Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press city on sewer engineers report and accuse staff of misconduct; city clarifies complaint process
Summary
During public comment residents raised process concerns about a Proposition 218 engineers report and accused a streets‑department employee of selling city materials; staff promised follow‑up on the engineers report and reminded the public about the clerk's written complaint process and slander risks.
At the start of the March 11 council meeting several members of the public used two‑minute public comment slots to raise procedural and investigative questions.
Darlene Den, a property owner and recent graduate of Cal State Bakersfield, said she examined the engineers' packet that accompanied the city's Proposition 218 notice and found inconsistent page counts in the online PDF across different days and no clear revision dates or an identified engineer responsible under the 218 notice rules. She asked whether the city had begun the 218 notice process prior to making final engineering documents available to the public. City staff (identified in the meeting as Mr. Cleger) said staff will have the wastewater division follow up directly and explained the city had combined multiple analyses and memos into one PDF packet to be comprehensive; staff added the 218 notice was based on an HF&H cost‑of‑service analysis and therefore satisfied the 218 notice requirements.
A different public commenter, Johnny Olz, made a series of serious accusations alleging a former employee and a current streets employee (named in comment) profited from city materials and used city resources for private work. Council members and the city attorney responded publicly: Council Member Gonzalez and the city attorney cautioned that the proper path for allegations is a written complaint submitted to the city clerk so staff can elevate it to the proper department, and reminded the public that unproven public accusations may carry legal risk for slander. The city clerk confirmed no written complaint had been filed.
Council and staff told speakers they welcome public reporting but urged use of the city's complaint channels so staff can investigate claims through the appropriate internal and legal processes. Council did not take immediate investigative action during the meeting; staff committed to follow up with the wastewater division on the engineers report questions and reiterated the formal complaint process for allegations against employees.
