Kern County is in compliance with Free Speech Policy as part of agreement with Attorney General Bonta: report
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — The first annual report assessing Kern County's progress in implementing and complying with the Free Speech Policy — a countywide policy approved by the California Department of Justice — says the county has been 'substantially' following the policy so far.
On April 11, a notice of filing of the first annual report was posted on the Kern County Superior Court website.
The annual report, filed by designated Free Speech Retained Expert Barry McDonald, found the county 'was in substantial compliance with its obligations' under the stipulated judgment for the initial oversight period from Dec. 8, 2023 to Dec. 7, 2024.
RELATED: DOJ enters stipulated judgment with Kern County
One complaint was filed under the Free Speech Policy during this period but, ultimately, no violation of the county's Free Speech Policy was established, according to the report.
Erin Briscoe-Clark, the chief communications officer for the Kern County Administrative Office, told 17 News the complaints cannot be shared with the public as they are confidential personnel documents.
In September 2021, the California Department of Justice began investigating Kern County to determine whether the Supervisors violated the free speech rights of a coalition of community-driven organizations as well as a small business.
According to the claim filed in the Kern County Superior Court, several supervisors who were on the board at the time refused to approve the contracts due to the contractors reportedly expressing support for the defunding of law enforcement agencies.
The contracts aimed to assist the county with its public health response to COVID-19 in 2020.
'I think that that is a radical political agenda that gives me great pause in awarding a contract with an organization that took on that cause,' one supervisor said. 'This is Kern County. We're not Seattle. This is where we support law enforcement, and we want more resources to go to law enforcement.'
Mother of Ricardo Aguilar seeks over $3 million in claim filed against county
Investigators determined the county violated the rights of local organizations, the DOJ entered into an agreement with Kern County.
The agreement required the county to:
Adopt and disseminate a countywide Free Speech Policy
Designate a county complaint coordinator
Develop and provide annual training to members of the Board of Supervisors and other county personnel
The policy was designed to prevent the county of Kern from discriminating against county employees, potential employees and contractors for exercising their free speech rights.
The policy states the county employees are also prohibited from unlawfully discriminating against, harassing or retaliating against other employees, potential employees and contractors for free speech or filing a complaint under this policy.
The agreement also enlisted a free speech retained expert who is in charge of assessing the county's compliance with the Free Speech Policy and submitting three annual reports during the oversight period to Attorney General Rob Bonta and the county.
Never miss a story: Make KGET.com your homepage
The agenda for the Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for Tuesday said the board would discuss the case with the Office of County Counsel in a closed session.
County Counsel Margo Raison told 17 News the exact contents of the closed session cannot be disclosed, only saying the counsel will be updating the board regarding the status of the agreement.
Raison said the county is currently in the second year into the agreement.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Who makes decisions for public health is changing in Hamilton
Community members are now at Hamilton's public health decision-making table after long-awaited governance reform got the green light from the province. 'I think it's so vitally important to have those voices there,' Coun. Cameron Kroetsch said in an interview with The Spectator. 'I think, also, it just frankly gives the community more confidence that we have both councillors and health experts who can give a balanced perspective.' Public health policy will no longer be decided by the 16 members of Hamilton's city council after legislative changes passed third reading on June 3 and received royal assent on June 5 as part of Bill 11 , More Convenient Care Act. Instead, six appointed community members , with health expertise or lived experience, will work alongside six city councillors and one education representative to oversee public health. Coun. Cameron Kroetsch says it is 'vitally important' to have community voices on the board of health. The Progressive Conservative government made the required amendments to the City of Hamilton Act at council's request. 'The community pushed really hard for this,' Kroetsch said. 'It's been a long journey.' City council will provide one final approval at its meeting on June 18 but the vote is considered a formality. The new board is expected to meet for the first time on July 7 — over four years after calls for change started in March 2021 when COVID-19 brought inequities, related to social determinants of health, to the forefront as some groups fared better than others during the pandemic. Advocates — including doctors, social workers and academics — argued for a board of health that better reflects Hamilton's diversity, including racialized residents and those with disabilities. 'We didn't have that kind of community voice available to respond to issues of public health in our city and so I think this is going to be great,' Kroetsch said. 'Having these key people around the table, we learned during COVID, would have made things so much better … I just can't say enough about how important I think it is for community voices to be at the table.' The changes bring Hamilton more in line with about two-thirds of the province's public health units that are overseen by autonomous boards. Hamilton's board will be semi-autonomous as decisions related to the budget, the annual service plan and the appointment of medical officers of health will still be approved by city council. Toronto and Ottawa also have semi autonomous boards. However, policy decisions would no longer need any further approval so the board's vote would be binding. 'There's not really a way for council to override the board of health,' Kroetsch said. 'We've given over that autonomy.' The governance reform initially had the unanimous support of council in January 2024. While awaiting the legislative changes, a public health subcommittee was created that will now become the board of health. Up until now, its decisions needed to be approved by city councillors. But opposition to the changes flared up in May after a disagreement over how restrictive the city should be about drinking on municipal property revealed a divide between councillors and the subcommittee. The proposed changes to the municipal alcohol policy were passed with almost no discussion by the subcommittee. In stark contrast, councillors voted 13-1 against it after a charged debate and an in-camera session to get legal advice. It raised questions about what would happen in the future when the semi-autonomous board of health no longer needed councillors' approval for such policy decisions. The subsequent vote went from unanimous to passing 9-5 on the makeup of the future board of health. But Kroetsch, who has been chairing the subcommittee, expects the transition will now be smooth. 'It's just going to be a new day for Hamilton in terms of having that expert advice from the community on the board of health to be able to weigh in on matters that are important,' Kroetsch said. 'We're talking about something that has literally a life and death impact for people. Public health is one of those areas of municipal governance that can impact people's day to day lives.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How Veteran's Benefits Are Impacted by Trump's Tax Bill: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. President Donald Trump's legislative agenda continues to reshape federal spending, with House Republicans proposing a $453 billion bill for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in fiscal year 2026. While the bill preserves core benefit increases for veterans, it introduces a series of controversial provisions that could change how some services are accessed and funded. The new spending proposals, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill passed by the House in May, come amid a flurry of changes at the VA, including staffing cuts at the department, which have sparked protests across the nation. Why It Matters Veterans' programs have historically received bipartisan support and consistent funding increases. Trump's proposed budget continues that trend, with an $83 billion boost over the prior year, largely for mandatory medical care and benefits payouts. However, the bill's inclusion of policy items tied to reproductive health, firearm access, and vaccine mandates could limit or reshape access to VA services. What to Know The VA budget includes: A 22 percent—$83 billion—overall funding increase , with nearly all new funding earmarked for medical care and mandatory benefits like disability payments. , with nearly all new funding earmarked for medical care and mandatory benefits like disability payments. Discretionary program funding up by 4 percent , rising to approximately $134 billion. , rising to approximately $134 billion. $2.5 billion for the VA's Electronic Health Record Modernization program , doubling the prior year's allocation but still $1 billion short of the White House's ask. , doubling the prior year's allocation but still $1 billion short of the White House's ask. $18 billion in military construction funding, which includes $830 million for child development centers and barracks improvements. Policy changes include: A ban on abortion services and abortion-related counseling at VA facilities, unless the life of the mother is in danger. at VA facilities, unless the life of the mother is in danger. Ending the requirement for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for VA health personnel. for VA health personnel. Restrictions on reporting veterans deemed financially incompetent to the national gun background check system, which Republicans have framed as a defense of Second Amendment rights. Democrats criticized the latter provisions. Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat, said in a statement the bill "needlessly fixates on keeping guns in the hands of those who are potentially a danger to themselves or others, and restricts reproductive rights." A stock image shows a U.S. flag patch on a soldier's uniform. A stock image shows a U.S. flag patch on a soldier's uniform. GETTY What People Are Saying House Appropriations Committee chairman Tom Cole said the bill "honors our commitment to those who've worn America's uniform and supports our military and their loved ones." "By providing critical funding for military bases and improving housing for our troops and their families, we are ensuring that our national defense needs are met both at home and abroad. We are also upholding our pledge to our veterans. This bill fully funds health care and benefits for those who have honorably served. They upheld their sacred oath to us—and now a grateful nation is keeping our promise to them. Today marks the start of our process and our work to fund the government. As this bill moves forward and considerations are made and debated, the pillars of the proposal won't change." Florida Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement: "This bill needlessly fixates on keeping guns in the hands of those who are potentially a danger to themselves or others, and restricts reproductive rights, and [includes] other cruel and pointless policy restrictions. I cannot tell those currently serving and those who defended our nation that this is the best we can do." What's Next The bill faces a tougher showdown in the Senate than it did in the House, where Democratic opposition and the filibuster rule will require bipartisan cooperation in order for it to pass.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Are the Epstein files still sealed? Here's what we know
The Brief Elon Musk claimed Donald Trump is named in the Epstein files, reigniting public interest and online speculation. The FBI says it's reviewing tens of thousands of Epstein-related materials but has not confirmed any names or release dates. Only partial records have been made public, and pressure is mounting on the DOJ to release more. LOS ANGELES - After years of speculation and partial disclosures, the Epstein files have returned to the national spotlight — this time because of Elon Musk. In a social media post Thursday, Musk accused former President Donald Trump of being named in the documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender whose high-profile associations have fueled conspiracy theories across the political spectrum. RELATED: Musk says 'Trump is in the Epstein files' as public feud escalates Musk offered no proof, but his claim immediately reignited public interest in the long-secret files. What exactly is in the Epstein files? Why haven't they been fully released? And is there any truth to the idea that names are being protected? What we know The government has acknowledged ongoing internal reviews of Epstein-related materials, but so far, only select records have been released. The term "Epstein files" refers to thousands of documents, videos, and investigative materials gathered by federal and state authorities across multiple cases tied to Epstein and his associates. Many court documents, particularly from Epstein's 2008 Florida case and the 2019 charges in New York, have been made public, but others remain sealed or redacted. Attorney General Pam Bondi said last month that the FBI is reviewing "tens of thousands" of Epstein-related videos and documents. Bondi said materials will be released once redactions are made to protect victims and ongoing investigations. FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in a Fox News interview that they've seen the full file and maintain Epstein died by suicide. They also said surveillance video from Epstein's cell will be released in the coming months. What we don't know Despite growing public pressure, key questions about the files — including who is named and when the material will be released — remain unanswered. No official source has confirmed that Trump appears in any Epstein-related documents. Musk did not specify which documents he was referring to or provide supporting material. The timeline for the full release of videos or unsealed documents has not been made public. The total scope of what the FBI or DOJ intends to keep classified — permanently or temporarily — remains unclear. The backstory Donald Trump built much of his political identity on promises to expose the "deep state" and reveal hidden truths — including, at times, alluding to Epstein. As president, he claimed his administration would declassify major troves of government records. While he did release over 63,000 pages tied to the JFK assassination, he has not fully followed through on releasing Epstein-related materials. The skepticism deepened after Trump's own FBI officials dismissed theories that Epstein was murdered. Patel and Bongino both asserted Epstein's death was a suicide, contradicting some of their earlier public skepticism. Online, Trump supporters and critics alike responded with frustration, asking why the administration, which has stacked agencies with loyalists, still hasn't produced answers. What they're saying "You know a suicide when you see one, and that's what that was," FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News. "I have seen the whole file," Bongino added. "He killed himself." Their comments contradicted earlier statements Bongino made as a podcast host, when he suggested the government was covering up Epstein's death. Tucker Carlson echoed that sentiment on his show: "No matter who gets elected… the Epstein videos remain secret." Newsmax host Todd Starnes posted, "They told us for months leading up to the Election that it wasn't suicide. But now they tell us it was suicide. Pardon me, but what the heck is going on at DOJ?" Even some Trump allies questioned the silence. "If it's easy, why hasn't your administration found these criminals already?" one user posted on Trump's Truth Social platform. The other side Elon Musk's accusation came amid a personal and political falling out with Trump, whom he had supported just months earlier. After Musk blasted Trump's federal spending bill as "pork-filled," Trump threatened to pull billions in government contracts from Musk's companies. Musk responded by making the explosive Epstein claim — without documentation — on X. While many saw it as retaliation, the statement pushed the Epstein issue back into public view, and with it, longstanding demands for government transparency. What's next The DOJ has said more releases are coming — including possible surveillance footage from Epstein's jail — but hasn't provided a schedule. Bondi insists the delay is due to the need to protect victims, but some right-wing influencers and Trump supporters view the delay as stonewalling. There are no public plans to unseal the full list of names connected to Epstein's case files, despite repeated calls from across the political spectrum. Until more documents are released or the DOJ directly addresses Musk's accusation, public suspicion is likely to grow. The Source This article is based on reporting from the Associated Press and statements from Elon Musk and Donald Trump on social media. Quotes from FBI Director Kash Patel, Deputy Director Dan Bongino, and Attorney General Pam Bondi were taken from a recent Fox News interview. Additional commentary came from figures like Tucker Carlson and Todd Starnes, as well as publicly available court records and previous DOJ statements regarding the Epstein investigation.
