Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The cruelest age, 5/5/2008

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
5/5/2008

The sign outside the modest home near Bakersfield College tells you a little bit about its inhabitants:

The Tessandori’s

LOUIE & LEE

Established 1942

A logo of a dancing couple is at the top.

Louie had that sign made sort of as a gag. And because he’s in love with his wife, proud of what they built together.

Their life together was something he could always be sure of.

If only he could be sure of how it would end.

Like a lot of people, he and Lee worked, they fought, they made up, bought a house, raised kids, had some good times, got through the bad and never thought about the ending.

Once a dashing young couple who dressed to the nines and had a new car every year or six months, Louie and Lee are now old — 87 and 88. They have a house with a mortgage, two small pensions, Medicare and no real plan for their final years.

The years that once stretched out ahead of them have closed in tighter and tighter, slowly grinding them into a crisis they never saw coming.

Families all over have similar tales.

They’ve worked all their lives and never thought to ask for a handout. But they don’t have enough set aside to carry them through as their health care needs steadily and dramatically increase.

They have no plan for how to handle their assets as their mental functions dim.

Although they have family — in particular, a grandson who’s put his life on hold to help out — family members have their own lives and don’t have the expertise to handle serious medical issues.

Any one of those problems is tough.

Put them all together and add denial, guilt and emotional baggage, and caring for aging parents can be a thorny thicket.

It’s just life

That’s where I found daughter Donna Weeks in late February. I was looking into a complaint about a possibly shady car deal and met the Tessandoris, their grandson, Gilbert Tessandori, and Donna.

When I asked Donna about the car, it was like taking the key rock out of a dam.

She had no idea what to do. Mom’s Alzheimer’s was getting worse. She couldn’t take care of her bathroom needs and was passing out. Dad was falling down. He had another wreck. He called constantly for her help, then demanded to know why she was doing this or that. He was the

victim of identity theft and meekly paid the bogus bills. He borrowed money

from the bank for no reason. His doctor said he shouldn’t drive but never called the DMV.

Donna’s brother, Rick, lives out of state. The burden was all on her. It was making her crazy.

Her hair was falling out!

Then her dad went out and bought what he thought was a $1,500 used truck — only the price really was $15,733, and he used all the family’s savings to buy it. Gilbert and Donna tried to take the car back and explain Louie’s growing dementia, but no dice. That’s when I called.

By then, Donna was resigned about the truck. It wasn’t the dealer’s fault, she said.

It was just life, old age.

“The problem is, he doesn’t think he’s old,” Donna says of Louie. “And he doesn’t understand that my mother has a disease. He shouts at her because she doesn’t respond. Then he drags her around to doctor appointments two and three times a week because he wants them to give him a pill that will make her his wife again.

“It’s heartbreaking.”

Unprepared and overwhelmed

Most families are unprepared for Alzheimer’s.

The personality changes and memory loss are hard enough, but the logistics can be overwhelming, said Joni Carrithers, community relations director at Oakdale Heights Assisted Living and a board member at the Alzheimer’s Disease Association of Kern County.

“(Families) don’t understand the level of care that’s needed and what insurance covers and what it doesn’t.”

For instance, Medicare doesn’t cover assisted living costs and cuts off coverage for nursing home care if the patient is deemed “unrehabable.”

“Families can get blindsided,” Carrithers said. Keeping a parent in skilled nursing can cost more than $7,000 a month.

Kern County doesn’t lack facilities, Carrithers said. But we do lack affordable care — most assisted living is private-pay.

Long-term care insurance is your best bet, but it’s expensive and you have to buy it long before you need it.

Medi-Cal does have a long-term care program, but most families don’t know how to access it, she said.

There is help if you know where to look.

Managing the parents

“Who knows this stuff?” Donna asks in frustration. “No one tells you these things. How do you know where to go?”

Donna, an accomplished pilot and retired teacher with two master’s degrees who runs her own business in Alaska, is no slouch at problem-solving. But navigating the maze of elder care is daunting.

Louie hasn’t been much help, refusing to use a walker. Falling, wrecking the cars. Gilbert does his best to watch out for him and take care of Lee. But it’s tough.

Lee’s condition is worsening. She’s passing out more often. It’s harder to get her out of bed. She can’t control her bodily functions and has regular trips to the hospital. Louie can’t lift her, but still tries, hurting his recently replaced

shoulder.

And so it has gone for months.

Finally, Donna talks with the case workers at the Alzheimer’s association and comes up with a plan.

She works with Medi-Cal to get Lee signed up for coverage and applies for a spot at the Golden Living Center in Shafter.

It’s a long shot — the home has a waiting list. But the administrator tells her it looks hopeful.

For the first time in a long time, Donna thinks there might be some light in this tunnel.

Then she reminds Louie about it one afternoon.

“SHAFTER?!” he says. “No way! No way in hell!”

Donna tries to get him to remember that they’d talked about it before and agreed it was best for Lee.

“She’s not going to no home,” he says.

Donna throws up her hands and walks out, leaving all the paperwork on the table.

“I’m a hardheaded wop,” Louie chuckles.

Later Donna tells me Louie has been calling and crying, begging her for the last year to do something about Lee.

“It’s like Jekyll and Hyde! I listen to him talk to you and I can’t believe it. He sounds so lucid. ‘Everything’s just fine,’” she mimics. “Then he’ll call me crying and screaming, all emotional over the slightest thing. And he doesn’t remember. I swear, he’s worse than my mom.”

Donna fights back the tears. She’s back to square one.

Developing a strategy

When I tell Donna’s story to Kris Grasty, head of Kern County’s Aging and Adult Services Department, she sighs in shared frustration.

Grasty’s own dad, 89, is at the same stage as Louie. Like Louie, Grasty’s dad was a traditional patriarch who had always been in charge.

“It’s the hardest thing in the world, to watch your parents deteriorate.”

There’s no one fix-all answer, she agreed.

The key is developing strategies and creating a plan for the next phase and the next. Her agency can help.

Yes, there are support groups. But Grasty can also hook people up with in-home support services that go from help with housework to full-on nursing care and for all different income levels.

The agency can also get you in touch with Meals on Wheels, day-care options, and info on nursing homes, assisted living facilities and on and on.

Plus, Grasty has lots of tips.

Such as, you don’t have to confront your parents about the driver’s license issue.

The DMV has a form you can use anonymously. The DMV will make the driver come in for a recheck and if there’s a problem, they’ll yank the license and never reveal it was you who ratted them out.

Denial and defiance

This is a bad day for Lee, who sits at the small kitchen table with a faraway look.

“She just don’t say nothin’,” Louie says. “Someone called earlier and she didn’t say a thing on the phone. Nothin’!”

I ask Louie if it’s difficult taking care of Lee.

“No,” he says dismissively. “We get along just fine. We don’t need a thing. Isn’t that right?”

Lee nods vaguely, her vibrant, plucky personality wiped clean.

Louie, on the other hand, is chipper.

“I may be aging, but I don’t know what old is,” he says, and I swear he has a twinkle in his eyes.

I ask how he and Lee met, and he tells me he met her when she was working at Baxter’s Drive-In as a carhop.

“It’s taken me 65 years to get my tip back,” he says with a grin.

Donna rolls her eyes.

Oh, yes, she says, her dad is one charming fellow when he wants to be. And good-looking, which still comes through. Growing up, all her girlfriends had crushes on him.

Lee was like a Vogue model, always in the latest fashions, towering heels, her makeup perfect, not a hair out of place.

“It would kill her to know this is happening to her,” Donna says. “First of all, how she looks. But no control over her bodily functions? My God! She would die. The only thing that saves her is that she’s not really ‘here.’”

Donna and Louie have been at a stalemate the last two weeks. There’s no more talk of putting Lee in a home. But no new solutions.

I was set to visit one day, but Lee was back in the hospital, another stroke or fainting episode. Donna didn’t even know about it this time.

She’s mulling options for how to deal with her parents’ finances but keeps coming back to conservatorship — messy, expensive and difficult.

“And he (Louie) would fight me; I know he would. And now he has the money to do it,” she says, defeated.

After Louie spent their savings to buy the used truck, he took out a $20,000 equity line on the house.

Why? I ask him.

He needs to fix the driveway, he says. The neighbor put up a low brick fence and Louie keeps hitting it with his car. The brick fence has been there for years.

When I ask if he should be driving, he snaps at me.

“Of course!” he glowers, displaying some of the legendary Tessandori temper. “That’s just Donna spreading that stuff. I don’t have any problems.”

He and Lee gave Donna power of attorney over their medical decisions. But Louie was adamant he would never give power of attorney over his finances, having seen a relative steal his mother’s savings through power of attorney decades ago.

But now Donna’s scared, and not only for their health. All that paperwork she signed with Medi-Cal, sitting untouched since Louie told her weeks ago he wouldn’t allow Lee to go to a home, makes her uneasy.

“I feel like I’m liable for whatever he does, but I have zero control over him. ZERO.”

Consulting an expert

A lot of people think only of conservatorship when facing this situation, but consult an attorney who works in the field and all kinds of options open up, said Sharon Garrett a longtime local attorney who works in elder care with a focus on Medi-Cal.

“A lot can be done to preserve and arrange assets so the at-home spouse can be taken care of and the family receives the benefit of the estate that they worked hard for and are now fearful that they have to spend down or the state will take it when they’re gone,” Garrett told me.

Even in situations where the parent is uneasy about power of attorney, Garrett urged families to seek legal counsel so the parent knows the process.

“Sometimes when they understand the financial process and see how it can all work, they do become willing.”

Consulting an attorney is not cheap; Garrett charges $250 an hour. But you have to balance that against the cost of nursing home care at potentially $5,000 a month for five years or longer. Low-income families can also get help through Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance.

Most people also believe to get Medi-Cal coverage they have to get rid of everything they’ve worked a lifetime to earn. Not true.

“We just had a case where the person was terminally ill,” Garrett said. “Medi-Cal told the family he had to spend down his IRA, which was $80,000 to $100,000. That’s not true.”

Elder care and Medi-Cal are complex issues. Attorneys spend whole careers picking through the fine print.

But something can almost always be done.

“Most people are blown away,” she said about the options available.

Making the decision

By late March, things have changed again at the Tessandori house.

“My dad called and said we need to take her,” Donna says. “So a lady from the home came and interviewed her, and she’s on the waiting list.”

Later, Louie calls Donna, distraught. He doesn’t want Lee to leave, but Donna reminds him her health is failing. He acquiesces.

“He just never thought their lives would turn out like this,” Donna says.

He even agrees to meet with an attorney. But Donna can’t get an appointment until the end of April.

“It’s a race against time at this point,” she says. “Will they be alive? Coherent? Dad still refuses to use a walker. He’s just asking to be bedridden.”

Lee is doing better in the last few days — talking, remembering who people are, closer to her old self. It’s giving Donna “the guilts.” Maybe Lee shouldn’t go to the home. But she’s so frail, and the fainting ... Donna seesaws over her decision.

“It’s a nice place,” she says of the home, more to herself than to me. “It’s clean. No bad smells.”

Donna can’t shake the memory of her dear grandmother dying in a home years ago. It smelled awful, and her “noni” was in terrible pain from bedsores.

Things start moving fast the last week of March. Lee is at the top of the waiting list; they can take her right away.

I go with Donna March 25 to fill out a mountain of paperwork at the home. Jackie Patterson, the Alzheimer’s division marketing director, helps. Still, it takes more than an hour.

They need all the Tessandoris’ financial information, loans, assets, income, accounts, insurance. Lee’s personal information, maiden name, year of birth, place of birth. Would Donna like to pay for the beautician once a week, what types of meds does Lee take, how should they handle her laundry, what about dental care? Is she a voter?

Some questions bring up a lot of history, Donna’s eyes well but never spill over.

Then the biggie, an advance directive, what to do if Lee falls terribly ill and needs extraordinary measures to live.

Donna doesn’t flinch, “DNR,” she says firmly. Do not resuscitate. Lee was always adamant that’s what she wanted.

“I hope she goes quick. God, doesn’t that sound awful?”

Jackie stops shuffling her papers and looks at Donna. No, she says. It doesn’t.

‘You’re doing the right thing’

Two days later, March 27, we’re in the waiting room at Dr. Mike Komin’s office where Lee is examined before being admitted to the home.

She’s doing better than I’ve ever seen her.

“Look at that,” she says to Donna and nods toward the door where a good-looking, young man is standing. Donna ducks her head and laughs.

“Well, she’s not dead yet.”

In the exam room, Komin asks Lee some questions, and she zings back answers. How’s your heart? “I have a fine heart, thank you.” Is this your daughter? “Well, she was this morning.” (Other times Donna is “that nice lady.”) You’re just a spring chicken, aren’t you? “Only if I lie a lot.”

Komin and Donna tell her she’s going to the “hospital” to have some tests.

When we get to the home, there’s more paperwork, which admitting nurse Donna Daniel helps Donna with. More questions, more history. Donna’s having a hard time.

Nurse Daniel grabs her arm and looks directly in her eyes, “You’re doing the right thing.”

Donna needs to get Lee’s things into the home but doesn’t want her to see. I take Lee on a trip around the rooms to distract her. She’s warm and friendly with the other patients, “Hi!” she says brightly. “I’m Lee,” and holds out her hand.

Meanwhile, Donna is hanging Lee’s clothes in her little closet. Her hands are shaking.

It’s close to lunchtime and the smell of food catches Lee’s attention.

“Can you chew food?” Nurse Daniel needs to know.

“Boy, you can’t stop me!” Lee says, eager to get to the dining room.

The attendants settle Lee at a table and her focus is quickly taken up with her meal.

Donna stands outside in the hall, watching her mother. She wants to sneak out so Lee won’t ask when she’s coming back, but can’t resist a final hug.

Later she asks, “Do you think she knows I’m not coming back?”

Alone in a quiet house

It’s been a week and Lee calls Louie nonstop, asking, “When are you coming to get me?”

It tears him up. He doesn’t leave the house, not even for the daily jaunt to Carrow’s for breakfast that he used to take with Lee. He sits in his recliner. Donna convinces him to see a doctor for depression. Gilbert finally coaxes him out to Carrow’s one morning in early April to meet with me.

He still hasn’t gone to see Lee.

“I think she went in too quick,” he says, sipping coffee, tears reddening his eyes.

He never wanted to be like his friends, men whose wives had become ill and gone into homes. He and Lee would ask after the ladies and the men would start to cry.

“That’s gonna be me now,” he told Donna shortly after Lee left.

The house isn’t as stressful now, he says. But he has no desire to go anywhere, not a senior center, not to visit relatives, nowhere.

“Not without her.”

Adjusting to change

The Golden Living Center staff is completely smitten with Lee, who regularly straightens their shirts and tells them if she admires their shoes or hair.

On my last visit in late April, she is lying down, but perks up as soon as I walk in. She compliments my purse and wants to know about the recorder I fumble with. She tells me her daughter, Donna, is “smart as a whip.”

The food here is great and the people are top-notch. She’s a little bored, she says. But that’s OK.

Whenever I ask about when this or that thing happened in her past, she furrows her brow and gives me a look.

“Oh, don’t ask about that! I can’t remember that stuff!”

She doesn’t seem bothered or sad when I bring up Louie and says she hasn’t seen him in a long, long time.

He had visited only a few days earlier.

“You should have seen ’em,” Donna tells me. “Smoochin’ on the couch like a couple of teenagers.”

The inevitable

Things have changed dramatically for the Tessandoris since I first met them in February.

Lee is safe and cared for. Louie is home, where he seems to want to be, for the moment.

And the details of their financial lives are being worked out with Louie’s consent.

Things are settled, for now.

But Donna wonders how long it will be before she has to rush back for another crisis and prepare for the next phase, and the next.

It shouldn’t be surprising things have gone this way for the Tessandoris, they’re typical Americans.

I don’t think there is a more age-averse culture on Earth than ours. We don’t plan, on a personal level, for the inevitability of old age and we don’t address it very well on a societal level, either.

Which is just silly since we’re all gonna be there some day — if we’re lucky.

The coming glut of aging baby boomers bearing down on our inadequate elder care system will likely make or break, or both, a lot of its pieces. We’ll have to see what is left in its place.

Donna’s not waiting. Throughout this ordeal she told me over and over that her new mantra is “plan ahead.”

“I will NOT end up like my parents,” she vowed.

Fire, Sheriff's departments need to end turf battles 2/23/2008

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
2/23/2008

I’ve been hearing rumblings for some time about turf battles between the Kern County Fire and Sheriff’s departments over search and rescue.

Huh?


Search and rescue? Hey! That could be me someday. I don’t want the people who are supposed to be haulin’ my behind out of the river or off a mountain squabbling over who’s in charge.


When I asked Chief Dennis Thompson and Sheriff Donny Youngblood, they acknowledged it was true.


But, they both said, they’re working on it. In fact, they’re going to put together a group of their top people to focus on communications between the agencies.


I might find that reassuring — except they already have an agreement about river rescues that spells out exactly who gets called first and who’s in charge.


Still, problems have persisted.


At a drowning in Lake Isabella last summer where the victim had been under water for more than half an hour, the fire department helicopter suddenly arrived. No one from the Sheriff’s department knew it was coming. On occasion, both the Sheriff’s helicopter and Fire’s have been called and neither knew the other was coming. Danger! Danger!


During a river rescue where Fire’s helicopter was called, it hovered unused for more than five hours, even having to refuel once, awaiting instructions while a man clung to a rock in the water. Finally, as the sun was setting, Search and Rescue asked Fire to hoist the victim to safety.


If they don’t figure this out and soon, someone’s going to get hurt, maybe even killed.


Ninety-nine percent of the time, the departments work great together. But not always on search and rescue. (Chief Thompson was quick to point out two searches over President’s Day weekend in which the agencies worked extremely well together, saving a stranded hiker and off-roader in two separate incidents. “That’s the way we want it to work every time,” Thompson said.)

Both Thompson and Youngblood stressed that they have a very strong working relationship.


In general, however, other fire personnel feel the sheriff’s department leaves them out of the loop and needlessly endangers the public by not enlisting their help and equipment. And they worry the sheriff is angling to take over air operations for the entire county.


Sheriff’s staffers feel Fire is butting in when help isn’t needed, creating confusion and needlessly increasing costs. And they fear Fire is on a quest to take over search and rescue.


Friction over search and rescue isn’t new, but tensions seemed to escalate after the fire department got a new helicopter with hoist and night vision capabilities.


Why not use that resource for river rescues, missing ATV riders or downed planes, many in Fire ask? Makes sense to me. Believe me, if I were in any of those situations I’d want everyone called out — Fire, Sheriff’s, heck, get Mayor Hall out of bed and slap some binoculars in his hands.


Sheriff Youngblood had a slightly more restrained approach.


You can’t just stampede out the door with good intentions.


The Sheriff’s department, he said, needs to plan and coordinate the effort so everyone knows his job, for the safety of the missing person and rescuers. Youngblood has more than 200 volunteers who train in everything from mine rescues to river rescues. His officers work with the Civil Air Patrol, which has night vision capabilities of its own and come July, the department will have its own helicopter with the same bells and whistles as the Fire department.


And, he added, the sheriff’s department does call in Fire — when needed.


“If they can rescue someone before we get there, great,” Youngblood said. “It’s about saving lives.”


Once the sheriff’s department is on scene, though, they are in charge; their responsibility is set by Kern County charter.


Fire staffers I talked to were totally cool with the sheriff being in charge, that’s not their beef. They want to be called more often.


OK, everyone sounds like they want to play nice. So what’s the problem?


I hate to think it’s the usual “Ps” — power, politics and posturing. But people close to the situation tell me those, in fact, are the true culprits.


While Youngblood said he absolutely has no interest in taking over all air operations for Kern (as is the situation in Ventura County), others pointed out the new Huey ordered by the Sheriff will have firefighting capabilities and Youngblood offered to let Fire use it.

That may sound like an olive branch, but it is also being seen by some as a step on the road to consolidation of air operations, which I think would be a bad idea.


I talked with folks in Ventura County where the Sheriff is in charge of air ops and Fire is clearly second on the priority list for helicopter use. We must keep operations separate here so neither agency has to wait for permission to use a helicopter when there’s an emergency.


And while Chief Thompson told me search and rescue absolutely is the purview of the sheriff, people in his own department insist Kern would do better to model Los Angeles or other counties where Fire is a partner in search and rescue.


The two supervisors whose districts are most likely to need search and rescue, Jon McQuiston and Don Maben, both told me they see no reason to change the status quo: Sheriff keeps search and rescue and both agencies keep control over their own aircraft.


I totally agree when it comes to aircraft, though I’m not sure about search and rescue.

That’s something for those with far more expertise to sort out.


But I know this for sure: Someone will get hurt if Fire and the sheriff’s department don’t work this out, and soon.


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

Ending violence always worth hoping for Readout:

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
10/19/2008

There are few reasons to be hopeful when discussing domestic violence. The stats are grim -- more than 1,600 arrests by the Bakersfield Police Department and more than 1,400 by the Kern County Sheriff's Department in 2007. And that, of course, doesn't count the silent suffering.

But being a hard-headed optimist (yes, me) and this being Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I went in search of hope anyway.

Turns out there's a glimmer of it shining from a unique local program initiated by Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance.

GBLA mainly assists the poor and elderly with non-criminal legal issues. But it has also worked for years with domestic violence victims obtaining restraining orders and divorces.

Helping clean up the legal tatters, though, did nothing to staunch the continuing cycle of violence.

So, the folks at GBLA put their heads together and created a program that not only helps address legal issues, but also the victims' safety, employment, housing, health, children's care, mental health and other issues.

"The focus is to take away the barriers that would keep people from going forward and having productive lives," GBLA Supervising Attorney Phong Han told me.

GBLA got a $300,000 one-year grant through First 5 Kern last year and hired case managers to take clients on the journey from victim to independent householder.

That means case managers help with everything: Getting the family into a safe living environment; helping find a job or job training; going back to school; finding day care; getting counseling for the parent and kids; and on and on.

If they can't figure out how to feed their kids, many victims will fall back into a violent relationship because they feel they have no other option. This program is all about options.

While case managers help the parent, the focus is really on the children, Han said.

To be eligible, clients must either be pregnant or have children up to five years of age.

Having physically warring parents is so damaging to children that studies show it can impede brain development even in newborns, Han said. And we've all heard how children in abusive families often grow up to become abusers or victims themselves.

"We're trying to stem that as early as possible," Han said.

Clients, he said, hail from all walks of life. About 25 percent are Spanish-speaking only, a testament to the hidden domestic violence problems among immigrants. But others are in high-paying white-collar jobs.

The program is not quite one year old, but has taken on 225 clients so far. Han told me in the last three months they've been picking up 30 new clients a month.

First 5 Kern requires monthly reports on the program and was so pleased with its success they opted to fund it through June of 2010, according to Han.

Very few GBLA clients have backed out of the program, which is often not the case in criminal prosecutions for domestic violence.

"We don't have an exact percentage, but it's more the rule that victims do recant," said Deputy District Attorney Lisa Green, who supervises the unit that prosecutes domestic violence. That unit had been able to ramp up prosecutions thanks to two state grants. But one of those, the "Spousal Abuse Grant," was cut in the state budget debacle. That grant paid for part of one of the two prosecutors dedicated to domestic violence cases.

Green, however, said the office is committed to keeping both prosecutors in place and will continue its caseload.

Using those two grants, the D.A. charged more than 300 defendants with domestic violence in 2006-2007.

Most of those (154) did result in some type of felony conviction. The next biggest chunk (114) pleaded to misdemeanor charges. Nearly 90 defendants did some jail time with felony probation and 58 actually went to prison, according to stats from the D.A.'s office.

Prosecuting these criminals is obviously important for the victims and the community at large. But if victims won't, or can't, go that route, they can use other paths to escape the violence.

GBLA's case managers, who work closely with other county agencies in all parts of Kern, put no pressure on clients to prosecute abusers. They aren't even required to have a police report to get into the program. And there are no punitive measures such as being kicked out for missing a counseling session.

"Most people really want this," Han said. "By the time they get to us, they understand they can't put their children through this.

"Their kids deserve a better life."

I couldn't say it better myself.

Public transit moves to the front of the bus

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
10/15/2008

I have a feeling Karen King is going to become my hero.

She’s the new executive director of Golden Empire Transit, the bus lady.

And she’s here to clean up this town. Or at least devise a smarter system that uses what resources we have to maximize ridership, help unclog our streets and de-foul (OK, I made that word up) our air, all in a single bound.

If I could sew, I’d make her a cape with a giant “T” on it for transit.

Perhaps you think I gush too much, but I truly believe public transit is one of the best ways to reduce our traffic congestion and improve air quality. Because it’s been ignored, discounted and downright kicked to the curb in this town for so long, it now holds the greatest potential of any solutions on the horizon.

And King has been a shining star in the transit trenches.

Seriously, I was amazed we could lure King — most recently the head of the North County Public Transit District near San Diego. So I asked her, “How’d we lure you here?”

Turns out she loves a challenge.

Bakersfield is nothing if not a big ol’ fat challenge.

“I don’t have unrealistic expectations,” she said of how fast and how much she can change things. “I’m a marathoner, not a sprinter.”

For example, she had two marching orders when she took her last job: Redesign the bus system and get a new light rail line built.

The bus system was relatively quick and painless compared to the Sprinter light rail line, which she did get done after 10 long years and half a billion dollars. It now zips 7,600 riders a day along a 22-mile route between Oceanside and Escondido.

“GET is a diamond in the rough,” she said, using words like “basic” and “solid” to describe the service. “But (Bakersfield) is changing. The future is changing.”

You wouldn’t know it from the way city and county officials continue to approve far-flung housing developments without even the hint of a thought toward public transit.

Hopefully, that’ll start to change soon as planners adapt to the new law (SB 375) that requires more compact, transit-oriented development. Public transit holds a key position in that mandate.

Oh, and Attorney General Jerry Brown hasn’t been shy about suing cities and counties when he feels their general plans aren’t aligned with the state’s goals for cutting greenhouse gases (AB 32), which puts a heavy emphasis on public transit. (That threat alone, I’m told, has pushed back the Kern/Bakersfield joint general plan by several months, maybe even a year.)

All of which puts King and GET in prime position to get transit back into the planning process.

If you’ve ever read environmental impact reports on housing developments in Bakersfield (great insomnia cure, by the by), you would see the same pattern I have over the years.

Such reports have to go to all affected agencies, including GET, for comments. Invariably, GET sends the same pathetic form letter stating that if the development is built as planned, it will be too far outside current service areas and won’t have the density to allow bus service.

The letter goes in the back of the report and that’s that.

Not anymore.

King will be right in there with the Kern Council of Governments helping create a new development plan for the region, as required by SB 375.

“I’m looking forward to GET formally becoming an integral part of the planning process,” she said.

And she’s already brimming with short-term ideas from just a quick look around the community.

Parking, for instance, in downtown and out at Cal State Bakersfield is dirt cheap. Maybe if costs went up, it would be incentive to get people on the bus, she suggested.

Of course, she acknowledged the bus has to be so convenient people won’t just shrug and pay extra to park their cars.

On that score, she said, GET commissioned a service study last year, which was finished when she came on board in June. She was careful to tell me any service changes GET might make are up to the board of directors.

But she did mention there has been interest in an express route to downtown and said the system needs to focus on what areas it can best serve. I asked specifically if that meant cutting out routes to the northwest and southwest, but King was cagey.

Some longer term ideas, such as making sure new roads include dedicated bus/bike lanes and possibly even room for light rail, will take consensus from city and county planners. And by long term, King is looking 25 years into the future.

“Transit isn’t the only answer,” she said. “It’s one of the pieces. And now with AB 32 and SB 375, it can’t be ignored.”

Hallelujah, sister!

•••

An update on my last column regarding the Kern High School District trustee election:

I did a very informal survey and one of the questions was whether the candidates had ever flunked a class.

Candidate Bill Perry, whose career was spent in education, inadvertently missed that question.

He later answered it with an unequivocal NO, he has never flunked a class.

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

It's time for change on the KHSD board

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
10/12/2008

When you settle in to vote for two Kern High School District trustees on Nov. 4, remember your ABCs -- Anyone But Chad.

As in Chad Vegas, the lightning-rod trustee who has polarized the district with unnecessary religious debates that have no place in public education and take away from real problems that need attention.

Aside from pushing to change winter/spring breaks to Christmas/Easter and mandating "In God We Trust" posters be put in every classroom, he has also publicly stated that he would not follow a law if it crossed his religious beliefs.

"My oath was not to uphold every statute or decision made by the courts," he wrote in a letter to this newspaper.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If a law or court decision so offends, quit your office in protest and work against the law as a private citizen.

But you can't have it both ways.

In a recent Californian editorial board meeting with all the KHSD candidates, Vegas said that, if elected, he doesn't plan to introduce any more social/religious proposals. He wants to focus on education now, he said.

Too late.

The other trustee up for re-election is Bob Hampton, who has parried Vegas' religious thrusts, saying students' spirituality should be up to their families, not school teachers and administrators. Hear, hear!

You will also see five challengers on the ballot and possibly one or more write-in candidates.

So, now that I've recommended who we should not elect (Vegas), who should we elect?

Hey, that's up to you!

But to help with your candidate homework, I did a small survey (separate from The Californian's Opinion department) that I think adds greater dimension to the hopefuls seeking your vote.

The biggest news out of my totally unscientific survey was that one candidate actually copped to cheating -- Vegas!

The question was whether they had ever cheated on an exam. All the other candidates said no.

Vegas said: "I never cheated on an exam, but I cheated on numerous quizzes. I learned that it was easy to cheat and that my heart is far more sinful than I thought at the time."

Despite my dislike of Vegas' social/religious agenda, I admire his honesty. And I have some sympathy, as I had a geometry class in high school I would never have survived without a bit of, er, creative test-taking skills.

But I digress.

None of the trustee candidates owned up to ditching, per se. I asked if they attended the last day of their senior year (wasn't that a free day?). Most said yes, except Vegas, who wanted clarification as to whether I was talking about "Senior Week."

Charles Cournyea did not attend the last day of his senior year because he had quit school in his junior year and was serving in Vietnam, which I'm counting as an excused absence.

I also wanted to know if any of the seven trustee hopefuls had flunked a class.

Five candidates admitted that, yes, they had. Hampton said no and Bill Perry skipped that question. Hmmm.

The flunkers (flunkees?) were: Charlie Rodriguez, Spanish his junior year; Robert S. Frank II, government his senior year; Cournyea, algebra his freshman year; and both Vegas and Larry W. "Captain" Bly, geometry their sophomore years. I can relate to that last one.

OK, I did ask some serious questions, such as what to do about KHSD's high dropout rate and low test scores and whether the candidates supported trustees sitting in on job interviews for teachers and administrators.

Here are some highlights.

Most candidates except Vegas and Bly did not like the idea of trustees sitting in on job interviews. Though Bly said he probably never would sit in on an interview, he didn't feel it would be a bad precedent for a trustee. Vegas supported it as a means of evaluating the performance of Superintendent Don Carter.

Cournyea was most passionate about the dropout issue, having dropped out himself. He wants to create a mentoring program.

More parental involvement was Hampton's answer to the dropout rate. He felt it was most important to be "positive in every part of the instruction process" regarding test scores.

On test scores, Perry, a longtime educator himself, laid out a plan for doing more work to understand the underlying reason for low test scores.

Bly felt scores would improve if teachers tested students at the beginning of the year and developed self-paced, individual instruction so the student could improve in areas they were deficient.

Rodriguez worried that low test scores might be a result of busing and that students are focused more on fitting in than academics.

Frank said he didn't know how to fix either problem. But, he said, he knew enough to ask the right questions to find an answer.

Almost every candidate -- with the exception of Vegas, of course -- stressed that KHSD absolutely must stop the side-show religion-based distractions and focus on education.

Now that's a concept I can endorse.

Land needs better management

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
10/8/2008

I don't think I've ever seen so many cowboy hats in one place without a major piece of meat on the grill.

But there they were, more than 120 cowboys and cowgirls (even a few cowgrammas and grampas too) crowded into a tiny hall above Frazier Park on the last day of September waiting to have their say.

It had been a long time coming.

This was the first -- and only -- public meeting held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service inviting open discussion of its plans for managing the Bitter Creek Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge.

The refuge is 14,000 acres of hilly grasslands above Maricopa that was home to a working cattle ranch for more than 100 years before the government bought it in 1986 as California condor habitat.

It's closed to public use but had allowed limited cattle grazing, for a fee, to keep down fire hazards and encourage native grasses. About three years ago, however, Fish and Wildlife managers kicked the cows off entirely while they crafted a new management plan. The options were outlined in a draft environmental assessment released last spring.

The "preferred alternative" in that document would allow some seasonal grazing.

In case grazing doesn't work, and ranchers told me restrictions included in the plan would make it infeasible, the preferred alternative also calls for burning on up to 9,000 acres of the refuge. Great idea in this air basin, huh?

In my last column on this issue, I railed about how this plan came to fruition without a public hearing and not even any notification to Kern County.

Well, turns out this lone wolf act is par for the course with the Ventura-based Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which oversees Bitter Creek and the entire Condor Recovery Program.

And it's not just me saying that.

A lengthy and thorough audit of the condor program commissioned by Audubon California and released this August describes an archaic and autocratic management style by Hopper Mountain that is plagued by poor communication and operates under a Byzantine structure that makes information sharing difficult, if not impossible.

Sounds familiar.

To be fair, the condor audit and its lead author, Virginia Tech biology professor Jeff Walters, told me Fish and Wildlife has been operating in such a crisis mode to try to save the condors it hasn't had time to step back and assess whether the recovery program's structure is optimal.

True enough, they started in the mid-1980s with 22 birds left on earth. Twenty-two!

Through a lot of hard work and incredible determination, there are now about 300 condors either in captivity or swirling around California, Arizona and Mexico. (The audit is clear, though, that unless lead poisoning from hunters' ammo is brought under control, there won't be much more forward movement for the condors.)

Fish and Wildlife's efforts so far truly deserve praise. And the audit gives that praise. But it also doesn't stint on the problems.

"Program inequity and lack of shared and effective leadership make new partners feel uninformed and undervalued. They often feel out-of-sight and out-of-mind when it comes to programmatic decision-making and coordination. Similarly, stakeholders outside the program must navigate a confusing programmatic structure to voice concerns and remain informed about recovery."

The Bitter Creek area ranchers can surely relate to this, having to get a congressman and the newspaper involved before Fish and Wildlife would deign to hold a public meeting about how our own public land should be managed.

In the case of the condors, Fish and Wildlife's arcane management style, particularly in regards to Bitter Creek, has led to high turnover among field personnel, worsening communication between the zoos that breed the birds in captivity and the field workers who release them into the wild and monitor their nesting.

"The panel found this situation shocking," the audit says.

The overall lack of leadership has also created a dearth of independent scientific evaluation from outside the condor program, according to the audit.

Another familiar ring.

The environmental assessment on managing Bitter Creek similarly lacked a lot of scientific backup, prompting Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who attended the public meeting, to call for a full environmental impact report if Fish and Wildlife insists on keeping burning as an option.

The audit doesn't conclude that the situation is hopeless and neither do I.

It does, however, make numerous recommendations to open the recovery program to outside expertise and create a streamlined structure that allows more input, information sharing and consensus.

Coincidentally, that's all the ranchers at that Sept. 30 meeting wanted as well.

Before opening the meeting to public comments, Marc Weitzel, the Hopper Mountain project leader, said he was astounded by the turnout.

Considering Fish and Wildlife did everything to keep turnout low -- even picking a tiny public hall in a remote location despite an offer, in writing, to use Maricopa Unified School District's 300-person capacity hall right there in town -- Weitzel's comment wasn't surprising.

This agency isn't exactly a shining example of collaboration, though perhaps things are changing.

"Hindsight is 2020, and we do realize now that we should have held a workshop at the beginning of the scoping process to reach out better," Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Barr told me. "We regret we did not do that."

At least we agree on that.

There's a new (sprawl) sheriff in town

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
10/4/2008

The party is over.

And none too soon.

I’m talking about freewheeling, irresponsible development and Senate Bill 375, which was signed into law on Tuesday.

This law does one very, seemingly, simple thing — it ties development to transportation (and ultimately our wretched air pollution).

And it uses state money as both a carrot and stick to get local officials to go along.

There are a lot of implementation questions still to be settled, but here’s a general overview of how it works:

The Kern Council of Governments will have to create an overall development/transportation blueprint using greenhouse gas emission goals set down by the California Air Resources Board.

To achieve those emission reductions, the blueprint must incorporate things like (gasp!) public transit, the mixing of office, retail and housing so people don’t have to drive as far or as much, and incentives to encourage infill development and discourage far-flung growth.

In other words, age-old, well-known, often-discussed-but-never-used “smart growth” techniques to make our communities more compact so we stop spewing so much crap into the air every time we go out for a bagel.

To make this palatable to developers, the law requires a full environmental impact report on the blueprint. So if builders propose a development within the blueprint, they don’t have to spend their own time and money on a separate EIR.

And to make sure the blueprint is more than just a dust collector on the back of some city planner’s shelf, the state will withhold transportation money (and possibly housing and other types of funding) if a city or county approves a development that doesn’t adhere to the goals in the blueprint.

The law doesn’t say you can’t color outside the lines. Just that, if you do, there are consequences.

Brilliant!

This way, Bakersfield and Kern County can keep doing things the same good old boy way they always have — approving leapfrog development out in the hinterlands to their hearts’ desire.

They’ll just have to pay for the roads all on their own.

Hey, no problem, right? We all know how great we are at funding our own roads.

Bruce Freeman, CEO of Castle & Cooke, was leery that SB 375 will cost developers more money. And he was very skeptical of the public’s desire for higher-density housing.

“We have a cultural issue here,” he said of Bakersfield residents who, he said, want big houses, big yards and wide streets. “It will be a challenge.”

But personally, “I’d much prefer to see higher-density, higher-quality housing than more and more single-family houses on 6,000-square-foot lots, one after the other all the way down to the mountains.”

Local planners I talked to had mixed feelings about SB 375.

They all agreed it will change how we do things here — exactly how is still up in the air.

And they thought it was good, generally, to address green house gas emissions.

But they all felt the new law takes away local control.

To which Ed Thompson, California director for American Farmland Trust, said, (and I agree) “Development was out of control! They weren’t exercising local control. Maybe what they’re really talking about is political power.”

Ya think?

The only problem I see with SB 375 is it was too late to stop yet another boneheaded development approved recently by the Kern County Board of Supervisors.

They gave the thumbs up to three projects in the extreme northwest at Nord and Palm avenues, having already approved a sister project at Nord and Dunn avenues last spring. The so-called Northwest Communities, 800 houses on 276 acres, leap far past existing similar development into “ranchette” land where neighbors have one- to five-acre lots.

Supervisors approved the developments despite recommendations for denial from their own planning staff as well as the Planning Commission. In the process Supervisors made noises about needing to be “smarter” in how we use our land resources and stopping “urban sprawl.”

Puhleeze! These are textbook examples of sprawl.

I asked Supervisor Ray Watson, who championed the developments, how he could say it wasn’t sprawl.

He said the area has scattered development already so it’s not ag land in the purest sense. Besides, he said, he really wanted to get sewer lines out there and the Northwest Communities developers promised sewer.

I’d agree with him if it was a densely populated area all on septic. But it’s not. This is just more haphazard growth based on developer whim, rather than well thought-out planning.

Oh, and of course, there’s a lawsuit. That’s planning the Kern County way.

Hopefully, SB 375 will set a new standard for planning. One that actually involves, you know, planning.

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

Sign 'gag' taints local school board election

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
9/28/2008

The scorecard in the recent "sign-gate" debacle is both sad and disturbing.

From my perspective, it reads like this:

Holy-rolling Kern High School District trustee Chad Vegas and KERN 1410 AM radio talk show host Scott Cox: 1.

Media and public: 0.

Only two people benefited from this (whether they intended to or not) and those are Vegas and Cox.

For Vegas, seriously, all the money in the world couldn't buy this kind of publicity. And make no mistake, it will continue. I can already see a heartfelt forgiveness/come to Jesus press conference.

As for Cox, his bosses have already ended his suspension and he'll be back on the air Monday. The fall ratings book just started and I'll bet KERN gets a bump from this. Who's gonna kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

Early last week, Cox stole 15 of Vegas' four-foot-by-eight-foot signs in what he says was a gag for his radio show.

Vegas wasn't laughing and neither were sheriff's investigators who are still looking into the case.

Given past practice in Kern, there's a strong possibility Cox will face charges.

Back in 2002, then-Rosedale Union School Board trustee Ken Mettler, who now shares the dais with Vegas at KHSD, was accused of vandalizing an opponent's sign by covering portions of it with white paper.

When the case went to trial, the judge dismissed it, saying the alleged actions didn't meet the definition of graffiti under the penal code section that Mettler was charged with.

(Note to Cox: It's never too early to lawyer up.)

Meanwhile, all us schmos in the media played our roles hook, line and sinker. I'm not saying we were suckered, or that it wasn't "news." Just that it played extremely well for Vegas, who capitalized on every twist and turn, feeding the media just enough to keep us in the chase.

But here's why I think the public is the biggest loser in all this.

Elections are sacred. Just like free speech.

You don't mess with either.

Stealing yard signs may seem like a prank, but it is, in effect, tampering with the process.

Just as the absence of signs reduces a candidate's visibility, the added attention from the hype could influence some voters.

It's unfair to the public and dirties the process.

This election, in particular, is serious business.

KHSD's dropout rate is high, its test scores are low (especially when compared to other districts with even worse demographics than ours) and our grads aren't exactly jamming the halls of the state's universities. In fact, KHSD grads often need a lot of remedial attention to succeed at even the community college level.

Getting the right people on that board is crucial.

As anyone who's read this column previously knows, I do NOT believe Vegas is one of them.

His repeated forays into cultural politics -- getting winter/spring breaks renamed Christmas/Easter and mandating "In God We Trust" posters in every classroom -- are so divisive and distracting they outweigh any work he's done on purely academic issues.

All of that said, I would never tear down, steal, deface or otherwise molest his campaign signs. Just as I would never deny his right to express his opinions.

That's all part of this crazy thing we call the Constitution, which sets us apart (or at least is supposed to) from garden spots like Cuba, Russia, China and Myanmar.

I had hoped with a host of challengers, Vegas would at least have to sweat a little over this race.

Cox's little "joke," however, will only help deliver another four years of Vegas' attempts to shove his religion down our throats.

And I don't find that funny at all.

Moving fast on issue could hurt

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
9/24/2008

If Congress approves this murky and obscenely expensive $700 billion bailout without a whole lot more information, they should all get a one-way ticket to the funny farm because they will have engaged in the very definition of crazy -- doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

I do not agree that if we don't act now -- NOW! RIGHT NOW! -- the market will "collapse."

I'm no econ expert, not by a long shot, but the administration screamed "market collapse!" when it backed the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns with $30 billion in taxpayer dollars (and offered 20 other Wall Street firms direct emergency financing the same day), then the same again when it bailed out AIG, and again when it took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Oh, and then there was that $180 billion the U.S. Federal Reserve made available to banks earlier this month to keep up the flow of credit.

Each time we've been told the sky would fall unless taxpayers came to the rescue with buckets of cash.

Well, the cash is gone and here we are, yet again, with the sky apparently still falling, according to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Of course, it only seems to be falling, in Paulson's view, in the bad mortgage debt arena.

And the only solution "One Trick Hank" can think of is another infusion of tax dollars that will go to the very same fat-cat companies that created, bought, sold, traded and swapped those so-called "toxic mortgages" that are causing the sky to fall in the first place.

I'm not saying the situation isn't dire. I can't even look at my 401(k) right now. I'll have to write this column into my 80s to make up the losses, which is something I know many of you will consider worse than dire!

Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are urging Congress to pass the bailout, otherwise, Bernanke predicted Tuesday, jobs will be lost and more homes will be foreclosed on.

Hmmm. If that's all they're worried about, why not put all that money directly toward small business loans to create more jobs and work with homeowners to negotiate more reasonable mortgages? Just a thought.

The basic premise, as I understand the bailout, is that the government will use our money to buy the bad mortgage debt from financial institutions so their ledgers go from red to black. Then we, the taxpayers, will hold on to those debts and if the housing market goes up, we may get a profit and if not, we're sucking wind.

I talked to Congressman Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday and, amazingly, we're both looking at this proposal with the same jaundiced eye.

"We're talking about taking the free market out of the system, and government taking on all this debt so that taxpayers are ultimately held accountable," he said. "That's a fundamental flaw for me right off the bat."

He also wondered at the wisdom of continuing to pour good money after bad and likened the piecemeal approach of these constant cash infusions to a drug addiction.

The market gets a shot and it goes up but only temporarily.

And he really didn't like the push to move so quickly on such a major issue.

"This is likely to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, votes we'll ever have in Congress," he said.

High-ranking officials from the White House have been in a virtual parade appearing before Congress making the case for the bailout, including Vice President Dick Cheney. The high-pressure sales job is reminiscent of another sales job by this administration, the march to war in Iraq. Boy, they were right on about those WMDs, weren't they?

Though McCarthy, like many others, said this isn't the time for politics, cracks were evident along party lines when I asked Congressman Jim Costa, D-Fresno, his thoughts.

"A combination of a rescue plan that recovers American taxpayer dollars and a stimulus package is what we are trying to fashion, working in a bipartisan manner," he sent in a statement.

Oops.

That economic stimulus, an extra $50 billion, isn't sitting well with Republicans, McCarthy included. But so far, they seem to agree that any bailout should have accountability and oversight, yes good, and no greenback parachutes for CEOs.

So far, there's been no real discussion of replacing regulatory protections on derivative trading and bank mergers that Republicans succeeded in doing away with in 1999 and 2000, which is a must unless we want to stay on this merry-go-round.

As far as the bailout, McCarthy was frustrated by the lack of discussion on other possible options -- like a market solution, or perhaps a scaled-back insurance plan, or maybe they don't need a full $700 billion -- and the lack of clarity on exactly what the Paulson plan entails.

Congress was given a vague three-page bill over the weekend and then a 42-page document earlier this week that administration officials said still wasn't solidified. This smells like another "trust us" plan. And, frankly, all my trust went out the window with my 401(k) money.

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

Lab has flaws, but they're not hidden

By LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist
9/21/2008

I'm not among those on the bandwagon who are condemning the Kern County district attorney's crime lab as too cozy with law enforcement. Don't tell District Attorney Ed Jagels, though, it'd ruin his lunch!

Yes, the lab had a major, MAJOR, screw-up on a high-profile vehicular manslaughter case.

And in cases where law enforcement officers are involved either as victims or perpetrators, we should probably have evidence tested at an independent lab to avoid the perception of bias.

And I think some of its reporting protocols need to be tightened.

But here's why the lab has my confidence overall: It's hanging its dirty laundry out for all of us to see.

Believe me, when I first read about how the lab messed up I thought we should have the state Department of Justice take over. (I even called and asked if they do that sort of thing. They don't.)

If you haven't been following this case, a Pasadena attorney named Daniel Willsey is accused of driving under the influence of meth when he hit Kern County sheriff's Deputy Joe Hudnall head-on in the Kern River Canyon in November 2006. Hudnall died in the wreck.

Willsey's blood, which the lab says contained meth, has its own story.

First, it was learned that a friend of Deputy Hudnall's family who works in the lab inappropriately handled the blood. That's not good, but it wasn't hidden. The incident was detailed in a prosecution report the defense attorney had access to.

Next, and far worse, the lab destroyed the blood sample back in December 2007. That's the big mistake, and to this date, no one knows how it happened.

Then, come to find out, an independent lab had a second sample from Willsey and its results were significantly different from those of Kern's lab. This lab found higher amounts of meth in Willsey's blood. I'm sure prosecution and defense experts will argue over the reasons for that, but, again, the information was not kept secret.

"We made a mistake," Assistant District Attorney Dan Sparks acknowledged. "But we did not try to hide it. No matter how bad or embarrassing -- and this is damned embarrassing -- we reported it and we will learn from it."

He stressed that none of what happened was an error in the science.

I know what some of you are thinking because I thought the same thing: If these kinds of blunders can happen on such a high-profile case, what about the cases without intense media interest?

Sparks said the proof is in the courtroom.

The defense can do its own testing or have experts watch the district attorney criminalists do the testing and present their evidence and arguments in court.

I talked with a number of defense attorneys and got different answers from "nope, never had a problem with the crime lab" to others who said they have serious misgivings about bias toward the prosecution and just plain sloppy work.

The lab is accredited, since 2006, by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board, a privately run, national organization.

To be accredited, the lab had to go through rigorous testing and defend its protocols on everything from chain of custody to how it double checks work. Sparks told me blind tests are a daily routine, they keep detailed logs and all results are peer reviewed.

The accreditation group also requires that labs report any significant problems with procedures or personnel.

The district attorney crime lab did not report the Willsey anomalies, I was told by the accreditation group's CEO Ralph Keaton, who has since contacted the lab for an explanation.

As I said, the lab's reporting protocols need tightening.

In recent years, a number of reports have come out by different groups saying crime labs run by law enforcement agencies (and nearly all crime labs in California are run by law enforcement agencies) have a natural bias toward the prosecution.

The reports recommend labs be made independent and a special commission created to oversee them. Oh, and it should all be properly funded.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen in a state that can't even pass a budget!

Even in theory, though, I wonder if independence is the best course. We rely on law enforcement officers to conduct interviews and investigate cases, don't we? Well, a crime lab is an investigatory tool. I'm not sure putting that in the hands of a totally separate entity is the best answer.

We're extremely lucky that for once, Kern County is ahead of the game. We actually have our own crime lab. Most counties don't; they have to rely on the state and wait in line for results.

The lab is not perfect. Certainly not "beyond reproach," as Sparks has said previously, and the lab has a big hole to climb out of on this Willsey case.

But it is an incredible asset to this community, as long as it operates openly and is upfront about its flaws.