Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Family Justice Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves occupancy for Bakersfield Recovery Services after recusals and public accusations
Summary
The Kern County Board approved an occupancy agreement allowing Bakersfield Recovery Services staff to work on-site at the Family Justice Center despite recusals by multiple supervisors and public allegations of campaign finance impropriety; the district attorney said procurement rules were followed.
The Kern County Board of Supervisors voted May 12 to allow Bakersfield Recovery Services (BRS) staff to occupy space at the county'run Family Justice Center, approving an occupancy agreement after several supervisors recused themselves and a heated public comment period.
The measure drew immediate controversy. District Attorney Cynthia Zimmer, who introduced the item, told the board the service agreement with BRS was awarded after a competitive procurement and urged the board to approve on-site placement of a confidential case manager so victims can be served "at our one stop shop as soon as possible." She said the Department followed county counsel'advice and procurement rules and described the selected vendor as "exceptionally well qualified." (Cynthia Zimmer, District Attorney)
Public commenters sharply challenged that framing. David Abbasi called the meeting "not governance, it is a live crime scene" and accused supervisors and nonprofit partners of campaign finance violations and coordinated payment schemes; he urged the board to suspend the item and submit to federal investigators. A domestic-violence survivor said victims need properly trained, trauma'informed advocates and questioned whether BRS personnel have the relevant training.
Several supervisors recused themselves from consideration of Item 28 under the Levine Act, citing recent campaign contributions tied to entities related to the matter. Supervisors Flores, Parlier and Couch announced recusals on the record before the item was heard. County counsel advised that, to preserve the board's ability to act despite recusals, the board may randomly draw eligible members by lot under the rule of necessity so a quorum can hear the matter.
Board discussion focused on two points: whether the underlying service contract had been competitively procured and the legal difference between awarding a provider contract and granting occupancy of county space. County counsel told the board the contract awarding the vendor went through an informal solicitation and purchasing review; the occupancy agreement itself is not a revenue lease and therefore required board approval.
After discussion and public comment, the motion to approve the occupancy agreement carried, with one supervisor recorded as opposed. The DA'office said the confidential case manager has been working off site since May 4 and should be allowed to move on-site to provide direct services to victims.
The board recorded the vote as approved with one opposed. County staff and the DA'office said they will implement the occupancy arrangement; several public speakers requested an independent review of contract records and communications related to DA partnerships.
The board adjourned to closed session afterward to consider several personnel and legal items.
Notes: The transcript records an informal procurement distinction (informal bids for amounts between roughly $50,000 and $200,000) and several inconsistent name spellings in public documents cited during comment. The specific dollar amount for the occupancy agreement as read on the record was not clearly specified in the transcript.
