kern High School District Monday night silly.

She says the word silly mocks Christianity. What do you think?

Here is my reasoning for why silly is a fine description for how I feel about the posters:

"In God We Trust was approved as our national motto during the red scare in 1956 when many people, especially those in Congress, felt the need to protect themselves by opposing the current mob fear, communism.

"The phrase itself is not an “HISTORICAL DOCUMENT” and carries no legal weight, such as the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Nor does it carry any historical weight, such as the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, which was the country’s formal break from, and declaration of war against, what had so far been our sovereign ruler, England.

"The posters are silly in that they try to equate the phrase, which has no real historical value other than to illustrate manifestations of the red scare, to documents of true historic import.

"The posters are also silly in that the school board is trying to water down the clearly religious intent of putting that phrase on the walls of classrooms. Based on  statements made by the school board member who proposed the posters in the first place, and folks such as yourself, this is clearly intended as a religious statement. It is SILLY to try and hide that fact or cloak it in some trumped up “history” or “civics” lesson.

Call it what it is"

So I was interviewing a county official a couple days ago about physical fitness programs for public safety employees. (Check out Sunday's column on that subject)

He told me very angrily:
"You are incapable of understanding the legal complexities of this issue."

Later in the interview, he started yelling at me (actually raising his voice) and told me if I criticized the program then I knew even less than he thought I did, which was hard for him to imagine.

Then he just flat out called me ignorant.

Hey, don't sugar coat it, dude, tell me what you really think!

Here are a few of the more unfortunate outcomes from Monday night’s Kern High School District meeting:

No. 1 — Approval of that silly “In God We Trust” poster, whose intent is clearly religious — despite Trustee Bryan Batey’s attempt to blur the lines by including two actual historical documents. Despite the  legal gymnastics behind Monday’s revote, the poster likely will result in at least one lawsuit.

No. 2 — That the incredibly poised and well-spoken Ridgeview High School student Mona Gupta, who presented a petition signed by 200 students opposed to the poster, was virtually ignored by trustees. They didn’t even mention her, or the petition, in their discussion. Their minds were clearly already set.

I sincerely hope she didn’t feel she wasn’t heard. I, for one, was really impressed. (For the record, if she’d been as eloquent in favor of the poster, I still would have been impressed that a high school student had the passion and the guts to stand in front of trustees and tell them what for.)

No. 3 (and most important) —  That this debate sucked up so much time and attention when the board had been moving fast and furious on a number of key issues.

First the crummy news:

Looking at some of the district’s vital statistics, KHSD has a lot of room for improvement.
Our dropout rate has climbed steadily since it hit a low in the 2000-2001 school year.

 And we exceed the state in our dropout rate over a four-year period — 15.7 percent compared to 14.2 percent. Some individual schools are even higher, such as North High with 18.2 percent and East High with 16.2 percent.

And while test scores have been improving, we’re still only seeing 40 percent to 46 percent proficiency, overall, in various math and English/language arts tests.

“Kern High School District has a long ways to go on overall achievement,” Trustee Joel Heinrichs agreed.

But the board hasn’t been sitting on its hands.

That’s where the good news comes in.

After implementing a new 9th grade promotion policy last year — if you didn’t have enough credits you would be held back — about 1,500 (out of 2,000) students got their butts in gear and got the credits they needed either during the school year or suffering through dreaded summer school.

How you do in your freshman year is a major dropout risk factor, by the way, so keeping kids in 9th grade is key.

“By this fall, we moved 75 percent of those kids back on track,” Heinrichs said.

And the other 25 percent?

Well, KHSD has started experimental “9th grade prep academies” on eight of its campuses to give struggling students more intensive help, smaller classes and extra attention. If it’s successful, and Heinrichs wasn’t sure what success would look like, the district might expand the program.

Trustees are also making a major, MAJOR, push toward more “career/technical” options for students.

Us oldtimers know this better as VocEd.

But if the district gets all the grants its applied for — close to $10 million with a commitment for a 50 percent local match — it will be a far cry from bangin’ on a fender in shop class.

The grants will pay for an agriscience facility at North, expand video production at Arvin, buy new industrial tech equipment at East, create an ag mechanics program at Mira Monte, expand the fashion design/manufacturing program at BHS and much more. And classes will be small so kids get extra attention.

“The rap on the old VocEd model was it didn’t have academics,” Heinrichs said. “This is not the same. These programs will have the three R’s — academic rigor, relevance and relationships.”

Being a huge proponent of vocational education (by whatever name), I heartily applaud the district’s move.

It was partly the desire to keep up the momentum on these and other projects that Heinrichs voted for the “in God” posters.

The courts have held that such posters are acceptable, so to avoid a pitched battle, he voted “yes.”

He used the same reasoning in voting “yes” on last year’s proposal to rename “winter” and “spring” breaks Christmas and Easter breaks. Both proposals were brought by Trustee Chad Vegas.

Trustee Bob Hampton was the lone “no” vote on both occasions, repeating his mantra that religion “belongs in the home and the church.”

Heinrichs thinks this will be end of the religious push.

“They’ve done almost everything they can do that’s constitutionally allowable,” he said. “We’ve accommodated their issues, now lets move forward.”

Moving forward would be good.

But I have a nagging suspicion this is not the last religion-based Vegas proposal that will gum up the works. Lets just say, it seems to be the natural, um, evolution.

Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. E-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.

Went to a Chamber of Commerce lunch today where speakers talked about what Bakerfield would be like in five years.

Some interesting stuff. Kinda scary too.

Jim Beck of the Kern County Water Agency gave some sobering stats about water.

But I don't know that I'm convinced we need two new dams and a peripheral canal to keep up with our water needs. I'd like to know how much water farmers actually use to grow crops, how much we need to bank every year to keep up our surplus and how much gets sold back to the state.

A water accounting, so to speak.

Ray Pruitt with the Kern county Sheriff's Department talked about gangs.

We'll still have them in five years, sorry.

And Duane Keathley talked about real estate, commercial, industrial and retail.

The biggest news is what we're NOT getting —  Nordy's!!!!!

Sigh....

I opened the paper on Wednesday and could hardly believe my eyes — Kern County supervisors actually voted to make developers pay their fair share for roads.

Damn the politics, full speed ahead!

It was a masterful stroke that linked two key pieces of the roads puzzle together — traffic impact fees paid by developers and bond money that taxpayers will repay via the county’s general fund.

The impact fee, which was more than doubled to $12,958 per home, pays for things like stoplights, wider roads and intersections needed as new development occurs.

The bulk of the $150 million bond will go to major new road projects in conjunction with the city’s Thomas Road Improvement Program projects. Despite developer angst over the new fee, the bond is really the key to our traffic problems, but more about that later.

Given our ever-worsening traffic, this all may seem like a no-brainer, but politically speaking, it was a bold — even risky — move.

We’ll have to see how it shakes out, especially for Ray Watson, who’s up for re-election next June, and who already has one declared opponent, the cocky former mayor of Taft  Cliff Thompson, who’s backed by State Sen. Dean Florez.

Watson’s other possible opponent, Bakersfield City Councilman David “is-he-in-or-is-he-out” Couch, told me he’s still mulling whether to run. But he predicted slapping developers with this fee wouldn’t hurt Watson.

If he’d voted against it, or if supervisors had done nothing, that would have been a bigger issue.

Watson acknowledged the fee could become an election issue, but, so far, no one has told him they’re pulling their support because of the increase.

“Over the years, I’ve found that developers want predictability and timeliness,” Watson said.

Yeah, but they also like politicians they can count on, and I’ve already heard some in the development community are contemplating retribution.

They’re mostly rankled by how the county went about the fee.

Instead of the long process of establishing which road projects are needed and haggling over the cost, the county took a shortcut and used the city’s project list that had already been agreed to some months back when the city set an interim traffic fee.

Though County Resource Management Director David Price told me that was all on the up and up, a number of builders disagreed.

In fact, the Home Builders Association (formerly known as the Building Industry Association) held an emergency meeting on Monday, the day before the county’s vote, to talk about lawyering up to stop the fee.

As I heard it, Price and County Roads Director Craig Pope went to the meeting and asked the association to please not go to war over this fee, and they would revisit it when the general plan is updated over the next year or so.

Price and Pope both said they went to explain their plan to HBA members, and afterward the builders seemed to relax a bit.

I’m no so sure about that. But I was told they would not, as a group, sue.

Pope said builders should focus on the bond.

“The bond takes care of the big-ticket items and keeps TRIP online, and that is the answer,” he said.

The county needed a big wad of cash so it could get off the sidelines and get in the game on the Thomas Road projects.

With the outcome of last November’s half-cent sales tax trouncing still ringing in supervisors’ and planners’ ears, there was no way they were going to saddle voters with that debt and give developers a pass. That certainly would have been an election issue, and not just this June.

So spread the pain around, and we’re all going to pay, which is as it should be since we all use the roads.

And speaking of roads, from what I hear, the Thomas Roads plan, which featured roads that didn’t connect and not enough money to build them, will likely be changing.

City, county and Caltrans staffers have been feverishly going over various alternatives that would actually link some highways or freeways, penciling out costs and looking at environmental issues.

None of the alternatives are pain-free, however.

I’m hearing an announcement could be just weeks away. Stay tuned.

Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. CE-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.

From my last few columns you might deduce that I don’t think much of Bakersfield’s City Council members.

But no.

I want more from them!

Bakersfield is plenty big enough to warrant weekly council meetings. Not only that, the committees (where much of the real work is done) should meet weekly or every other week instead of once a month as they do now.

I want them more involved, more informed and more accountable.

That means a “full time” council. And yes, I’m advocating they be paid a living wage so they can focus on our business, rather than their own.

I know this is not a popular opinion.

Council members can change their meeting times and frequencies with a simple ordinance. But to change their pay, they must first approve an ordinance and then send it to the people as a referendum.

The last time Bakersfield residents agreed to increase council pay was back in 1956, when it went from $50 a month to $100 a month. And that’s what it remains today.

They get some extras — health insurance and a car allowance similar to department heads and some other small perks. But otherwise, serving on the council is essentially volunteer work.

In 1988, council members tried to get their pay increased to $500 a month and it was voted down 26,511 to 21,572. They tried again in 1990 to increase it to $700 a month and, again, it was defeated 24,495 to 18,274.

So not only did voters not want to pay the council more, they didn’t want to do it by a wider margin.

Things have changed since 1990.

Back then, the city’s population was 174,820 and the city budget was $147 million. We’re now bursting at the seams with a population of 323,213 (the 11th largest city in California) and council members are overseeing a budget of $759 million.

Our friends to the north, Fresno, have a salaried council. Members are paid $65,000 a year; they meet weekly and council members even have their own district offices and staff. Fresno’s population is 480,000.

That’s about the population of our “metro” area, which goes from Bear Mountain Boulevard to 7th Standard Road, to Enos Lane and cuts off at the mountains. That is, by the by, the city’s expected footprint in the not-too-distant future.

We can’t function at that size with a part-time council.

We’re already having problems.

A perfect example is the proposal to create a vacant building ordinance so code enforcement can jump on foreclosed properties before they become blighted.

Whether you think it’s a good idea or not, it’s absurd that the Legislative and Litigation Committee looked at it last week, decided it wanted more research and the next time the group meets is Jan. 15.

These foreclosures are happening right now and are expected to accelerate in the spring, but our council can’t move any faster because, uh, they have to go to work.
Some folks with regular business before the council agreed.

“I think we’re expecting too much to run a city of our size and have the deliberation necessary,” local developer Greg Bynum told me. His take was we should tackle the issues separately.

That’s what first got me on this issue, as I was watching the council on KGOV far into the night. How much focused attention were they bringing to important matters? What about the public?

In fact, the average council meeting length between December 2006 and November 2007 was 3 hours and 38 minutes. Considering meetings start at 6:30 p.m. you gotta be a serious government junkie to make it to the end. Even the council members look worn out by then.

Still, they are politicians and when I started asking about the issue, they got a little hinky.
Even some who aren’t on the council anymore backed away from the question like I was holding a dead skunk.

One former council member told me that whatever we do, it can’t be halfway — as in an incremental salary increase. Otherwise, you’d get people who would look at it as a hobby instead of taking the job seriously.

I only got one unabashedly pro vote on the record.

“I think it’s a great idea and would support it,” said Councilwoman Irma Carson. She also advocated having staff for council members to help with the many constituent calls.
Sue Benham felt we are probably getting to the size of needing a full-time council, but she wanted to hear from the community first.

Jacquie Sullivan and Harold Hanson both said this might be the time to start thinking about it, but neither felt it was the right time to implement a paid, full-time council.
David Couch didn’t believe the workload is heavy enough to justify full time and he didn’t think the public would go for it.

Ken Weir said the council doesn’t need to be full time now, nor in the near future, and should not be paid any more than they are now.

Zack Scrivner wouldn’t say how he felt on the topic because he didn’t want to influence the public’s opinion.

Guess you’re stuck with my opinion then.

We should pay council members a decent wage and in return demand that they be involved, informed, prepared and accountable.

If we continue paying them peanuts, we have only ourselves to blame when we get what we pay for.

Lois Henry’s column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. E-mail her at lhenry@bakersfield.com or call her at 395-7373.