Sound Off for March 22, 2009
| Monday, Mar 23 2009 12:07 PM
Last Updated Monday, Mar 23 2009 12:07 PM
Loading Stories
Advertisement
Reader: At 4 a.m. Thursday we received a call from a Californian deliveryman who said he could hear a car horn going off in our garage.
My husband thanked him for calling. When we got to the garage, the horn on our truck was indeed honking and emitting an electrical smell. When my husband opened the garage door, the man from The Californian was still waiting in his car to make sure we were OK before he drove away.
My husband disconnected the battery and when he reconnected it, the horn stopped.
We very much appreciate the extra time and effort your employee took to call us. There could have been a fire resulting from the wires overheating. My car was in the garage with the truck.
Please see that the deliveryman is recognized for being responsible and caring to his clients! This time, he was the "good neighbor" which is usually my job! :)
-- Janet Hopkins, State Farm agent
Jenner: It's great to get a note like that about our customer service. Glenn Moore was the man who called you. He and his wife, Leola, are two of our thoughtful and dedicated carriers.
Thanks for writing.
n n n
Reader: I've been a daily subscriber to The Californian and the Los Angeles Times for the last year and noticed the article by James Oliphant and Christy Parsons, which appeared in both papers on March 12.
Your headline said: "Obama's mixed message?" and the subhead said: "President blasts earmark process, but signs legislation anyway." The Times headline was "Obama signs 'imperfect' pork barrel-packed bill" with the subtitle "The president pledges to revamp the earmarking process and unveils a plan that seeks transparency."
While I assume the rules of journalism allow newspapers to change headlines and subtitles, it appears you put negative spin on them, compared to how the authors characterized their article.
-- Joel Hoffman
Jenner: Each newspaper decides which stories it will publish, where they appear, how to edit them and what the headlines will say.
And editors, not reporters, generally write the headlines, even at The L.A. Times.
Obama railed against pork-barrel projects. Then he signed a bill with 9,000 earmarks. As one congressional staffer quoted in the story said, "It's like washing down a doughnut with a Slim Fast shake."
I wouldn't call our headline "negative spin." I think it's an accurate description of what the story says.
n n n
Reader: In refuting popular beliefs FDR ended the depression with the New Deal (March 15 Viewpoint) Professor Randall Beeman made very good points but repeated an often-published quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, "Government that governs least governs best" without giving the time and place of that often repeated statement.
Last week on the Thomas Jefferson Hour on KPRX, scholar Clay Jenkinson said it cannot be documented that was something Jefferson actually said, although he calls it "Jeffersonian."
In the biographical footnote of the other column, associate professor Douglas Dodd exposes a willingness to play fast and loose with the facts by repeating an often-expressed desire to discredit if not erase the accomplishments of the Republican administration that preceded FDR by renaming Hoover Dam.
Regardless what we may think of President Hoover or what he did or didn't do, the dam is not currently named Boulder Dam, no matter how much Hoover haters wish it. The Californian should have corrected this.
In listing various WPA projects here in Kern County he (perhaps inadvertently) omitted mentioning the many adobe county government buildings in Bakersfield, Mojave, Buttonwillow and elsewhere. A few of these survive but are threatened with destruction based on statements by county engineers who have pronounced them as "unsafe unreinforced masonry" without bothering to provide any engineering documentation to support this belief. The fact is, their statements are false. Those adobes -- including the one now used by the county parks department -- are, in fact, reinforced with steel and were engineered to be earthquake resistant.
-- Stephen A. Montgomery
Editorial Page Editor Robert Price responds: This is the first time someone has requested a correction based on an author's biographical tagline. You're reading something into Dodd's scholarly research that's not there. Part of the problem is that in the interest of brevity, we didn't give a very good description about his previous work on the New Deal.
The actual title of his previous article, published in the Winter 2006-07 issue of Southern California Quartery, is: "Boulder Dam Recreation Area: The Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the Origins of the National Recreation Area Concept at Lake Mead, 1929-1936."
At its inception, and during the period Dodd wrote about, the nation's first national recreation area was called Boulder Dam Recreation Area. That was the official name at the time, and it would have been inaccurate to use any other. It has nothing to do with any perceived "denial" of the contributions of Herbert Hoover in any sense.
As for local WPA projects, Dodd did not include a complete list for three reasons: That wasn't the purpose of his March 15 article, there wasn't sufficient room, and he had previously offered to write a future article focusing on those projects, which we will happily accept.
n n n
Reader: I'd like to start off my complementing Mr. Jenner on the guts he exhibits in having a column like this. I have to agree with his answers virtually every time.
I'm aware that there are probably hundreds of agricultural people who are interested in the amount of water in Millerton Reservoir, Pine Flats and Louis Reservoir, but in view of the fact that there are thousands of fishermen in Bakersfield who go to Lake Success, I am wondering why it has been deleted. It takes very little space in that reservoir column and it is a very important fact for many of us. That's my question.
Again, thank you, if I can get an answer to that. I appreciate your having such a column. That's pretty neat.
-- John Kidd
Jenner: Thanks to you, Ken Taylor and Walter Easley for bringing the importance of the Lake Success statistics to our attention. And thanks to Assistant Managing Editor James Bennett for having this information restored to our weather report.
n n n
Reader: On behalf of the city of Bakersfield, our office would like to clear up some misrepresentations in two prior articles and recent letters to the editor addressing the matter of Robert Pratt vs. City of Bakersfield, et al.
Prior to the case being submitted to the jury, the trial court determined that Mr. Pratt's termination was based upon good cause as determined by Civil Service Commission in 2007. The trial court, based in part upon the point being conceded by Mr. Pratt and his attorney, also concluded that Mr. Pratt's prior discipline relating to a May 26, 2005 incident was based upon good cause.
Thus, the issues of his termination and his challenge to this one specific disciplinary incident were not considered by the jury and no decision was rendered by the jury on these matters. The characterization that the jury determined the plaintiff was wrongfully terminated is not accurate.
With respect to other relevant matters, it is noteworthy that Mr. Pratt, through his attorneys, voluntarily dismissed all claims he had filed against Fire Chief Ron Fraze and Deputy Fire Chief Gary Hutton, and his claims for defamation against the city of Bakersfield and Battalion Chief John Weber. Finally, Mr. Pratt voluntarily dismissed his claim for punitive damages against John Weber.
Accordingly, the verdict rendered by the jury was solely for damages relating to claims of harassment and retaliation for certain limited acts which occurred back in the time period of 2003 to 2006. While the City is disappointed in the final outcome, it is still examining its post-trial options.
The city was effectively given no choice in bringing this matter to trial. Mr. Pratt consistently demanded in excess of $3,000,000, which was unwarranted. The city eventually offered $75,000 to avoid further litigation costs. Mr. Pratt rejected this offer and made no counter-offer. The actual verdict of $98,200, though disappointing, vindicates the city's judgment to pursue this to a conclusion through trial.
At this time we will not be making any further comments until all post-trial matters have been resolved.
-- Arnold Anchordoquy Clifford & Brown
Jenner: When the jury answered "yes" to "Did the city of Bakersfield undertake an adverse employment action against Plaintiff without cause?" we thought that included wrongful termination as well as harassment and retaliation.
We stand corrected and set the record straight with a correction on Saturday's front page.
n n n
Reader: I guess I don't understand the constant criticism of The Californian or why there would be any threat that in this electronic age all newspapers will eventually fall by the wayside and become another "thing of the past."
I look forward to reading The Californian every morning. The narrower pages are great as I can hold them in one hand and eat my breakfast or drink my coffee with the other. For the most part, The Californian is fair in its coverage of liberal and conservative opinions and editorials.
There is still plenty of local news and enough worldwide news to keep us well informed in less time. Hunching over a computer instead of leisurely reading the paper would take away one of the most enjoyable routines of my day. Surely many others feel the same.
-- Mary Stapp
Jenner: Thanks for your comments, Mary, and for your readership.
