Reader: Thank you for your recent coverage of the devastating wildfires in Southern California. Kern County should be proud of the 230 local individuals from various federal, state and local agencies who are in harms way trying to suppress these fires.
I am curious about one thing however. Just how long will it be before The Californian criticizes these same brave individuals because they have “made too much” in overtime?
— James Adams

Reader: I hope we don’t hear The Californian criticize the pay of our fireman again!
And don’t try to tell me you did not criticize their pay.
— Dorothy Wimbish

Reader: Where’s The Californian’s article on how much overtime the Kern County Fire Department’s firefighters are making in Southern California? Most of the firefighters fighting the fires down south are on overtime. It’s one thing to question the cost of emergency service when it’s a slow news day, quite another when emergency workers are risking their lives for the public.
The Californian has done a disservice to the public by glorifying the overtime issue with the fire service without fairly explaining the process behind the overtime. The Californian ignored the grand jury report after the first round of critical articles about the overtime issues. That report stated the constant manning program was the most cost effective way to operate the Fire Department. Just a couple of days where relief firefighters are extra negates any difference between regular and overtime pay, let alone the cost to equip and train those extra firefighters.
The Californian never held the Board of Supervisors accountable to this supposed waste of county tax dollars. Instead they came after the individual firefighters. The truth is, the Board of Supervisors is properly managing the peoples’ tax dollars by operating the Fire Department in the most efficient way possible.
The Californian downplayed or omitted the fact that Kern County is reimbursed for the overtime earned out of county and that Kern County actually makes money on the firefighters earning that money. The Californian never stressed that if the KCFD doesn’t send firefighters out to help other departments, those departments won’t send help when we need it in Kern County.
The Californian never stressed the value of the experience the firefighters gain by operating at major fires across the nation. Kern County experiences major fires every five years or so; the nation experiences major fires several times a year. You gain experience performing a task over and over again. If that task is saving lives and property in extreme fire conditions, do you want firefighters who have never experienced those conditions, or firefighters who have experienced worse conditions many times in their career?
The Californian’s Web site stresses integrity, community service, accountability and ethics. These aren’t the descriptive words that come to mind when The Californian produces a series of articles like the overtime issues in the fire service without presenting the facts in a fair and unbiased manner.
— Wade Roberts

Jenner: You are entitled to your opinion about this newspaper and our coverage. But you can’t revise history and make up your own version of what we did or did not publish.
In 2003 we heard rumors of phenomenal amounts of overtime being paid to Kern County firefighters. We checked out the rumors, found them to be true and wrote about them.
But that was the beginning, not the end, of our coverage.
Over the subsequent months we published a number of in-depth stories. We reported that the Kern County Fire Department has a national reputation for responding to out-of-county fires and emergencies around the country. And we reported that the county is reimbursed for out-of-county overtime.
We also reported that over the years the union has negotiated successfully with the county in areas such as manning rules, pay and benefits. And that the cost of benefits for each firefighter is now so high that it’s cheaper to pay overtime than it is to hire additional firefighters.
We looked into how other California counties with large rural areas provide fire coverage, and compared the quality and costs of that coverage.
And yes, we sued the city and the county to get the payroll numbers and names so we could analyze it accurately. We won the lawsuit and we handled that information responsibly.
We did indeed provide context and fully told this story. And we didn’t bury these stories — almost every one of them appeared on the front page.
Finally, here’s what we haven’t done: We’ve never suggested that the job of firefighter is easy, safe or cushy. And we never, ever said any of these men or women did not work the OT they claimed or earn the money they were paid.
In the event that readers missed any of the stories examining this issue, we pulled these stories out of the archive and posted them online at www.bakersfield.com/1235.

Reader: Now that the firefighters are earning their overtime, why haven’t we seen kudos for them?
How many out there (besides the firefighters) would be willing to put their lives on the line? And live for seven to 10 days under those conditions (little sleep, missing food, very little down time, away from families)?
I think The Californian needs to show that those firefighters earn every penny of their pay, even though they don’t just do it for the money.
— Bill Jackson

Jenner: You might want to look at the front page of the paper pretty much every day this past week.
We published four stories about local firefighters over a three-day period. Thursday’s story by James Burger, about the harrowing experiences of a mixed strike force of Kern and Bakersfield city firefighters, was gripping. 


Reader: Fairly careful study of The Californian over the past few days seems to reveal a complete absence of any mention of the Congressional Medal of Honor being awarded to Lt. Michael Murphy for extraordinary heroism.
Apparently you were unable to find so much as a few square inches to mention this award of the highest honor, so maybe if I cite it in a letter to the editor, it will at least get mentioned. 
Isn’t this the newspaper that used a significant part of the entire editorial page recently to tell us that it was a waste of water to irrigate the proposed national cemetery?
By the way, that editorial contained some gross misrepresentations, but that is another story.
— David Banker

Jenner: No, this isn’t the newspaper that used a significant part of the entire editorial page to tell its readers that.
The Californian has published several editorials promoting the development of a national cemetery on the Tejon Ranch site.
Columnist Lois Henry wrote a column reflecting her opinion on landscaping a cemetery in an arid location that lacks the water supply needed to irrigate grass.
We ran a photo of President Bush and Lt. Murphy’s parents at the ceremony honoring him with the Medal of Honor on Page A10 of Wednesday’s paper. The accompanying text explained who Murphy was and how he was killed in action, and that he was the first to receive the Medal of Honor for service in Afghanistan and the third service member so honored since the beginning of the war on terrorism.
Sorry you missed it.


Reader: The dribble Lois Henry spewed in Wednesday’s Californian is a perfect display of total ignorance. We readers can only assume that her warped opinion on development also applies to New Orleans, Southern Eastern States, Plain States, or States along the Mississippi just to name a few? 
I guess she thinks people shouldn’t be able to rebuild their homes after disasters like hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, or floods. Remember these disasters also hit the same areas time and time again. If her opinion was national policy we’d all sooner or later be living in Lois Henry’s fantasyland.
— Keith Nette

Columnist Lois Henry responds:
First, I don’t dribble, nor have I ever spewed said substance. Perhaps the word you were looking for was “drivel.”
My column clearly stated that people should build whatever and wherever they want with the blessings of their city and county officials. But when it all goes up in flames, again, and again and again, THEY should pay to put out the fires and clean up the mess, not the taxpayers. And I don’t appreciate subsidizing their fire insurance via my premiums under the state-mandated FAIR act. They should pay their own insurance. If it’s too expensive, well, maybe they’ll find a safer place to put their homes.
No place is perfectly safe, but to continually rebuild in harm’s way and NOT require stringent, proven fire safe standards is just arrogance on top of foolishness.
As for living in Lois Henry’s fantasyland, what makes you think we’re not already living there?

 
Reader: Californian writer Jenny Shearer’s slanted article, “Sheep Standoff” has pulled the wool over the eyes of The Californian’s readers! Her biased, empathetic view of the Smith family’s plight was one-sided. She interviewed us on her piece regarding growth. Mr. Smith said outsiders shouldn’t influence these decisions, yet he brought numerous outsiders to the violation hearing which influenced the temporary use of his operation!
By nearly 2-to-1 the residents of Shellie Marie Avenue petitioned for opposition to the Smiths’ request for more sheep. Regarding a flier we purportedly distributed, there was nothing misleading about it and the petition results prove that!
Mr. Smith talks of teaching values to kids. There are numerous violations on record with Kern County Code Compliance regarding violations by the Smiths in the past for having too many animals on their property. Does this show these kids that it’s OK to violate the law and have no consideration for rules or regulations?
Ms. Shearer failed to mention that the Planning Department thoroughly investigated the issues and rendered the recommendation of denial of the Smith’s attempt to house more sheep than is allowed per county code and found that the neighborhood would be significantly impacted! 
She also failed to inform readers that upwards of 500 residential homes near our neighborhood have streets and utilities in place and will be zoned for residential, not ag use. Ms. Shearer’s article was regarding growth and she did not fairly represent both sides of the growth issue.
— Michael & Debra Elliott

Jenner: This contentious and long-standing issue has pitted neighbor against neighbor, and there’s a limit to how much excruciating detail we can impose on our readers in a single story. We also received a complaint from the Smith family alleging that we were biased in favor of the Elliotts and their position.
I asked Jenny to respond to your complaints:
“My work was an accurate and neutral presentation of a tense neighborhood issue. 
“The story laid out what Robert and Sharyn Smith wanted to do and why but then described the negative impact their activities had on Michael and Debra Elliott’s family.
“There is a long and tense history between these families, and the story included information I believed was relevant for our readers. This additional information from Mr. Elliott is relevant, too, but we can’t fit into stories every historical development of a controversy.
“The fact the Smith family complained of bias toward the Elliotts tells me the piece struck the appropriate tone.”

Reader: I’m writing regarding a front-page article that has inadvertently damaged my reputation. Over the last month since the article was published, I have received calls, overheard gossip, and have even been accused as an accomplice regarding the Crisp and Cole scandal. Apparently many readers have mistaken Aiden, Logan and Associates for Logan Real Estate — the more recognizable, local Logan’s. The damage the confusion has caused us is unknown, but having lost the trust of even a single client has its effects.
Is there anything The Californian can do to help clear the air?
— D. Parker Logan

Jenner: Similar names have always caused confusion, but the issue will only get worse as our community continues to grow. All we can really do is be meticulous in being accurate, and detailed with our identification. That’s why we try to include middle initials and even middle names, if possible, when dealing with criminal suspects. In your case, your letter might “clear the air,” but it’s unrealistic that we can do so in every possible case of confusion.