Kern supervisors continue occupancy agreement for Bakersfield Recovery Services after recusals and procurement 'glitch'
Loading...
Summary
After two supervisors recused themselves over campaign‑contribution ties to the district attorney's office and county counsel described a procurement paperwork 'glitch,' the Kern County Board of Supervisors continued an occupancy agreement for Bakersfield Recovery Services to its April 14 meeting amid sustained public comment for and against the provider.
The Kern County Board of Supervisors on March 24 postponed consideration of an occupancy agreement with Bakersfield Recovery Services (BRS) after two supervisors said they would abstain and county counsel said the underlying procurement had not completed required purchasing approvals.
Chair Philip Peters moved to continue the matter to the board's April 14, 9 a.m., meeting; the motion was seconded. County counsel told the board the county’s new Workday approvals routed the sole‑source paperwork to the auditor without passing through purchasing, creating what the attorney described as a "glitch." "If you do not have a quorum of the board, you cannot hear the the item," county counsel said, urging the board to reconvene the matter once the competitive/sole‑source process is complete.
Why it matters: the agreement would allow a provider to occupy space at the Kern County Family Justice Center and deliver confidential case management to victims of domestic violence and related crimes. Assistant District Attorney Joseph Kinzel told the board the DA’s office had submitted a sole‑source justification under county procedures and that Bakersfield Recovery Services was chosen because confidential case managers must operate through a nonprofit. "We did exactly what we were supposed to do, and our counterparts at the auditor's office informed the district attorney's office that it had been approved," Kinzel said.
Two supervisors announced they would abstain from the matter because of campaign‑contribution concerns. "Out of an abundance of caution, I, board member Chris Parlier, will abstain ... item number 34 for the reason of receipt of a campaign contribution in excess of $500 pursuant to government code section 84308," Parlier said. Board member Jeff Flores likewise announced an abstention, saying he would also step aside until further review of FPPC requirements.
The recusals left the board without a quorum for formal action on the occupancy agreement. County counsel outlined options including pausing the item until a full board or until purchasing has completed its review, or, in rare circumstances, drawing names to form a temporary quorum. The chair opted to continue the matter to the April 14 meeting so the public and board can return for a full hearing.
Public comment at the meeting was strongly divided. David Abbasi, identifying himself as a community watchdog, urged the board to disclose communications and to refer potential disclosure violations for review, saying executives at BRS had made contributions to District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer’s campaign. "The DA's office has since recommended Bakersfield Recovery Services for this county contract," Abbasi said, and asked the board to post financial documents and referrals for investigation. Several speakers urged delay and transparency, and some said the procurement timeline looked suspect.
Several survivors and community members urged the board not to delay services for victims. "I'm here ... as a victim of domestic violence to speak in support of Bakersfield Recovery Services," Lisa Kerr said, describing direct experience working with local providers. A BRS representative told the board the provider had served the community for decades and described the proposal as a modest operating contract: "This is not a multimillion dollar contract. This is a contract for $75,000 a year for 2 years," the representative said.
County counsel and the DA's office said the occupancy agreement before the board is dependent on a separately reviewed contract award; if purchasing approves a sole‑source justification or the competitive process completes, the board could act on occupancy without re‑choosing a provider. The board recorded a motion to continue the item to April 14, 2026 at 9 a.m. and adjourned the meeting in honor of Derek Gross.
Next steps: The county purchasing and county counsel offices will continue their review; the item is scheduled for the board's April 14 meeting for a full hearing pending resolution of procurement and recusal issues.
