I just got off the phone with City Manager Alan Tandy who let me know in no uncertain terms that he has the utmost respect for former Assistant Public Works Director Jacques LaRochelle. LaRochelle was honored at Wednesday night's council meeting after nearly 20 years service to the city. He's leaving to work in Napa.

Tandy was furious with my previous post where I alluded that LaRochelle, who was instrumental in getting the Thomas roads money and was then tranfserred to the Water Resources Department, may not have been held in high esteem by Tandy.

"I worked with Jacques LaRochelle, I like Jacque LaRochelle, I promoted Jacques LaRochelle," Tandy said. "I was trying to make him head of Water Resources!"

He said he didn't praise LaRochelle at the meeting Wednesday night because there were so many other people waiting to speak on the Westpark alignment issue before the council.

Tandy says I got the situation 180 degrees wrong.

I'm very sorry if I misread the situation and I sincerely apologize.

Tandy EXHAUSTIVELY laid out the new city funding plan, bonds, more state money, increased developer fees, more requirements of builders to put in parts of the roads and grants.

Then staff recommended council approve a contract that would study several alternatives, including the Westpark alignment.

Council comments (paraphrased):

Sue Benham: She knows the joys of owning a home and having a strong neighborhood connection. So she feels the pain of the Westpark folks.  It would be thougthless and irresponsible, though,  NOT to consider the Westpark alignment. There will be some human cost to moving forward. If not Westpark, then some other neighborhood will be affected. She said she would make the motion to study this option once all council members spoke.

Zack Scrivner: The goal is to build these freeway projects as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Harold Hanson:  We're the envy of California (because of this Thomas money). Don't see how we can say no to this study. Sympathetic but have to look at the good of the community. It would be criminal to not at least study this option.

Jacquie Sullivan: She supported looking at the Westpark option. I'd try  to paraphrase, but the rambling was too much to follow ---  it's difficult... she's sympathetic.... something about her daughter...if not Westpark, some neighborhood... she's in real estate... freeways are good....58's a dream...AAAAAACK!

Ken Weir: No comments. No questions.

Sue Benham asked a bunch of questions likely to head off David Couch's expected opposition. Eventually she called on former Cong. Thomas to answer a question.

Bill Thomas: The only way to make sure the money was going where we wanted was to give the money to the city. If it had gone to Caltrans, it wouldn't have stayed here. But since then, Caltrans has proved itself. (Hmmm. Interesting. It couldn't be that the city messed it up so the whole ball of wax had to be given to Caltrans to get it off the ground?) 

If this study isn't approved, Thomas said, essentially there will be no game left to play. To keep the money that is tied to regional projects, we can't just look at neighborhoods and that's what the money was sent here for.

David Couch: We did study this spending $2 million back in 2001. The City, County and KernCOG all adopted Alternative 15, which didn't have Westpark. When we adopted Alt. 15 we didnt' have any money and since then Thomas was able to get us a bunch of money. Now suddenly we're in a bind? We should stick Alt. 15.

Staff that he didn't name reportedly said the Westpark alignment carves the heart out of the attempt to connect east and west Bakersfield. And he said a trucking assn. opposed the Westpark alignment.

We're changing the specific part of Alt. 15 that kept an interstate from running through the center of town. Now we're going back on that without involving the public.

Couch doesn't believe connecting Hwy. 58 to the Westside Parkway will benefit local traffic on Rosedale Hwy. and Truxtun Ave. He won't support the motion.

The motion won 5 to 1 (Councilwoman Irma Carson was absent).

Not sure of all the spellings and these aren't exact quotes, just paraphrasing.

Tackboor Tagborian: This is harassment.

Amy Richardson: It's like an abusive relationship.

Tim Stonelake: The human cost is too high.

Brian Self: Hundreds of church going people are against this.

Robert Hartley: This is cruel and unusual punishment imposed on homeowners by the city council.

David Boyd: We've lost our investments based on what we were told by City Hall.

Ernest Morse: We need mass transit for the whole county not more freeways that will allow more people to come to our city.

Stephanie Campbell: It's tough on these folks, but this is a necessity for our community.  I know you're in the hot seat. but if you're planning for the future you're going to have to make these tough decisions.

Ms. Campbell was very brave to speak her piece before a packed house all in opposition. I don't think I could have done it! (and yeah, she was booed)

Oh the irony.

At Wednesday's meeting where the Council was to discuss the controversial Westpark alignment to connect Highway 58 to the Westside parkway, Vice Mayor Harold Hanson made a presentation to Jacques LaRochelle, a long time roads planner who is leaving to go to work for Napa.

Jacques was instrumental in getting the Thomas money for roads. He knew more about roads and road funding that pretty much anyone at the city. But when we got the money, he was mysteriously cut from the Thomas roads team. Instead, City Manager Alan Tandy and Public Works Director Raul Rojas took the lead.

Eventually, he was pushed out of roads entirely and put in the water resources dept. Shortly thereafter, this nearly 20-year city veteran got a new job. Hmmmmm.

With Tandy at the helm of the Thomas projects, progress went into a tailspin until Cong. Bill Thomas himself came to the city and gave an historic tongue lashing to Tandy and others, reportedly.

Thomas sat behind LaRochelle as he graciously accepted the council's well wishes.

Rojas had a lot of nice things to say. Tandy said nothing.

Interesting.

I want a river.

I want a river so bad I can taste it.

You can tell me all day long how much more beneficial it is to carve the Kern River into a Hydra of canals and ditches that help sustain our ag economy.

And you’d be right — to a point. But isn’t there just a little water from the mighty Kern that can be set free down its ancient path?

Turns out there might be. Here’s why:

A 12-year long lawsuit between two local water districts culminated last year in a judge finding one of the districts had forfeited its rights to some Kern River water.

The judge also said the Kern might no longer be “fully appropriated” — in other words, there might be loose water available — but that was up to the State Water Resources Control Board to decide.

Once that happened, a flurry of petitions and applications were filed with the board, including one from the City of Bakersfield asking that the board A) declare the Kern not fully appropriated and B) give the forfeited water to the City.

In its application the city states it would run that water down the natural channel of the Kern River. Gasp!

It seriously made my heart beat faster when I read that.

You may remember we had a river for a short time back in the spring and summer of 2006. The Corps of Engineers was concerned about Isabella Dam busting, so they lowered the lake, dumping water on us. So, it wasn’t exactly “natural” and there was some serious worry involved, but who cares!

We had a big, full, fat, lazy, beautiful river. And I swear it made Bakersfield a different city. I saw people on the bike path marveling at the water, the plant life, the wildlife.

 People canoed and kayaked and swam and picnicked on and around the river.

It was amazing how this ribbon of water through the city changed things, lightened them, made a hot sticky day bearable, made the air seem clearer, made the blind see (OK, I’m exaggerating, but only slightly). Personally, I was spellbound.

I want it back.

And here’s our opportunity.

I’m not advocating taking a chisel to the dam.  But if you want that river even half as much as I want it, you can write to the State Water Resources Control Board in support of the city. I’ll give you all the deets in a minute. The first step is to get a hearing and then the process will grind on from there.

It’s imperative that we get behind this effort now because the board is only taking comments through Thursday and the city already has competition. 

Four other districts have petitioned the board and asked for the water.

North Kern Water Storage District in conjunction with the City of Shafter wants to use the water for irrigation, groundwater storage and for homes and businesses.

Buena Vista Water Storage DIstrict wants it for irrigation and storage.

The Kern Water Bank Authority wants it for irrigation, storage and industrial uses.
The Kern County Water Agency would wholesale it to its member ag districts and municipal clients.

No, no, no!

Bakersfield should get that water. And for reasons beyond the aesthetics I mentioned earlier.

Running water down the now bone-dry river channel would increase our overall groundwater storage. The riverbed is the center of Kern’s vast aquifer, I’m told by the city’s Water Resources Director Florn Core.

“So water absorbed there eventually makes it out to the whole basin and everyone benefits,” he said.

We also get our drinking water from that aquifer, so recharging it with good clean Kern water, rather than salty water from the California Aqueduct, means higher quality water out of the tap.

Oh, and Bakersfield would never sell or swap that good Kern water outside the county’s boundaries, Core promised.

That’s what I call a win-win-win proposition.

Though no one knows the exact number of acre feet that may be up for grabs, the city has calculated it could be as much as 110,000 to 120,000 acre feet a year.

Core said in average water years the city typically has a river through town for about two months, May and June, as there’s more water than is needed by other river users. If the city succeeds in its pitch to the state board, we could be assured a river — except in dry years, of course — nine to 10 months a year.

I’m down with all the other benefits Core lists, but I really want that river. Even more so because I believe we were cheated out of our river several years ago.

Back in 2000, the city and the Kern County Water Agency got $23 million from Proposition 13 funds, about $3 million of which was spent to build the “Kern River Flow Restoration Project.” Sounds impressive, huh?

The water agency took control of the project, which involved building a series of pumps and wells along the river that would pull up groundwater and run it down the river channel between May and September. In dry years, though, it would have cost up to $1 million to have that “recirculating river” through summer. So the pumps have never been used for that purpose, Core said.

Soooooo, we spent all those millions for what? Classic!

Well, here’s another chance, a better chance and it won’t cost anything except a few minutes of your time.

Everyone has taken their cut of the once untamed Kern River. The people of Bakersfield deserve a share.

Update on Wednesday’s column
In case no one noticed, expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) lost again on Wednesday when the House could not override Bush’s veto for a third time.

This is a program to provide insurance to the children of the working poor. I think it’s a great program and the expansion was reasonable. But my view did not win out, so the program, known in California as Healthy Families, will continue to limp along under an 18-month extension.


Speak up for the Kern River
Send your comments in support of the City of Bakersfield’s petition and application to:
Kathryn M. Gaffney, P.E.
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Rights
1001 I Street, 14th Floor
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000

Or e-mail her at: kgaffney@waterboards.ca.gov

High points to hit:
• Urge the SWRCB to assume jurisdiction over the forfeited Kern River water and find that the river is not fully appropriated.
Then state your support for Bakersfield’s application for the water as it would:
• Increase flow in the natural Kern River channel benefitting residents, the environment and economy.
• Ensure Kern River water stays in Kern County.
• Protect and maintain the quality of our drinking water.
• Preserve river habitat.
• Enhance recreational opportunities.
• Return at least a portion of the river to public use.

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

Well, you probably all know this already, but they didn't get the votes to override Bush's veto, again. No new vote date was set this time.

So a very good, helpful program will continue limp along for the next 17 months.

Bummer.

I don’t want to get my hopes up but I just can’t help it.

Today the House of Representatives is scheduled to revisit whether it can override President Bush’s double veto of a children’s health care program that has strong support from Republicans and Democrats, has been very successful in its 10 years, helps working class families and, oh by the way, is credited with saving taxpayers millions of dollars every year by preventing unnecessary hospital stays for kids.

There are nearly 25,000 Kern County children on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP),  which is federally and state-funded.

These are working people, they just don’t earn enough to buy insurance and aren’t poor enough for Medi-Cal.

To get SCHIP they can’t earn more than $51,625 a year for a family of four. (In California, families are allowed to earn up to two and a half times the federal poverty level, which is $20,650 for a family of four.)

I used to think $51,000  was a lot of money. But if that family doesn’t have help with insurance, it will cost them about $12,000 a year for private insurance, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study. So, now our family of four is down to $39,600 a year. Not a lot for housing, food, clothes and transportation.

In Kern County, there are a lot of people in that boat, or even leakier ones.

A little more than 17 percent of Kern County families were living below the poverty line in 2006, according to Census data.

SCHIP, which we know in California as Healthy Families, has been a huge help to many of those families, not to mention taxpayers.

A University of Southern California study released last month showed that Healthy Families saved $7.35 million a year in nine counties (including Kern) by keeping kids out of hospitals.

Ahh, a government program that actually works. Don’t get too comfy, here come the politics.

SCHIP was set to expire last fall. That’s when things got ugly.

The Democratic-controlled House tried to tie reauthorization to major increases in Medicare funding that were unacceptable to the Bush administration, which retaliated by unilaterally changing SCHIP rules to require 95 percent of children enrolled in the program have family incomes at no more than two times the poverty level. That poses serious problems: many states had already enrolled kids at higher levels, with the blessing of the federal government.

Eventually, a bill made it to the President, who promptly vetoed it. A bipartisan team revised the bill and again sent it to Bush, who again slapped it with a veto. In December, agreement on an 18-month extension keeping SCHIP at status quo was finally reached.

Whew!

The Bush administration and Republicans who voted against the reauthorization (including Bakersfield Rep. Kevin McCarthy) say these are their issues:

• Too expensive.
The revised bill increased funding by $35.5 billion, but included a 61-cent per pack cigarette tax to help pay that cost. McCarthy told me he’s uncomfortable with this funding strategy as it relies on there being more smokers. Hmmm. So we should do away with cigarette taxes — how about taxes on booze?  — so government doesn’t profit on bad habits? Yeah, I don’t think so.

• Covers upper income families and childless adults.
When SCHIP began, income eligibility was set at two times the federal poverty level. States could, and did, petition the feds to increase those levels through waivers, which were cheerfully granted by both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The revised bill that Bush vetoed capped eligibility at three times the poverty level ($61,950 for a family of four) except in New Jersey.

Despite all the inflammatory talk of rich kids getting taxpayer-funded insurance, however, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 90 percent of children on SCHIP in 2005 had family incomes that were at or below 200 percent of the poverty level ($41,300 for a family of four).

As for covering childless adults (also allowed by the feds based on waivers), the revised bill prohibits states from seeking any new waivers and mandates that all childless adults be moved to Medicare by the end of 2008.

• Would encourage families to discontinue private insurance.
All states, under the revised bill, would have to come up with plans to measure whether this was happening and prevent it.

• Illegal immigrants could get SCHIP.
The bill includes measures to determine citizenship.

It’s a good expansion of a good program and I hope the House can override Bush’s veto.

McCarthy, though, believes this is just grandstanding by the Dems. They don’t have the votes, he predicted, they know it, so they just want to pick an old political fight for the embarrassment factor just before Bush’s State of the Union speech on Monday.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m naive to the ways of Washington, D.C., but as I said when I started this column, I can’t help but hope.


Contact your congressman
If you want to get in touch with Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, or Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, about their votes on the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance program, here’s how you do it:
Costa
Drop him an email by going to his webpage at http://www.costa.house.gov/ and clicking on “contact” in the upper right hand corner.
Or phone him at his Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-3341
McCarthy
Go to his webpage at http://kevinmccarthy

.house.gov/ and click on “contact” in the upper right corner to send him an e-mail.
Or call him in D.C. at (202) 225-2915 or his Bakersfield office at (661) 327-3611.


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

The City of Bakersfield has nominated the Rosedale Widening Project for funding under the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, otherwise known as Proposition 1B approved by voters last November.

 The $2 billion program is for infrastructure improvements along corridors that have a high
volume of freight movement. 

The nomination is requesting $16 million in Prop. 1B funds for construction of the project, which will widen Rosedale Highway from four to six lanes from Allen Road to SR-99. 

The project also includes a railroad grade separation at the BNSF Landco spur to relieve congestion and facilitate freight movement in the corridor. 

If approved, under this program the City would match the Prop. 1B funds with equal funding from the TRIP federal earmark.

Dare I hope!!!????

How galling is it that the superintendent of teensy Edison Elementary School District is scootin’ off with $80,000 after being  “firesigned” (a word I’m coining that describes the practice of resigning on the cusp of getting fired) because she couldn’t figure out the difference between public money and private money?

On a scale of 1 to 10 I’m giving it a 15.

I’m sick to death of watching public officials hock a loogie on the public’s trust then waltz away, pockets jingling with taxpayer money.

If Cheri Sanders, Edison’s erstwhile superintendent, misused public money, we should not “buy her out” for that.

Yes, I know, if the board of trustees (a term I use loosely) hadn’t agreed to this graceful exit she might have sued. Horrors!

Well, suing isn’t winning.

And if the board was in the right, I’d have no problem spending money to defend the public’s right to demand competent, ethical behavior from all its employees, especially those at the top.

Instead, here we are again: Another board that can’t control its employees rewarding shoddy behavior when it all goes bad.

Interesting side note: Former Kern First 5 Kern director Steve Ladd was due to get his final payout of more than $120,000 around about Friday after being outright fired (not even firesigned) last year. That’s after six months of paid vacation.

While we’re talking “Steves,” remember Steve Wentland, superintendent of Belridge Elementary School District? The guy was totally out of control. He improperly spent public money on religious textbooks, harassed teachers to the point of generating claims against the district, planned multimillion bonds without justification and hired a private investigator without board approval.

But the board of trustees sent him merrily on his way in 2001 with a severance of $130,000.

After that little debacle, State Sen. Dean Florez floated a bill that would have tightened requirements on when superintendents could get severance and reduced that severance from the standard 18 months to six months. But it went nowhere.

I think it was a good bill and I’m sorry it failed. But in Kern County, we need something even more drastic.

We need to consolidate all, or at least some, of Kern’s more than 40 school districts and get rid of these head-in-the-sand boards that clearly don’t have the know-how, backbone or political savvy to keep a better hold of our tax dollars.

No better evidence illustrates my point than Edison’s board president, Allison Kitchen’s, admission that she did not know the cost of the investigations into Sanders, but still figured paying her off was less expensive than canning her. That’s outrageous.

Scream all you want about “local control.” With Wentland and Sanders top of mind, I have to ask WHAT control?

The idea behind local school boards is to keep oversight of the money and school functions as close to the people of that district as possible.

But it was the Belridge board that protected Wentland, reluctantly fireresigning him only after immense public pressure from beyond the little district where few of the mostly low-income residents had the courage to speak up.

In the Sanders case, someone complained to the board president and the mess was handed to the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to investigate. Good thing. Even the interim superintendent, Mike Butcher, seemed to take an apologist stance.

“This is a nice lady that just made some mistakes,” Butcher told The Californian.

It’s not just because of bad apples and overly chummy boards that I advocate district consolidation.

The patchwork district system we’ve developed costs money — a lot of it.

In 2002, The Californian looked at superintendent pay for each district in the county. It added up to more than $4.4 million, not including benies and perks, such as car allowances.

At McKittrick, a one-school district, the superintendent made $70,000. With only 53 students, back in 2002, he was earning $1,320.75 per student. Plus he got a district car.

There are pitfalls to consolidation. Just look at some of the problems in Los Angeles or even Fresno counties. But we’ve gone to the extreme opposite with tiny isolated districts able to run like fiefdoms without fear of oversight.

We could do it by region: desert, mountain and valley. Or by grades: elementary, middle, high school. I’m not sure a single unified district would work considering Kern’s vast geographic area. But some form of consolidation would be practical.

My hope would be with fewer boards handling larger sums of money more taxpayers would pay attention to how those boards conduct business.

They are, after all, responsible for one of our most precious resources.

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

I’m all for getting off the pot and trying something new.  Especially if that something can cajole, entice or outright push our young people to get more exercise.

But the jury is still so far out on whether single-sex physical education classes get kids more active that I think the Kern High School District owes itself and its students more time to answer some basic questions.

Before throwing the district, schools and kids into a dither, let’s review some key questions:

Question: Does research support the premise that separating kids based on gender will get them more active?

Answer: There are few studies that answer that specific question and they’re inconclusive. One intriguing issue that has bubbled up in the research, however, is that teacher attitudes may be far more important than class make-up. More on that in a sec.

Question:  What’s it gonna cost?

Answer: Trustee Ken Mettler who proposed the idea and who intends to make a motion on it Feb. 4, believes the optional classes can be handled through creative scheduling.

Let principals decide if there’s demand at their schools, then they can rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, by pulling resources from other electives. Using that approach, Mettler believes, it will be “cost neutral.”

District administrators envision a slightly higher cost — $1.25 million. Neutral? That’s full throttle! 

Question: What are the goals of an optional single-sex P.E. class and how can we measure them, as the law requires?

Answer:  Uhhhh....

Question: Can we ensure that girls-only classes won’t be playing patty-cake while boys-only classes are turned into mini-sports camps by coaches eager for more practice time.

Answer: Uhhhh....

OK, work on those while we discuss teacher attitudes.

I got in touch with James Hannon, who oversees the phys ed teacher program at the University of Utah. He cited studies that consistently show many physical education teachers have preconceived notions about gender that may strongly influence their classes, such as: Boys play too rough and girls don’t try hard (1985, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education); boys hold back when girls are involved so classes are watered down (1984, Physical Educator); girls are less physically capable and should avoid activities that could be a danger to them (1990, British Journal of Physical Education).

Hannon’s own 2005 study measuring activity in high schoolers in co-ed versus single sex classes also found that how the teacher conducts the class may be more important than the gender mix. (Beyond that, the study found, contrary to what was expected, that co-ed classes actually increased physical activity for girls while boys had the same amount of activity regardless of class makeup.)

In an article to be published this February in the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance sent to me by Hannon, he states that research shows inequitable teaching behaviors have continued and switching to single-sex classes is as premature now as it was to go all co-ed back in the 1970s without proper research.

Hannon also found that P.E. teachers often are the biggest supporters of single-sex classes. With few exceptions, that’s true at KHSD, where several instructors have already gone into lobby mode sending out mass e-mails to their colleagues in support of Mettler’s proposal.

Joe Cooper, a P.E. teacher and football coach at Foothill High School for the last nine years, is one of the e-mailers. Cooper did his own study for his Masters degree in the spring of 2006 during state fitness tests, breaking half of his classes into single-sex for the testing. He found a significant increase in the pass rate of the gender-separated classes.

“It’s not working the way it is,” he said.

Longtime Shafter High P.E. instructor and KHSD P.E. facilitator Vickie Shoenhair disagreed, saying co-ed is the way to go. Interestingly, Shafter’s pass rates on state fitness (46 percent for boys and 42 percent for girls) tests are regularly the best in the district (which has a 24 percent pass rate). In fact, Shafter’s rates are better than the state’s overall pass rate of 30 percent.

Shoenhair firmly believes teacher attitude and program offerings are the key.

 Considering Shafter’s numbers, she may be on to something.

Before jumping on the single-sex bandwagon as a cure-all, KHSD needs to take a long hard look at how our schools teach P.E. and work to emulate Shafter’s success.

•••
Confusion over my column.
Careful readers have noticed blurbs in recent papers promising my column won’t return until Jan. 27.

I’ve been detached to edit a project, but I plan to continue producing columns twice a week. No promises, but that’s my plan.

My apologies to those who were looking forward to a breather from my rants.

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

Someone asked why Dean Florez (in the photo on the previous post) is grinning.

My guess is it's because he did really well in the race! It can't be becuase he's standing next to me. Believe me, after 6.2 miles of running, I'm sure I smelled none too fresh!

Also, in answer to Nancy's question, YES, I hope to post something of more substance here soon.

I'm still an editor and sometimes called upon to set aside the column and work on projects, which I've been doing the last couple of weeks. The project is on childhood obesity and should be running soon.

I'm working on a column re: Ken Mettler's proposal to look at single sex PE classes and hope to have that ready for Wednesday's publication.

Most of my work on the obesity project is done, but I'll still be called on to wrangle it all into the paper as we get closer to the pub date. I'll try and keep up w/my Weds.-Sun. schedule tho!

Lots going on out there!

I did the Victim/Witness Auxilliary Fog Run on Saturday out at Lake Ming.

It wasn't foggy, but it was pretty cold. You never know who you'll run into at these things.

 Saturday, I saw State Sen. Dean Florez, who's a pretty darn good runner and in fact placed in his age category. As he was picking up his trophy, the announcer called him "the fastest politician in Kern County."

I'm sure it was meant in a totally complimentary fashion!

No, I did not place, thanks for asking!

 

 

Recently, a number of men in the newsroom have grown beards.

Not to be outdone, a number of us women in the newsroom decided to join the club.

And, personally, I think our beards were far superior to the men's. Plus, we could take ours off to eat!

As in TODAY!

It's because I'm working on a big project coming out next weekend on obesity in teens and children. I'm in my editor instead of columnist mode. Can't have fun ALL the time.

They should have put a note on today's paper saying I'm working on a project, but, hey, things fall through the cracks.

I can't promise anything, but I'm doing a little research and depending on time, I might have a column on KHSD trustee Ken Mettler's idea to have optional single sex PE classes.

What does everyone think of that idea? I find it intriguing, but don't know if there's any research that supports it as getting kids more physically active.

Anyway, on a related note, look for the obesity project to come out starting next Saturday, Jan. 19, Sunday, Jan. 20 and Monday, Jan. 21.

There isn't much "new" to say in terms of numbers, reasons or solutions. But we took some time and met with four families in which one or more of the kids is obese or borderline obese and followed them over about nine months to get a feel for their lives and the challenges they face.

Some of these kids are pretty inspiring. And hearing their thoughts reminded me so much of how tough it is to be a teenager!

Hope you enjoy it!

http://www.wqad.com/Global/...

A friend sent me this link a couple weeks ago, but I just now dug it out of my email.

It's pretty funny!

When the page comes up, look for the "night of the living republicans" and click on it.

I'm not sure if it's funny or lame that one of our Legislators took the time to make this, but at least he's taking the rap for it!

 
http://www.flashreport.org/...
 

Ms. Henry -
 
The amount of inaccurate information you've delivered in your latest column  is disturbing, to say the least. I'd be happy, if you wish, to discuss each of your easily demonstrable errors with you point by point, by phone or by email, anytime, until you understand the responsibility you owe your readers to issue a full and complete retraction for publishing so many incorrect assertions (and embarrassingly so) in a single column.   Your readers deserve it, and I'd suggest you have a responsibility to them, under my belief that newspapers should print accurate information whenever possible.
 
It's up to you if you wish to give me a call, and though there is a fair bit of snark in my reply here, I do make that offer in the best and most honest of spirits.
 
But for now, since you, unlike me (a computer programmer for 10 years or so of my life, and a perhaps the nation's leading journalistic expert in voting systems for at least 4 years) have no "fear of technology" and a belief that touch-screen voting is a "move forward", perhaps you could help me by answering a simple, easy question.
 
You mentioned in your column the great successes you've had in Kern County with touch-screen voting since 2003, which included "only one glitch" on the machines which have "proved accurate" according to your column.
 
That's good news! Could you perhaps share that proof with me and your readers?
 
If you'd be so kind as to share the evidence that backs up your assertion, that any single vote, ever cast on any single touch-screen voting system in any Kern County election was actually recorded and counted accurately, I'd very much appreciate it.
 
With all of those votes, in all of those elections, in all of those years since 2003, it should be simple to do. So please share how you know that the tabulation for any single vote actually "proved accurate" as you've declared.  I know you're busy, as am I, so need only bother sharing your evidence concerning one vote -- ever -- that was counted accurately during a Kern County election on a touch-screen system.
 
My readers will be quite interested, as will yours, I'm guessing. So thanks in advance! And, if you can set me straight here, and share the information you have at hand that led you to make the assertion you did, I'd be happy to retract my 4000 or so pages written about these matters, since my readers also deserve facts which are accurate ones, and if they've been misled, I'd like to set the record straight immediately.
 
The request should be an easy one for ya, I'm guessing, and the information would be much appreciated on my part!
 
Thanks!
 
Best,
Brad

Brad Friedman
Publisher/Editor, The BRAD BLOG
http://www.BradBlog.com
Brad@BradBlog.com
 

This gentleman feels I am ill-informed in my opinion that touch-screen voting machines have proved safe (at least here in Kern County). The opposition has some very valid arguments and cautions.

As I've said, I'm glad to have the debate.

Here are Tom Courbat's views:



Dear Lois,
 
I read with great interest your column today in The Bakersfield Californian and have reproduced it below with my comments/facts in green and underlined. The opinions you have expressed may well be shared by many of today’s voters.  I hope you take the facts I am stating to heart.  I would be most interested in your response to my comments.
 
I am also copying John Hunneman of The Californian (a separate and unrelated daily newspaper published in Southwest Riverside County) who appears to share your views, for his comments.
 
The response I have prepared exceeds your opinion piece by a large factor.  I hope that will not dissuade you from thoroughly reviewing what has to be the most important topic of 2008.
 
Best regards,
 
Tom Courbat
SAVE R VOTE
Riverside County, CA

 
 
Henry column: Time to pop bubble, crawl into the future
BY LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist | Saturday, Jan 5 2008 7:25 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, Jan 5 2008 7:30 PM

Oh, and yes, we will be filling in bubbles this year in case you missed that bit o' news last August. That's when Secretary of State Debra Bowen kiboshed the use of touch-screen voting machines because they might, potentially, in some scenarios -- POSSIBLY -- have security issues.

Courbat's comments:
The reports prepared by the scientists from the University of California stated categorically the machines have NO significant security.  Machines can and have been opened with mini-bar keys and screwdrivers.  Both the physical and software security aspects of all the major voting machines’ manufacturers (VMM) could be bypassed in a matter of moments.  You should also know that the feds do not certify the machines.  In fact the VMMs pay private labs to conduct private tests (the labs are referred to as Independent Testing Authorities or ITAs) and they continue to test the machines on a pass/fail basis until they pass.  None of the reasons for failure are ever revealed, and the “feds” (the Election Assistance Commission or EAC) generally rubber stamps the reports from the ITAs.  In fact however, the EAC decertified one of the labs, Ciber in June 2006 for failure to properly conduct/document the testing supposedly conducted, and then kept that decertification a secret until exposed in a New York Times article in January 2007.  So the mid-term elections in November 2006 were run on machines with a fraudulent “certification” on them, as the EAC has admitted.

The review Bowen used to make this determination was one in which testers were given the machine manuals, oh, and the security codes.

Courbat's comments:
In fact, the scientists didn’t even use the manuals or the security codes– the ease with which every machine could be hacked was absolutely frightening.  Would anyone be that comfortable if the banking system had such weak controls?  Would there be unbridled criticism of the Comptroller of the Currency in conducting such security analyses?  And bear in mind, 95% of all corporate and government crime is committed by insiders.  Thus, we are talking about the very people who have the manuals and have the security codes – both the vendors and the government employees.  And since most Registrars of Voters are admittedly not computer savvy, they depend upon the vendors to handle many of the technical issues related to the computers in the election.

Yeah, I guess that would tend to compromise security.

Courtbat's comments
But that’s not even the important aspect about the criticism of the Top to Bottom Review conducted by Bowen’s office.  The criticism most frequently leveled is exactly what you stated above – that the scientists were given “unfettered access” and it was like leaving your key in the car and then complaining your car has been stolen.  The fact is that Registrars of Voters send these $4,000 a pop machines home with poll workers, or drop them off at unsecured locations for up to 10 days or more in advance of elections.  Thus, any hacker worth his or her salt has unfettered access to these machines for an incredible period of time.  With elections controlling the fate of billions and trillions of dollars, do you think for one minute that “bad guys” would not take the opportunity to bribe insiders to either take action themselves or make a machine available to them?  And then there is the argument that there has never been a proven case of election fraud through use of these machines. Well, the very definition of a successful hack is that it is conducted without ever leaving a trace.  So why would we put our most precious assets, our votes, at the hands of thieves who have the ability to steal and never leave a trace?


The machines will be allowed on a limited basis for disabled voters. Huh? Doesn't Bowen care about ballot security for the disabled?
Nah, she wants to stay just inside the lines of the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act, which is what pushed counties like Kern to jump into the touch-screen fray after the "hanging chad" debacle in Florida during the 2000 presidential race.
If a state took the money in the act, and it had to move fast to get it, it's gotta have computerized voting systems available.

Courbat's comments:
Actually, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) does not require computerized voting systems at all.  It simply requires that disabled individuals be provided the opportunity to vote without human assistance.  There are several non-computerized ballot marking devices (BMDs) that allow blind and visually impaired, and even quadriplegic voters to cast their votes independently.  What you may not be aware of is that Jack Abramoff carried the HAVA legislation to then-House Administration Chairman Bob Ney (both now in Federal prison) on behalf of his clients, the voting machine manufacturers.  With the memory of the hanging chads from one single county in Florida burning in the memories of federal legislators, Congress allocated $3.9 billion for all U.S. counties to “upgrade” their voting systems.  And the rush for this “free money” began.

So, each polling site in Kern on Feb. 5 will have a touch-screen machine. Those votes must be hand-counted.

Courbat's comments:
A 100% hand-count of all touch-screen-cast ballots is pretty darned good security, although for reasons too lengthy to go into here, it is not iron-clad.  So yes, the ballot security issue for the disabled WAS taken into account by Secretary of State Debra Bowen, but she was not about to throw the baby out with the bath water by allowing an entirely easily-compromised voting system to remain in place so that disabled voters could vote unassisted.  She struck the best balance possible with the tight working deadline the law imposed upon her.

Everyone else will get paper ballots with bubbles, counted by a scanning machine.

Courbat's comments:
Perhaps you feel much more comfortable that a scanning machine will be counting your ballot, instead of a touch-screen or a human.  This is where I must disagree with Bowen’s findings.  Her scientists told her that the scanning machines are just as hackable and subject to manipulation as the touch-screen machines themselves.  So, if you eliminate the vote-casting (touch-screen) machines from the precincts, which also tabulated the votes, and replace them with computerized tabulation equipment in the precincts (the precinct-based scanners) and the central tabulation computer, you are simply trading one method for rapidly and secretly fixing an election for another. 
Are you aware that ALL of these computerized counting systems utilize secret software that not even the Registrars of Voters (ROVs) are allowed to view?  Is it ok with you that we now have private corporations running secret software on machines that are judged “certified” by the private companies (remember the ITAs?) that they pay to certify them?  Is this not the penultimate privatization of that most sacred of citizens’ rights – the right to have their vote counted in public and not in the bowels of some privatized computer where the citizens have no ability to observe the actual counting?  Oh, the ROVs will tell you they run additional tests to be sure they are secure.  However, whenever any change is made in the programming of any certified voting system, that change must be submitted to the Secretary of State’s office for re-certification. Just recently, the Secretary of State sued ES&S, one of the big 4 voting machine manufacturers, for selling an uncertified version of their machines to numerous CA counties.  ES&S never told the counties they were uncertified, never notified the State, and in fact, refused to submit their machines and software for review in the Secretary of State’s Top to Bottom Review.  Does that not make you even a little bit nervous as to what they are hiding and how law-abiding these companies are?

Come Election Day, I'm using the touch-screen machine!

Courbat's comments:
Ok.

Disabled folks have priority, but I'm told I can't be refused.

Courbat's comments:
I understand that is the case.

It's my small way of protesting against fear -- fear of technology and political fear, which seems to be in the driver's seat.
We've had the machines since 2003 and used them off and on, depending on political winds, with only one glitch, which had nothing to do with fraud and, in fact, demonstrated their tight security.

Courbat's comments:
How do you know it has been with “only one glitch”? You’ve been told that by your ROV, right?  And, as a journalist, you have verified that by…?

Sure, we need to keep our eyes open, but we also need to move forward. Bowen's decision is a silly stumbling block that does neither.

Courbat's comments:
A “silly stumbling block”?  Would you knowingly fly in a plane whose manufacturer refused to submit to safety tests? Would you bank at a bank that refused to comply with security requirements?  Would you sell your car and accept a stack of bills with a $100 bill on top and a $100 bill on the bottom without physically counting all the bills before you sold your car?   Then why would you call testing of voting machines for security, accuracy and reliability a “silly stumbling block”? And why would you accept a system where the citizens cannot watch and verify the actual counting of the votes?

Bowen also mandated that in really close races, officials must hand count ballots from 10 percent of the precincts. Think of all the small districts in Kern, all those school boards where you can vote for two of three candidates.
It could take weeks, months, to certify races in a big election.

Courbat's comments:
Why would it take weeks or months to certify races in a big election?  The bigger the municipality, the more resources available to provide services – such as verifying that the announced winner is actually the real winner.  And what about having citizens count the votes at the precincts after the polls close?  We did that for nearly two-hundred years.  They still do that in most democracies in the world.  It could be just like jury duty.  That is how we can “keep our eyes open” as you suggest.  Two teams of four-persons each could easily recount almost any single close election contest in a matter of days or less.  For a larger turnout, simply engage more four-person teams.   Is it accuracy we want, or just speed and convenience?

But hand-counting seems to be exactly what opponents of computerized voting want.
Black Box Voting, which bills itself as a staunch opponent of computerized voting machines, has a "citizen's tool kit" on its Web site on how to push for hand counting.
The majority of the tool kit is great, all about how to get involved, which I encourage and applaud.

Courbat's comments:
And I applaud you for referring to Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org <http://www.blackboxvoting.o... ).  If you spend some quality time on their site, you will realize the answer to your next two objections.  I also strongly suggest you review www.bradblog.com <http://www.bradblog.com/>... . 

As for hand-counting ballots, though, two things: Paper ballots are just as susceptible to fraud as touch-screen balloting, maybe more so (Kenya, for example); and this ain't Mayberry anymore. We have a whole lot more to count.

Courbat's comments:
Touch-screen (or computerized) voting is much more susceptible to fraud than paper ballots because one person, within one minute, can change 100,000 (or any number you select) votes.  Try doing that with paper ballots.  And the point about Kenya is that at least with the paper ballots, they were able to clearly demonstrate that votes – COUNTED FIRST AT THE PRECINCTS BEFORE BEING SHIPPED OFF TO THE “CENTRAL COMPUTER” – had been tampered with.  That could NOT have been determined if they were using electronic voting and/or not counting the votes first at the precinct level.  That precinct count is the “check” in the “check and balance” system that should always be in place to prevent or minimize the likelihood of election fraud.


I'm glad Black Box and others are keeping elections officials on their toes and demanding checks and rechecks. But the machines have been checked, they have a paper trail. In Kern, they've proved accurate and reliable.

Courbat's comments:
Refer above to the checks and rechecks (balances) system. Refer above to the illusionary checks performed on the machines.  And the paper trail?  You know of course that a computer can print anything you program it to print on a piece of paper.  So if for example, the program says flip every tenth vote from Harry to Bill, the computer will do exactly that.  The paper trail will show that Bill got 10% more votes than he really did, and Harry got 10% fewer (a 20% spread).  And since studies show that only about 15% of voters take the time to check the paper trail, there is little chance of it being noticed.  And if the voter does notice the “glitch”, they simply vote over, and the program easily accommodates the revote and shows it correctly the second time.  Thus the voter is assured his/her vote was now “accurately” recorded, and it was just a “glitch”, or maybe they just pressed the wrong box on the touch screen.
Now, since the law only requires a 1% tally (not even referred to as an audit) of the ballots cast, there is no statistical validity that proves the machines are “accurate and reliable”.  But one person has told you they are, your ROV.  And your ROV likely truly believes they are accurate and reliable, but how can he/she really know without hand-counts? Or statistically valid audits that yield a 99% confidence level?

It's time to step into the future.

Courbat's comments:
Indeed.  A future controlled by private corporations running secret software on machines they manufacture.  A future in which the (s)election of candidates is controlled by corporate and government insiders, far away from the prying eyes of those pesky voters.


After my little protest Feb. 5, though, I'm thinking of joining the legions of other Kern voters chucking the polling place altogether and getting an absentee ballot.
This is the biggest year ever, with nearly half of Kern's registered voters going absentee. That's more than 110,000 absentee ballots being mailed out Monday.
As long as we can trust the U.S. Postal Service, no worries, right?

Courbat's comments:
Ah yes, vote by mail (VBM), the new shiny term for absentee balloting.  What could be wrong with that?  It is certainly convenient, I’ll grant you that.  And that is the theme of Americana, convenience.  Convenient for the voter and for the ROVs, as the ballots trickle in and can be actually counted over a 10-day period leading up to Election Day.  Of course there is that little detail of “chain of custody” wherein your ballot goes through several hands, and is not/cannot be accounted for every step of the way. 
There is the ability to sort by zip code and even sort by voter’s name, since voter’s are required to sign their name on the outside of the ballot.  Thus, if zip code 90909 happens to be 70% party A, and it is a very close race, it might be that a strategic number of zip code 90909 (a zip code I chose at random) ballots mysteriously “disappear”, especially if party B has paid someone to conveniently lose them.  Also, since the ROV has daily access to the accumulation of VBM votes cast, this information can be extremely valuable to political operatives in making sure that last minute get-out-the-vote efforts are channeled in the right direction.
If all this sounds like conspiracy theory to you, then I suggest you read the daily paper.  If you doubt the statistic about 95% of corporate and government fraud is from insiders, check it out.  If you believe your government is infallible and totally honest and we should always trust what they say, then I likely cannot convince you otherwise.  As Andrew Carnegie once said, “A man (woman) convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”  I urge you NOT to be convinced against your will, but rather to consider the facts I have placed before you and to VERIFY them.  Remember the words of President Reagan, “Trust, but VERIFY”.
 I thank you for expressing the opinion of many, many Americans, but I implore you to look much more closely at this – nothing less than the future of our democracy hangs in the balance of a thorough examination of this subject.
(I would be happy to give you citations for any of the facts I have stated that you might question. – Tom Courbat)
 
 
The degree of willingness of a government to open itself up to public scrutiny and public audit foretells the quality and integrity of that government.
 

Smell that?

It’s election season — AHHgain.

Seriously, elections in California are, what, weekly now?

I know, I know, this is supposed to be the presidential primary in which we Californians finally have more say in choosing the candidates than pipsqueak New Hampshire.

But New Hampshire is still going ahead of us, along with whoppers like Florida and Michigan. And they will surely thin the herd before we get to “bubble in” our favorite sidewinder, oops, I mean, candidate. (OK, I really meant sidewinder.)

Oh, and yes, we will be filling in bubbles this year in case you missed that bit o’ news last August. That’s when Secretary of State Debra Bowen kiboshed the use of touch-screen voting machines because they might, potentially, in some scenarios —  POSSIBLY — have security issues.

The review Bowen used to make this determination was one in which testers were given the machine manuals, oh, and the security codes.

Yeah, I guess that would tend to compromise security.

The machines will be allowed on a limited basis for disabled voters. Huh? Doesn’t Bowen care about ballot security for the disabled?

Nah, she wants to stay just inside the lines of the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act, which is what pushed counties like Kern to jump into the touch-screen fray after the “hanging chad” debacle in Florida during the 2000 presidential race.

If a state took the money in the act, and they had to move fast to get it, they gotta have computerized voting systems available.

So, each polling site in Kern on Feb. 5 will have a touch-screen machine. Those votes must be hand counted.

Everyone else will get paper ballots with bubbles, counted by a scanning machine.

Come Election Day, I’m using the touch-screen machine!

Disabled folks have priority, but I’m told I can’t be refused.

It’s my small way of protesting against fear  — fear of technology and political fear, which seems to be in the driver’s seat.

We’ve had the machines since 2003 and used them off and on, depending on political winds, with only one glitch, which had nothing to do with fraud and, in fact, demonstrated their tight security.

Sure, we need to keep our eyes open, but we also need to move forward. Bowen’s decision is a silly stumbling block that does neither.

Bowen also mandated that in really close races,  officials must hand count ballots from 10 percent of the precincts. Think of all the small districts in Kern, all those school boards where you can vote for two of three candidates.

It could take weeks, months, to certify races in a big election.

But hand counting seems to be exactly what opponents of computerized voting want.
Black Box Voting, which bills itself as a staunch opponent of computerized voting machines, has a  “citizen’s tool kit” on its website on how to push for hand counting.

The majority of the tool kit is great, all about how to get involved, which I encourage and applaud.

As for hand counting ballots, though, two things:  paper ballots are just as susceptible to fraud as touch-screen balloting, maybe moreso (Kenya, for example);  and this ain’t Mayberry anymore. We have a whole lot more to count.

I’m glad Black Box and others are keeping elections officials on their toes and demanding checks and rechecks. But the machines have been checked, they have a paper trail. In Kern, they’ve proved accurate and reliable.

It’s time to step into the future.

After my little protest Feb. 5, though, I’m thinking of joining the legions of other Kern voters chucking the polling place altogether and getting an absentee ballot.

This is the biggest year ever, with nearly half of Kern’s registered voters going absentee. That’s more than 110,000 absentee ballots being mailed out Monday.

As long as we can trust the U.S. Postal Service, no worries, right?

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