On September 8, I wrote about the City of Visalia and it’s Charter. I noticed in one section it said (Deleted November 4, 1974). No mention of what that section was, or why it was “deleted”.
Under Article XVI, Section 21 said simply “(Deleted November 4, 1974)”
Well, I needed to know what that was all about.
I cogitated about it for a while. A mystery that kept bugging me, begging to be solved. Last Monday I decided to track down the truth, if possible. Looking online hadn’t turned up the missing section, and it had been 50 years since the change was made. The local newspaper doesn’t have online access for historical stuff, and while I had the date of the vote taken to approve changes to the Charter, I didn’t know when the City Council had acted to put the measure on the ballot. That could have been almost any time in 1974, to have time to get it on the mid-term election ballot in November. I really didn’t want to sit in front of the micro-fiche reader at the library, scrolling through the newspapers for every day that year! (Are micro-fiche readers and their films still a thing?)
The hunt had to be done the old-fashioned way – sleuthing in person.
I headed down to the library to see if they had a copy of the original charter, but they were closed for Indigenous People’s Day (It might be called something else, too, but never mind that…)
Next stop – The City Clerk’s office. I was surprised to find the offices open, since it was that holiday. I also expected it might take a while to find that for which I was looking. I was afraid that the relevant documents would be in that warehouse where the US Government stuck the Ark of the Covenant, as seen in one of the Indiana Jones’ movies, or in Warehouse 13. The City Clerk thought it might take some digging, too. The Assistant City Manager came by as we were discussing the Charter, and since he’s new to the city as well, he didn’t know anything about the change. The Clerk took my info, and told me she would research it. I expected I might hear something back in a week or so, if I was lucky. Surprise, surprise, they found and emailed me the original text before I even got home! Talk about service!
The original Charter contained the following:
Article XVI. Miscellaneous Provisions:
Section 21.
Neither the City Manager nor any person in the employ of the City shall take any active part in securing, or shall contribute money toward the nomination or election of any candidate for a municipal office.
Seems in 1974 the City decided to do a bit of tweaking to the Charter, and since the only way it can be changed is a vote of the people, it was on the ballot in November 1974. The above section was deleted. (I’m assuming it was due to infringing on people’s rights to support the candidate of their choice, even though they were city employees.) Some other wording was added, looks like to clarify some minor things that had changed in the previous 50 years.
It’s been 50 years since that update, and I think it’s time to do another refresh.
I noticed references to the City Manager (and other offices as well) as “he” or “his” throughout the Charter. We don’t have a “he/him” City Manager now, so time to change the masculine pronouns to gender-neutral.
(the fact that changing masculine pronouns in city documents will undoubtedly raise the blood pressure of those who see such things as “woke liberalism” is a bonus in my book!)
Thank you to the new City Clerk, Jennifer Gomez, for digging this up for me!
Mystery solved!
(even if it was a bit anti-climatic. I was hoping for some good, scandalous dirt! oh well…)
JimmieJoe / KC6YRU 
It’s a bit disappointing
October 23, 2024
Jim Reeves commentary, News Conditional Use Permit revocation, Downtown Rookies Sports Bar and Grill, Rookies, Visalia City Council Leave a comment
I’m disappointed in the Visalia CIty Council. They basically vetoed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the Conditional Use Permit that allowed Rookies Sports Bar and Grill to have live entertainment. After years of escalating police responses to the sports bar, the council did not support the findings of city staff and the police department, and decided to “re-negotiate” (my term, not the Council’s) the rules under which Rookies will be allowed to continue (resume?) live entertainment.
The bar was declared a “public nuisance” back in 2021, and even after numerous contacts since with the city about the problems, it has been experiencing increasing numbers of incidents requiring police response. The process of dealing with Rookies has been ongoing, resulting with the Planning Commission’s decision recently to revoke the Conditional Use Permit (first issued in 2011) to allow live entertainment. The revocation does not close Rookies, it can still operate as a restaurant and bar, which is its primary, legally permitted, business model. Only the live entertainment is affected.
It sure looks to me, standing here on the outside looking in, like the owner of Rookies has had plenty of time to correct the problems the city has been dealing with since before 2021, but has failed to do so. Some think his position on downtown association boards (private entities, not part of City government) has granted him special status, allowing him to use those positions to get special treatment. I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s easy to suspect something is going on. There’s a lot of smoke around this situation, and you know what they say about smoke.
To “renegotiate” the deal with Rookies after the Planning Commission did it’s due diligence in acting to revoke the CUP (Conditional Use Permit), sends a message to other potential trouble spots downtown that they can get away with thumbing their nose at the city.
Kudos to Councilman Soto for being the only ‘no’ vote on the motion to “renegotiate” the CUP. (Nelsen recused himself, and left the Council chambers while the issue was being discussed and voted on.)
We’ll have to see how this shakes out. Stay tuned.
Share this: