As press conferences go, Tuesday’s “Witch Hunt” rally was one of the odder and more interesting ones I’ve ever covered.

Setting aside the outright bizarreness — such as the tall, thin man in the crowd with the parrot on his shoulder —  it felt like part press conference, part tent revival and part celebrity stalking.

Mostly, though, I felt like an interloper at a family reunion.

There they all were in front of the courthouse — the Pitts family, the Kniffens, the Modahls, the Nokeses, the Cummings family and John Stoll. They hugged and chatted as if they’d all known each other all their lives even though for some it was a first meeting.

They share a history I wouldn’t wish on anyone, and that makes them family.

Older now, their faces are a bit more weathered than when The Californian took their photos 25 years ago as they appeared in court accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable: passing their own and other children around in sexual molestation rings.

Nearly all those convicted have been released now, their convictions overturned one by one.

As they got out of prison, each family went its own way, trying  to forge a new life despite the notoriety and years (in Stoll’s case 20 years) lost in prison. They didn’t want attention, they just wanted to live normal lives, without fear.

But, they told me, they came back Tuesday despite their fears to draw attention to their cases in hopes it would never happen again.

As Scott Kniffen, a tall reserved man of few words, said, “the people of Kern County need to wake up and make some changes with the people they elect.”

He was referring to District Attorney Ed Jagels, whom they all blame for what happened in the 1980s.

“I’d like the state of California to wake up and change the laws,” Kniffen told the applauding crowd. “Prosecutors shouldn’t have total immunity to avoid responsibility when they put innocent people in prison.”

Jagels, who didn’t return my phone calls last week about the rally, has told The Californian in the past that the convictions being overturned doesn’t prove the people are innocent.

Well, as someone else pointed out to me, by that logic, then being convicted doesn’t prove a person is guilty of a crime.

The crowd at the Liberty Bell wasn’t in the mood for debates on logic, they were there to talk about justice. Judging from the hoots and applause, that would have to include Jagels doing time behind bars.

“What happened to these families is incomprehensible,” said Jack Cummings, who with his wife Jackie spent a year on the run with their three boys. They went on the lam when they realized they were being implicated simply because Jackie had baby sat for Cheryl Gonzales, who was arrested with her husband and several others in 1984.

Authorities caught up with the Cummings family and their three boys were taken away, spending a year in foster homes even though Jack and Jackie were never formally charged.

Incomprehensible is a good word to describe what went on during that time.

I met Carol and Lisa Pitts, daughters of Rick Pitts, who spent six years in prison along with his wife Marcella Pitts, her sister Colleen Bennett, friend Gina Miller and three others.

Carol was 11 at the time and Lisa was 7. They were with Rick and Marcella, their step-mother, in court on a custody hearing over Marcella’s sons from a previous marriage the day the Pittses were arrested. The girls went straight into protective custody.

Their mother, Linda Cardoso, Rick’s ex-wife, was able to get them home after a month.

She moved them across town and instructed their school not to allow anyone other than herself to pick them up or speak with them without her present.

“That’s what would happen to a lot of these kids,” Cardoso recalled. “They’d just come take them from school.”

When Carol talks about those days, her body becomes rigid and her words are clipped.

“They tried to get me to say these things happened and I said, ‘No! I’m not saying that!

Because it’s not true!’” Carol, now 36 said. “I’m pissed off that it happened and it’s awesome this is all coming out now.” Both girls testified for the defense but it didn’t save their father.

It’s important for people to see “Witch Hunt,” they said, to understand what happened.

I’ve seen the film. I’ve read the news accounts and I’ve interviewed the people involved.

Frankly, I still don’t understand how it happened.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

So Bakersfield's City Manager won't speak to or email me directly.

But he did write a Community Voices article (in today's paper) re: fire and police negotiations that slams me as being irrational and biased, among other things

He also claims I didn't print that firefighters were offered an 8 percent raise.

Not so fast, hoss.

In my first column on this issue (which ran April 1, 2009) I detailed as much as I could about the negotiations, including the fact that fire fighters were offered 8 percent over 2 years (exactly what the rest of the city including Mr. Tandy had already received).

I also reported they had offered 2 percent of that proposed raise BACK to the city to pay into their retirement funds to ease the city's burden of paying for that benefit.

The second column I did on Mr. Tandy and his negotiations (dated April 19) is the one he seems to be having angst over.

That column wasn't about the negotiations per se, but  about how Mr. Tandy is conducting those negotiations, which was why I delved into his emails to Fire Chief Ron Fraze over how firefighters use their time and city equipment.

Yes, he's right that I think union negotiations with a public body should be much more open to the public. That way we can actually see who's being unreasonable, which is exactly why, I believe, Mr. Tandy doesn't want them more public.

I also note in his letter about me, Mr. Tandy neglects to mention that he brought up staffing as a negotiating issue with the fire department, long after the negotiable issues had been established. He also doesn't mention that fire fighters informally accepted the city's offer in mid-March only to have the city turn around and rescind that offer.

Mr. Tandy can call me all the names he wants (and I'm sure he will) but I call what he's been doing "bad faith."

Police and fire both are willing to negotiate. And yes, that means they're willing to look at ways to limit the city's share of their lucrative 3 at 50 retirement benefit. This should be a common goal for employees and the city.

But Mr. Tandy's tactics, as I said before, are getting us further from that goal, not closer.

Here's Mr. Tandy's letter:

Tandy: City, fire union must rein things in

4/28/2009

As Bakersfield city manager, I expect that my actions may be publically questioned and criticized. It is an unavoidable characteristic of my profession, as matters of public policy and high profile decision making are oftentimes controversial. The City Council expects me to provide prudent advice and to carry out their directives for the good of our community and for the best interests of our taxpayers.

I rarely comment when negative or irrational statements are made about me. However, I am compelled to respond to Lois Henry's recent column wherein she alleges that I am obstructing her communications with me and deliberately using hardball tactics to influence fire union negotiations.

As the local media know, my staff and I make it a standard practice to be readily accessible. I have dealt with many reporters in my career, and have rarely experienced communication problems. However, in Ms. Henry's case, she has demonstrated a repeated pattern of misrepresenting information I have willingly provided to her. As to her most recent requests, I initially attempted to work with her. It quickly became obvious that she was not interested in obtaining all the pertinent facts, but merely in using partial information to sensationalize the issue and put forward her predetermined opinion. She portrayed me as being inflexible and unwilling to deal with the fire union, yet Ms. Henry, who advocates making union negotiations public, chose to omit the fact that an 8 percent pay raise has been offered to them.

Unfortunately, as we are all painfully aware, the past several years of prosperous times are gone. News reports about bankruptcies, layoffs and closures are commonplace. The city of Bakersfield is certainly not immune to the effects of the economy. With declining sales and property tax revenues and escalating costs, we experience the same financial pain as the private sector does. During tough economic times, we have to scrutinize our operations to cut costs and maximize efficiency, as well. My concern for the Bakersfield Fire Department to utilize their time and equipment in a manner that reflects our necessity to cut back is a rational position.

Ms. Henry has concluded that I am using the circumstances in an attempt to "leverage" negotiations with the fire union. Under the best of conditions, union negotiations can be complicated and lengthy. It is easy for a casual observer to jump to conclusions based on hearsay. I respectfully suggest that the city's discussions with the fire union can be better served if she refrains from making inflammatory statements that are unfounded and have the potential to do harm. Instead, she should research the growing list of California cities that are taking far more drastic actions with their unions to reduce employee and benefit expenses.

Alan Tandy has been Bakersfield's city manager since August 1992. Community Voices articles are expanded commentaries that contain approximately 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint commentaries in all formats.

Different day, same old story in local politics.

I read Wednesday that Councilman Ken Weir appointed Dean Haddock to the Planning Commission over four other candidates.

Color me unsurprised.

But it’s not the anti-Russell Johnson sentiment that’s so depressingly familiar.

We all knew Johnson, appointed to the commission by former councilman and now Kern County Supervisor Mike Maggard, didn’t stand a chance at being reappointed (though he did re-apply, the cheeky boy).

Weir made it clear he didn’t want Johnson when he tried to bounce him from the commission mid-term. No, Johnson’s ship sailed long ago.

The real issue here is Haddock, yet another model in the never-ending parade of Stepford-pols from the Mark Abernathy puppet factory.

OK, so Weir didn’t want Johnson or his Maggard baggage. Fine.

There were two other very strong candidates.

Andrew Heglund and Kristin Hagan, both attorneys, also applied.

Hagan is a real estate and land use attorney for Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann and Girard in town.

She also has experience as an administrative intern for the city of Anaheim, a legislative intern for a congressman and an aide for an Orange County supervisor. So she knows how government ticks.

Asked what major issue(s) she felt were facing the Planning Commission, she said:

“I feel the commission is always charged with the difficult task of balancing the need for a new project against current supply and demand. The recent adoption of climate change legislation will also present new planning challenges.”

Good answers that show a grasp of local issues as well as how we fit into the bigger picture.

I left a message for Hagan but she didn’t return my call.

Heglund, who works for Klein, Denatale, Goldner, has also represented developers, but not much, he told me.

Aside from being a lawyer he also has a real estate broker’s license and has taken real estate law classes in land use and the environment.

He has no previous government experience, but applied for both the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency last year.

It was Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan’s turn to pick last time around and she reappointed Jeff Tkac. Heglund also wasn’t selected by Mayor Harvey Hall, who appoints members to the redevelopment agency.

Though he was shut out of both slots again this year, Heglund was undeterred.

“I’d like to get involved,” he said. “I think we should all utilize our talents, in whatever way, to better our community.”

On the major issue question, Hegland wrote:

“1. Insuring that adequate infrastructure is in place to support new development.

“2. Weighing surplus development against development planned for upswing in economy.”

Hmmm. There’s that surplus development issue again. (Remember, city planners have estimated there are 50,000 approved housing units on the books waiting to be built.)

Looking over Haddock’s application, I didn’t see his qualifications outshining either Hagan’s or Heglund’s.

Haddock is a clinical psychologist who runs his own practice, Community Counseling and Psychological Services. And he lists “construction experience, homebuilding and remodeling” on his application, but gives no further details.

On the major issue question he says:

“The biggest issue facing the Planning Commission is protecting the rights of property owners while at the same time having the highest quality plan for Bakersfield’s future. In the planning process, we sometimes have to see the future of Bakersfield before it is created and have a healthy balance of residential, commercial and industrial as well as transportation and livability issues.”

OK, protect property rights, high quality plans, look to the future and have a healthy balance. So which of these is the major issue?

I left a message for Haddock but didn’t get a call back.

I asked Weir what it was about Haddock’s experience that made him more qualified than the other applicants.

He e-mailed me his response saying he’d interviewed all three (except Johnson, of course) and felt Haddock shared his views on planning and development and had no apparent conflicts of interest.

Back up. Planning vision?

I attended one of Weir’s community meetings to discuss planning for the northeast. He said a lot of things people liked, no block walls, architectural themes, preserving the dark night sky, etc.

When one attendee reminded him that The Canyons was planned to be ringed by a block wall, and asked if he would work to change that, Weir skirted the issue, saying these ideas were really more for a guiding document for future development.

Uh-huh. We all know how well “guiding documents” have worked around here. Those are just so much pablum to keep the masses quiet, if you ask me.

I think Haddock’s appointment had more to do with who’s really calling Weir’s political shots — Abernathy.

Abernathy managed Haddock’s campaign against Maggard for Kern County supervisor back in 2006.

In fact, Haddock still owes Western Pacific Research, Abernathy’s political consulting firm, about $13,500, according to his most recent campaign disclosure statement filed at the end of 2008.

Whether they share a planning vision, Weir and Haddock at least have that in common.

Weir appears to still owe Abernathy about $45,000 from his days on the Bakersfield City School District Board, according to his most recent statements from the end of 2008.

Like I said — different day, same old story in local politics.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

I'm SURE my column Sunday on City Manager Alan Tandy trying to bully Fire Department Chief Ron Fraze into keeping his people out of the public eye had nothing to do with this...

BUT...as I hear it, Fraze was called into Tandy's office Monday morning and told to increase his budget cuts for next year by more than $300,000, going from $1.5 million to a little over $1.8 million.

I'd like to believe it wasn't in retaliation for the column. However, given Tandy's penchant for vindictiveness (read the previous column) I wouldn't stake my life on it.

P.S. I had meant to post these earlier, but just got around to it. Here are all the emails and memos I gathered between Tandy and Fraze that show Tandy trying to keep fire fighters under wraps.

In March, I wrote about the California Air Resources Board's draconian and unnecessary new rules to cut PM2.5 from diesel exhaust and how it:

A) Won't do much more for our air quality than if we simply allow truck and construction equipment fleets turn over naturally since cleaner emitting versions come out every year.

B) Will kill industry

and

C) Was based on a report written by a man who lied about having a Ph.D in statistics from University California, Davis.

I had been asking the ARB about Hien T. Tran's credentials for months. They admitted to me in March that he didn't have the Ph.D from Davis but wouldn't say much more.

So I put in a public records request and got the investigation report today.

Tran, who voluntarily stepped down in December from his position as a managing researcher, has been suspended for 60 days starting today (April 22) until June 19.

I suppose that's fair. The guy lied about credentials, he didn't kill anyone.

What's not right, however, is ARB's steadfast refusal to suspend the new diesel rules and redo the research on which they were based.

The investigation report repeats several times that it stands by the report because an independent peer review found the methodology scientifically sound nd reasonable.

I've discovered that doesn't mean the science is ironclad nor that the conclusions are anywhere near correct. It just means that other scientists look at how a report was put together and  say "Yup, that's how these kinds of reports are put together" based on best practices at the time.

Tran favored some studies over others that showed NO increased death rate in California due to PM2.5 exposure. He very sloppily explained away those negative studies using  one excuse in the draft version of his report. Then when told his excuse was inaccurate,  arbitrarily switched to another excuse in the final report.

All in an obvious attempt to focus the report on specific studies that did show increased death rates for exposure to PM2.5.

But when you examine those observational studies used by Tran, the science is still up for question.

The authors of those studies have steadfastly refused to open their data sets for review and the results have never been independently replicated.

That's standard operating procedure before a scientific theory becomes a "fact."

The only facts we can be sure of at this time, is this regulatory agency is about to lower the boom on California's already wounded economy based on an amateurish report written by a liar.

If PM2.5 is killing us, fine, lets regulate to the gnat's rear end. But we should know for sure that's actually what's happening before going off the deep end.

Click here to see the entire ARB investigation report on Tran.

(P.S. In my records request I asked for all the exhibits, I have yet to get those...but I will!)

I tried. OK? Really, I did.

I was all set to write a happy column about Earth Day (which is today, so pick another day to dump your battery acid down that gopher hole) and how government agencies are going ever “greener.”

Then I got to reading about the city/county general plan update discussions and cracked open the background reports to see how things are proceeding.

The bottom line is if you are at all interested in better planning for this community, you need to get involved, do it NOW and stick with it, because this will be a long haul.

Otherwise, the powers that be will succeed in getting a namby-pamby plan approved, we’ll get sued, a plan will be forced on us and our politicians will worm out from under it every chance they get.

That will continue to happen until we citizens make it very clear we are watching.

In case you blinked and missed this, a “growth concept” map was floated by a joint meeting of the city and county Planning Commissions Monday night. Developer whining quickly ensued.

The concept involves growth boundaries, which other communities have had for many years. Somehow those cities still have survived.

Our boundaries would be huge.

The “core” would extend from 7th Standard Road on the north to Highway 119 on the south and from the mouth of the Kern River canyon on the east to Heath Road on the west.

Inside that vast core, developers could build higher densities and pay lower infrastructure costs.

Unlike other communities, which have simply said no growth beyond the core, this plan would allow development at a future date. If someone wanted to build sooner. he or she could, but at a much greater cost.

That only makes sense as leapfrog development costs taxpayers far more to stretch services out to sprawling neighborhoods.

This watered-down version of growth boundaries was met with skepticism, concern and outright wheedling Monday night as some developers and property owners argued their land (outside the core) should be exempted.

“People here haven’t seen anything like this,” said Bakersfield Planning Director Jim Movius.

When I spoke with the Sierra Club’s main local activist, Gordon Nipp, he was not enthralled with the boundaries — mostly because he fears they’re on the verge of being breached.

The county Planning Commission on May 14 will study at least one massive project, Nipp said, that’s far outside the core. And that doesn’t even count all the many acres already entitled to be developed during the boom whose owners are now waiting out the bad economy.

“It’s astounding to me,” Nipp said. “They should put a moratorium on development if they’re considering these type of boundaries.”

Despite new state laws that give anti-sprawl efforts teeth, Nipp said he’s not very positive about what the new general plan will look like.

“As you know, the devil is in the details,” he said.

That’s also where the real fighting begins — writing the policies that back up the plan.

As tedious and time consuming as that part will surely be, that’s where we citizens need to be most vigilant.

“The policies are going to have to be real strong to make the growth plan work,” Movius agreed.

Right now, our general plan policies “encourage” certain types of growth and “discourage” others.

Those words will need to be replaced by “require” and “prohibit.”

That’s how the settlement agreement between Stockton and the Sierra Club reads after the environmental group (with the backing of the attorney general) successfully sued over Stockton’s general plan.

Sierra Clubbers have two hefty new hammers in the form of SB 375, which mandates more sustainable growth, and AB 32, which mandates the state roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.

We could have been well on our way if our general plan hadn’t been treated like a pile of used Kleenex over the last seven years.

When it was written back in 2002, it envisioned mini city centers, or hubs, of retail, commercial and other job zones surrounded by high-density housing and then lower-density housing, so no matter where you lived, you could walk or bike to work or shop. No ugly block walled neighborhoods. And, oh, taking the bus would actually have worked.

“It had some pretty sexy ideas in it,” Movius said of the old plan.

What happened?

Politicians, that’s what.

Developers said “jump” and our public servants said “how high?”

This time around, let’s make sure we the people are holding the bar.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Here’s a tip:

Don’t dare someone to dig up documents when they have nothing better to do with their time than dig up documents.

Oh yeah, and make sure there’s nothing to get before you spout off, too.

When City Manager Alan Tandy quit talking to me — again — a couple weeks ago, he sent an email refusing to answer questions about a directive he allegedly issued to the fire department for on-duty personnel to stay out of the public eye unless they absolutely had to come out of their stations for a real emergency.

He ended the email with this: “In all future communications with me please submit a freedom of information act notice to the clerk. That is for you personally not your employer. Have a nice day.”

OK.

One Public Records Act request later I found a string of memos and emails between Tandy and Fire Chief Ron Fraze that show Tandy, indeed, trying very hard to strong-arm Fraze into putting his people under a burqa.

He demands Fraze justify why firefighters are allowed to go to gyms (they’re evaluated on fitness and not all stations have work out space), eat in restaurants (when they’re on calls, they sometimes do have to eat); go to grocery stores (kind of necessary if he wants them to eat only in the stations behind closed doors, with the shades pulled down); and — here’s the biggie — attend public events.

All if which led me to wonder what bee was buzzin’ around in Tandy’s bonnet.

My conclusion: Leverage.

This is a classic Tandy tactic to try and gain the upper hand in union negotiations, which have dragged on for more than a year now. He wants to jab firefighters to remind them who’s boss and, in the process, reduce their visibility to the public.

Don’t believe me? Look at the timing.

His memos to Fraze start back in November and specifically refer to a restaurant grand opening opening (Famous Dave’s on Rosedale Highway) as an improper use of personnel and equipment. In fairness, we also received a few letters wondering why the fire department was there.

Here’s the thing, though — that happened in February 2008 and Fraze had already agreed it wasn’t a good idea and wouldn’t happen again.

But Tandy didn’t bring it up for seven months. I can’t imagine him letting something stick in his craw that long before spitting it out.

In the back and forth (which goes on from November to mid-March), Tandy moves from being concerned about the public perception of firefighters at public events to saying it’s a safety issue.

In a Jan. 15 memo he tells Fraze, “Given the concern expressed by Fire Department staff regarding the current level of staffing within the department and the desire to have each station fully manned to meet response times and employee safety requirements it would seem paramount that Fire Department equipment and staff be available and ready to respond to life safety responses as quickly as possible.”

Aha.

Tandy had been trying, unsuccessfully, to get firefighters to agree to bump the lucrative three-at-50 retirement benefit to three-at-55 for new hires. They weren’t going for it, so, boom, he brought up staffing levels earlier this year, according to union president Derek Tisinger.

The issue  of three at 50 is pretty much the same with police officers, who’ve been without a contract for nearly two years. Talks with the police union are now at impasse.

I agree that taxpayers can’t pay the freight for three-at-50 (employees can retire at 50 with 3 percent of their last year’s salary for every year of service) and still give decent wages and health benefits to employees. It’s too expensive.

But Tandy’s tactics are getting us further from that goal instead of closer.

Both unions have offered different ways to ease the cost of three-at-50 to the city that would show immediate savings, but Tandy told them to pound sand.

Meanwhile, the council has sat idly by taking Tandy’s reports in closed session as time marches on.

That’s some great governing there.

When Tandy was still speaking to me (or at least emailing me) he wouldn’t answer any specific questions about the negotiations, saying he didn’t want to conduct negotiations through the media.

Oh, bull puckey! Negotiations absolutely should be more public. It’s hard to see how that could make things any worse.

A bill by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that would have required the city to publicly report the offers and counter-offers recently died a quiet death before its first hearing.

That’s unfortunate.

But it shouldn’t stop us, the taxpayers, from demanding some kind of action from our City Council like, I don’t know, getting a real negotiator involved.

Someone a little less harsh and uncompromising. Maybe Dirty Harry’s available?

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

City Manager Alan Tandy called my boss today to tell her he cut off communication with me because I've misrepresented him as an "ogre."

And that I have a consistent pattern of inaccurate reporting.

She asked for specific examples and he said he didn't like it in my column on Mayor Harvey Hall not reporting gifts that I also noted Tandy had no reportable gifts and said "Awww."

I did say "Awww." Because it's sad, understandable but sad, that no one would give him a gift worth reporting.

But it's not inaccurate.

For the record, I didn't mean you SHOULD go out and swing a dead cat. And I can assure you no cats were harmed in the research or writing of the parolee column!

But you can't please all the people all the time, and apparently I can't EVER please this caller.

In Kern County, you really can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a parolee.

I started looking into our parolee situation last month after four Oakland police officers were shot to death by an at-large parolee.

I wondered whether we were being overwhelmed by parolees.

Not really, I was told by Rodney Armstrong, our local parole administrator. We’re about average for our population, he said.

On any given day, there are about 4,200 parolees legally wandering among us. Another 450 are “at large,” meaning they haven’t been checking in with their parole agents as required.

In all, we have 58 pairs of eyes watching all those parolees. That’s a caseload of about 72 potential bad guys to one good guy. Scary!

But, wait, that’s not all. We also have an additional 800 parolees who are in custody as they cycle back into the system for violating their parole or committing new crimes.

That’s 5,450 people (the amount changes daily) out of a population of 540,000 adults who’ve spent quality time in one of California’s finer institutions.

That’s 1 percent, or 10 parolees per 1,000 adults.

In Fresno County, with a higher population than us, the rate is 9.4 parolees per 1,000 adults. San Joaquin County has 6.9 parolees per 1,000 and Sacramento County is 5.2  parolees per 1,000.

Chances that Kern’s parolees will reoffend and end up back in the slammer are higher than the state average as well.

Nearly one in three Kern parolees are considered to be at high risk of recidivism, according to the California Department of Corrections. That’s compared to one in four statewide.

We are seventh in the state for percentage of parolees likely to be heading back to the big house.

Great, why can’t we ever have higher numbers for something good, like college degrees or rainbows?

Getting a handle on how many of our parolees are considered a high risk as far as being dangerous to the public was more difficult.

The prison system does have an assessment tool to determine each parolee’s potential for violent behavior. But getting the numbers proved difficult as the tool hasn’t been implemented throughout all the state’s parole units.

Perhaps some of Kern’s parolee overload is of our own making, as I was reminded by Mark Arnold, head of the Public Defender’s office.

“Kern County prides itself on sending more people to prison per capita than any other county in the state,  so it stands to reason we have highest number of parolees,” he said.

That may be true, but for now  we’re stuck in this overcrowded, leaky boat.

And it’s about to take on more passengers as a panel of judges recently ordered the Department of Corrections to release 70,000 inmates to reduce the strain on the prison’s health systems. Which, of course, will simply shift the strain to our backyard.

Considering we put a disproportionate share of inmates in, we shouldn’t be surprised if we get the same share back.

So much for college degrees and rainbows.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Oh, for crying out loud. I’m torn between outrage and derision.

First Bakersfield City Councilman Ken Weir has to be ordered to fill out his conflict-of-interest statements two years ago and now Mayor Harvey Hall thinks it’s just dandy to take not one, but two $10,000+ trips to India on someone else’s dime, not report the first trip at all and then try and get by with saying “Mr. Anonymous” paid for the second one.

Is it something in the water over there?

It’s real simple folks — when you’re in public office, you are legally obligated to ’fess to the public about where you get your money, what property you own, who you owe money to, who gives you gifts,  and who pays for trips you take.

(Quick side note: Kudos to Councilman Weir, who didn’t need any arm-twisting this time to list the names of his top clients on his financial disclosure statements. Good for you!)
The law applies to non-elected public officials in top positions as well as those elected, such as City Manager Alan Tandy and other city department heads.

(Another quick side note: Tandy’s statement showed he received no reportable gifts. Awww.)

We, the taxpayers, get to know all that stuff because we’re trusting you with our money and decisions that affect the health, safety and future of our community.
We want to know if you’re getting casks of expensive wine or cruises courtesy of a developer who has a project in front of you.

That is what’s known as a — I’ll say it loudly for those who don’t seem to understand the concept — a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

So when the Sikhs pay for these trips at $10,000 or more (which goes far beyond the $390 limit from 2008 and the $420 limit for 2009 in any case) for Hall to traipse around the subcontinent, I wonder why.

Hall isn’t just Bakersfield’s ribbon-cutting cheerleader.

He is our representative and has extraordinary access and influence on city government. He could also be the tie-breaking vote on serious matters, such as The Canyons development or a freeway slicing through a neighborhood.

That’s why we absolutely have a right to know who has access to him, who’s doing him favors that he might be inclined to repay.

As for his comments to the paper that the public should be glad he reported the trip at all because otherwise “nobody would have known,” that sounds vaguely like a threat that I’d advise Hall to avoid.

When you’re in the public eye, someone always knows. Then it looks like a coverup.
Frankly, Hall’s reporting-non reporting of those India trips looks bad enough to me. What on earth does he mean that the Sikh’s “passed the hat” for his trip? Did they write a check signed “the Sikhs?” Or did they hand him a satchel of cash?

Maybe the Sikh’s really do just “love” him all that much, as he told reporter Gretchen Wenner.

Being the cynical old hack that I am, I can’t help but wonder now about Hall’s efforts to help the Sikhs who’ve chafed under strict city rules on where they can hold their grand parades.

If another group, say the gay community, asked for similar favoritism, would he grant it? Perhaps they should consider funding a trip for Hall to attend a Liza Minnelli concert. Then maybe he wouldn’t back out of declaring a Gay Pride Day, as he did under pressure from religious groups in 2004.

What I’m implying is ugly, downright Blagojevich ugly, I know.

And in all reality, Hall, who has more money than you-know-who, could easily pay for worldwide travel on his own. So, a couple jaunts to India likely wouldn’t turn his head.
But I learned a long time ago that perception is often even more important than reality.
That’s why we have all these little rules and forms and pesky insistence that our political leaders keep to the straight and narrow. We not only want them to avoid any real conflict of interest, but any perceived conflict of interest as well.

Hey, I’m just trying to help.

Someone put a copy of a newspaper in my mailbox the other day and I just got around to reading it.

It's called "The Weevil" and it's a parody of The Californian.

It's clever and hilarious. Plus on page 3, there's a column by "Hose L'Enry" with clip art of Joan of Arc that seems eerily familiar.

I love it and you will too!

It’s been 25 years since the bulk of Kern County’s notorious child molestation “ring” cases ensnared nearly 50 people — family members, friends, neighbors — in a now unbelievable communal nightmare.

But Sunday night it’ll seem like yesterday when a new documentary titled “Witch Hunt,” based primarily on John Stoll’s case, airs at 7 p.m. on MSNBC.

The documentary, while a little light on details for my taste, is narrated by Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn and has been gaining attention and accolades at film festivals around the country and in Canada.

For anyone who’s followed these cases even mildly, the film doesn’t give any new insights or information. And, of course, it’s constructed to build an emotional case, mostly against the District Attorney’s office.

It’s definitely worth watching, however, not just to better understand our past, but to instruct our future as well.

This is a refrain you’ve heard from me before, but after watching “Witch Hunt” it bears repeating: It’s up to us, the people, to hold our government accountable.

And, yes, even when that means questioning law enforcement, something I know this community is loathe to do.

As almost all of those interviewed for the film said over and over, you don’t believe it can happen until they knock on your door — and by that time, it’s too late.

Between 1982 and 1985, 46 people were arrested and charged with participating in child molestation rings, often involving their own children.

There was no physical evidence to support any of these charges. They were all based on the testimony of the children believed to be the victims.

After charges against some were dropped, plea bargains of vastly reduced charges were accepted on others and still others were given probation, there were 27 actual convictions.

Of those, 24 have been reversed.

The sheer numbers alone are amazing. What they don’t tell you, and the film brings out, is the devastation suffered not only by those accused but by the children who say they were coerced by law enforcement to make false accusations that fed the frenzy.

The shadow extends even beyond them, though, hanging over the very agency that won the convictions.

“In cases I tried earlier in my career, if you had a credible victim and that was the only evidence you had, you could get a conviction,” said Lisa Green, veteran prosecutor and head of the Special Prosecutions Unit. “It’s not like that today. Jurors expect more. It’s probably one of the fallouts of all those ring cases being overturned.

“People here are pretty aware of those cases.”

She said she’s heard from prosecutors in her unit that jurors do sometimes bring up the Stoll case.

“It causes them to question the integrity of our office,” she said. “The first thing they teach you in Prosecutor School 101 is you have to have credibility with the juror and if you lose that, the case is lost.”

Green has a small part in the film. At a hearing to determine whether Stoll was properly convicted based on witness testimony, she tried to discredit those very witnesses as they recanted their original stories.

She’s accused in the film of badgering the men and calling them liars.

When I asked her about that characterization, she said it was an aggressive cross examination. Later she said, “I felt bad about it. In a sense I did, I feel bad for all those young men.”

She reminded me, and the film notes, that Stoll’s own son, Jed, never recanted.

He came to Kern County for his father’s hearing and restated that he was molested. If he hadn’t, Green said the DA’s office likely wouldn’t have pursued it as they did.

That’s what happened with one of Stoll’s co-defendant, Grant Self. At his hearing she couldn’t get any victims willing to go through the ordeal of testifying again and so his conviction was quietly vacated about six months ago, Green said.

The filmmakers didn’t call her for an interview and she has no intention of watching the program Sunday night, she told me.

As for the bigger picture, all those other cases, all those lives in tatters, Green, like most people in the film, was at a loss.

“I don’t have an answer for what happened in the 1980s.”

District Attorney Ed Jagels was out of town. But he’s talked to us in the past about the ’80s cases and repeatedly said the reversals don’t prove innocence.

He has categorized most of the reversals as technicalities, though some were based on prosecutorial misconduct, and said even though the investigation techniques (questioning children away from their parents over and over, for example) were wrong, they were the best practices known at the time.

But he’s never expressed regret for prosecuting these cases to the hilt, even after 89 percent have been overturned.

Frankly, I find that a more than a little weaselly.

It’s the DA’s job to study the information given over by law enforcement. They don’t blindly prosecute every case that comes their way.

And, come on, these cases were crazy. Whole families — dads, moms, aunts, uncles, neighbors — all involved in the worst kinds of crime against their own children?

I suppose maybe, MAYBE, once in a lifetime you might come across that. But eight (8!) different rings all in Kern County in the space of three years? Not even any in the Bakersfield City limits, all in the county?

The film notes that Jagels declined to be interviewed. Probably a good idea.

Unlike Green, Sheriff Donny Youngblood doesn’t feel his department is stained by the 1980s cases, even though it was the Sheriff’s Department that made all the arrests and conducted the improper investigations that incurred a blistering report from the Attorney General’s office in 1986.

Youngblood was interviewed for the film (even though he wasn’t sheriff at the time), and talks on camera about a culture of “cowboy law enforcement” in Kern County. He wasn’t involved in any of he 1980s cases, but co-director Dana Nachman told me they wanted to interview him to get a sort of zeitgeist of the times.

The sheriff who championed those cases, Larry Kleier, is dead. And all the detectives who did the investigations are long gone now, Youngblood said.

But unlike Jagels, Youngblood does believe there was a breakdown somewhere in the system.

“Obviously something didn’t work right,” he told me.

Perhaps it was improper interviewing, he conceded. But having been an officer for 30 years, he said he can’t see the cops trying to put words in kids’ mouths.

“Why? What’s the payoff?”

I asked if perhaps Kleier, who absolutely believed in the molestation rings and is never mentioned in the film, pushed his officers in that direction.

“He was a hard-nosed officer and sheriff and very aggressive in law enforcement,” Youngblood said. “But I never got the impression he wanted someone to be put in jail who didn’t commit a crime. He believed those children.

“Kids don’t lie.”

Or maybe they do, or they say things they don’t mean, Youngblood said.

“I’ve played this situation over in my mind several times,” he said of the 1980s cases.

“And I just have no answer. I really don’t know.”

All the more reason films like “Witch Hunt” will continue to be both a fascination and a fearful lesson for us.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

I had four calls on Sunday's column.

I can't remember which of these is which. But you'll have fun listening anyway.

Caller 1.

Caller 2.

Caller 3.

Caller 4.

Blackmail is never a good solution.

I hope that’s at least one of the lessons a Panama-Buena Vista school district parent comes away with after her attempt to extort the district into holding its traditional, elaborate and now unaffordable eighth grade graduation ceremony.

Jill Carroll advocated to any parent who would listen that they keep their kids out of school last Friday in order to pressure the district into holding a graduation ceremony.

The district has held the ceremony for years, renting the Icardo Center at Cal State Bakersfield for 21/2 days in order to accommodate all of its 1,850 eighth-grade students.

The cost had grown to $25,000.

With a $3.5 million shortfall barreling down on them, the board decided this was an expense that could be cut.

Carroll’s idea was that by keeping kids out of school, it would hit the district so hard in its pocket book (every absence costs them $44.90) officials would capitulate to parents’ demands.

Hmm. Aside from the “what are you teaching your kid about the value of education?” question, I have to say that’s some interesting logic going on there.

The district can’t hold the ceremony because it doesn’t have enough money. So, the solution is to take more money away from them?

Anyhoo, the district told me Friday it had a few more students gone than usual, but since it was the Friday before spring break that wasn’t unexpected.

As the schools called parents to verify absences, no parents said their child’s absence was in protest of the graduation decision, according to Asst. Superintendent of Educational Services Gerrie Kincaid. Not every parent had been reached when we spoke Friday afternoon, but so far that day, the protest seemed to have been a bust.

Good.

It was an ill-conceived idea that was the absolute definition of generating more heat than light.

Carroll never returned my phone call but she did come on the Ralph Bailey show (KNZR 1560) when I was a guest and explained her position.

Spending $25,000 is too much, she agreed, “borderline criminal.” She and other parents just want something simple to keep the tradition of graduation alive.

But when they went to the board, she said, they were all but ignored and told to “write to the Legislature, they’re the ones who made these cuts.” And when she called the district, yes, Kincaid called her back, but she was told the problem was being worked on.

“It’s all behind closed doors,” said Carroll who did keep her daughter home Friday but said it was a melancholy experience for both.

“Perhaps there was a better way to do this,” she acknowledged. “But we wanted to get the board’s attention.”

Another parent, Windy Haverstock, who agonized over the protest but ultimately sent her girls to school, said she understands the district is in a tight spot but still advocates having some kind of graduation ceremony.

When she went to the board meeting last month and heard what else was being cut, such as a proposal to chop all field trips, including the district’s support of Camp KEEP — about $200,000 for transportation each year — she realized how much more was at stake.

“Here we are focused on graduation, but Camp KEEP!” she said. “I’m having a hard time with this. Camp KEEP is a really, really wonderful program.

“If it were up to me, I really don’t know which one I’d choose.”

Not to mention the district notified 83 teachers — 77 multi-subject and 5 music teachers — that they would likely be laid off.
Look, I really don’t get the whole eighth grade graduation thing. It seems like a whole lot of fuss for a fairly small step.

And I certainly don’t think moving from eighth grade to ninth is worthy of the hour-and-a-half-long productions Panama-Buena Vista put on at the Icardo Center, with special parking, busing in the chorus and band, printed programs and speechifying by various dignitaries over two and a half days.

But this obviously is a highly emotional issue for local parents (Bakersfield City School District officials told me they spend $30,000 a year on their graduations and have no intention of cutting back.)

With that emotional tie  in mind, Panama-Buena Vista administrators should open up the process and work with parents. And parents should drop the arm twisting.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/noholdsbarred, call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

City Manager Alan Tandy refuses to speak to me on the phone so in an effort to understand the city’s side of the negotiations with the fire and police unions I had to resort to email questions.

What’s really amazing about the exchange that follows is how much I can tick a person off without even being in the same room, building or city block!

Alan Tandy’s response to me March 30, 3:57 p.m.
Subject: Questions
About Police and Fire negotiations- feel free to e mail them and when I am between budget sessions I will try to respond!

My response to Tandy March 30, 4:36 p.m.
Thanks Alan,
I understand the city and police dept. union are at impasse. How long has that been the situation and what’s the next step?
As for the police contract, is the only sticking point over 3@50? If so, can you tell me what the city and union have agreed to re: pay increases?
As for the fire dept. negotiations, is the sticking point pay or staffing?
Was staffing always an issue up for discussion when negotiations started, or was it brought in later?
Is the city satisfied with the fire union’s offer on pay?
Is the city proposing to bring back the manpower pool, which was done away with about 15 years ago, for the fire department? If so, what are the cost savings to the city if a manpower pool is re-established?
Did you issue a “low profile” directive to the fire department a couple months ago saying when on shift they should only respond to 911 calls and not go to food establishments or other public venus? If so, can I get a copy of that memo please? And what’s the reasoning behind it?
Thanks for all your help.
Lois Henry

Tandy to me March 30, 5:50 p.m.
The City continues to negotiate with all three bargaining units- we reopened SEIU with respect to year 3 of that contract and, of course, have not settled Fire or Police. There are a variety of complex issues with each of the three- the situation being made continually worse by deterioration in our revenue streams (sound familiar?). Despite the inherent difficulty we will continue the bargaining process in the hope of finding acceptable solutions! Sorry- I do not think it is productive to conduct complex collective bargaining sessions through the media!

Me to Tandy March 31, 9:04 a.m.
Alan,
Thanks for your response.
I’m also wondering if the city paid only a portion or nothing into the PERs retirement system in the last few years?
Which years were fully funded and which were only paid a percentage of the amount owed and which saw nothing from the city into PERs?
And can you let me know about the directive to the Fire Department about 911 calls? I’d like to get a copy of that memo, please.
Thanks.
Lois Henry

Tandy to me March 31, 2:55 p.m.
Both of your sets of questions are based on horribly flawed information.
The City of Bakersfield has always paid its full obligation to PERS without exception! Our audits are public information and are available to you for verification. I will have Nelson Smith forward under separate cover a history of those payments.
There is no 911 memo in the context of your reference. What has been taking place is a dialogue about when it is appropriate to pull public safety personnel from their essential duties to put them in ceremonies. Having a ladder truck flying a giant flag at the opening of a restaurant (I believe it was Famous Daves) is an example of carrying that concept too far. I received several complaints from people who wondered why they were there and not (it appeared) ready to take emergency calls. There is no “ban” as they have recently appeared at events recognizing military personnel and at the spring festival this weekend for example.

Me to Tandy March 31, 3:11 p.m.
Thanks Alan,
So you’re saying there’s no memo or directive from city staff to the fire chief regarding firefighters appearing in public to dine at restaurants, go to the gym, etc. while on shift?
Is there a memo regarding fire fighters in ceremonies?
So the city has paid its PERs obligations through return on investments or straight out of general fund monies?
Thanks again
Lois

Tandy to meMarch 31, 7:01 p.m.
No I responded to your previous question. Now you ask something new. In all future communications with me please submit a freedom of information act notice to the clerk. That is for you personally not your employer. Have a nice day.