A Report of Kern County Board of Supervisors Meeting Held on 26th March 2019 at 9 am
A board of supervisors meeting was held at 9 am on March 26, 2019, for Kern County. The meeting was aimed at discussing the agenda that had been tabled in front of the supervisors. The agenda comprised of matters affecting Kern County and the supervisors were tasked with finding solutions for the issues raised. The items of the agenda were to be made available for public review immediately after the agenda is posted.
Board Members
The board of supervisors is comprised of five members. The members forming the board are Mick Gleason, Zack Scrivner, Mike Maggard, David Couch, and Leticia Perez. During the meeting, Leticia Perez was found to be absent although her apology was presented by the chairman to the board. Mick Gleason is a former Navy captain who was elected as a supervisor in Kern district for the first time in 2012. Zack Scrivner is the second serving supervisor who was elected to the position for the first time in 2010. Zack has served previously in Bakersfield city council for six years. Mike Maggard is the third member of the board of supervisors and was elected to the position in 2006. Mike Maggard is not affiliated to any political party. David Couch is a representative of the fourth district in the board and has been in office for the last four years. Leticia Perez represents the fifth district in the board and is a third-generation resident of Bakersfield.
Procedure for Discussing Issues
The discussion of issues was controlled by the chairman. Before the meeting, the chairman identified different contracts which had captured the interest from certain supervisors. The chairman then assigned the supervisors to assignments associated with positions of interest. Before the assignments, the chairman considered the position held by each supervisor at a non-profit organization before assigning the supervisors. After the assignments were done, the issues in the agenda were discussed with conclusions being made through consensus. The members present were required to vote either in support or against an issue, and the popular vote was always considered for a conclusion.
One of the issues discussed is the proposal for a memorandum of understanding with Kern County detention officers for bargaining units T and V. Board listened to the presentation given by the board member tasked with providing information about the memorandum of understanding. After the presentation, the chairman allowed the board members to give comments about the issue and maybe raise a question concerning the issue. However, all the members seemed contented with the explanation given and thus the next step was to go on a voting session where all members present agreed with the consent agenda. The decision for the member absent was not considered but was marked as absent and would not change the ruling since the majority had voted in support for the proposal.
Conclusions
The evaluation for the overall meeting is based on the method used to address issues as well as the composition of the board. First, the board is only comprised of one lady who happens to be absent in this meeting. The absence of the female member means that the decisions are only made by men and ladies are not represented. Also, the issues are not discussed as would be expected. For example, a member only presents the proposal and waits for comments from the members, and then voting is done. A more efficient method of discussing issues would be proposed where the members would present the views from the residents of the areas represented.