Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the DA Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public questions retroactive $500,000 DA grant acceptance and vendor choice; board outlines options to reconsider
Summary
Several community members urged the board to remove or reconsider item 60 — a retroactive acceptance of federal grant funds tied to the district attorney's office — citing concerns about vendor qualifications for services to child victims; county counsel and supervisors explained the grant-approval and reconsideration process.
Community members at the July 14 Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting pressed the board to reconsider or remove a consent calendar item (item 60) accepting a roughly $500,000 federal grant intended to support services for victims of crime. Commenters said the district attorney’s choice of vendor—identified in public remarks as Bakersfield Recovery Services—lacked the specialization needed for child abuse and sexual-assault survivors.
"We want children that have been [sexually] abused to actually get the right therapy...not somebody who deals in substance abuse," said a speaker from the ACLU Criminal Justice Coalition during public presentations, describing concern that the vendor focuses on substance-abuse treatment rather than specialized care for child victims.
Speakers also said the grant was presented retroactively on the agenda and asked for more community notice and the opportunity to comment before board approval. One speaker asked that item 60 be pulled from the consent calendar and scheduled for separate public discussion.
County counsel explained the mechanics: a retroactive grant acceptance is not uncommon when an applicant (here, the district attorney's office) applied and received award funds prior to the board’s formal action. Counsel said the board generally must "bless" or certify grant applications and that while the DA follows county procurement and purchasing procedures, the board does have authority to reconsider an item after approval and can ask the DA to return with staff and details if members want to revisit it.
Supervisor remarks emphasized both procedural limits and local oversight: supervisors noted the district attorney is an independently elected official with prosecutorial authority, but that board oversight includes approving contracts and budgets and that a reconsideration should be scheduled at a time when DA representatives can respond.
What happens next: The board did not rescind its consent vote in open session. County counsel said the board retains legal authority to reconsider approval, and supervisors suggested scheduling any reconsideration when the DA or her staff can attend and answer questions about vendor selection and services.
