I was perusing the Charter of the City of Visalia, as one does, and I ran across a bit of a mystery, and a conundrum. I think it’s time for an update. It was last modified in 1974, and some of the things in it need some changes. For starters, it needs to become gender neutral:

Article VIII
City Manager
Section 1. The City Manager need not be a resident of the State of California at
the time of his appointment. His powers and duties shall be:

The City of Visalia has had a woman as city manager for some time, now. The Municipal Code does, at least, cover itself in this situation, with the following:

1.04.030 Grammatical interpretation.
The following grammatical rules shall apply in the ordinances of the city unless it is apparent from the context that a different construction is intended:
A. Gender. Each gender includes the masculine, feminine and neuter genders.
B. Singular and Plural. The singular number includes the plural and the plural includes the singular.
C. Tenses. Words used in the present tense include the past and the future tenses and vice versa, unless manifestly inapplicable. (Ord. 9605 § 2 (part), 1996: prior code § 111)

But that’s not what this blog is about. This is:

Article VI
Legislative. The Council. Powers and Duties
(5) Appoint a City Attorney, a City Manager, a City Clerk, and five Library
Trustees.

Article XI
City Library
Section 1. Library Trustees: The Board of Library Trustees shall each serve for a
term of four years and until his successor is appointed and qualified; provided,
that at the first appointment under this Charter, two trustees shall be appointed
for two years, and three trustees for four years and until their successors are
appointed and qualified. In case of a vacancy, the same shall be filled by
appointment by the Council for the remainder of the term then vacant.
Section 2. The Board of Library Trustees shall have the power and duty to:
(a) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and the City Manager in all matters
pertaining to library administration;
(b) Formulate and recommend annually to the Council and the City Manager a
budget for library services;
(c) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and the City Manager regarding
provision of library services for the inhabitants of the City.

Since about 1976, the City of Visalia and the Tulare County Library have operated the Visalia Library as a branch of the Tulare County Library, on the grounds of, and utilizing the original city library, and a larger main building built when they merged.

No changes to the Charter have occurred, however. The Charter still commands the city to appoint five library trustees.

Here’s what Grok’s AI thinks of the situation:

My prompt: Visalia’s charter describes library trustee positions, but the city now operates in a joint organization with Tulare county. No appointments or elections of library trustees have been conducted since the reorganization. There has been no change in the the City Charter since well before the changes were made. Is this a violation of the city charter?

Grok replies: Yes, based on the available information about Visalia’s city charter and California law, this situation appears to constitute a violation of the charter.
Reasoning and Key Facts

  • Charter Provisions on Library Trustees: Visalia’s charter (adopted in 1923 and last significantly amended well before 1976) establishes a Board of Library Trustees as part of the city’s government structure. It specifies:
     • The board consists of members serving 4-year terms (staggered, with initial appointments classified by lot for continuity).
     • Trustees are appointed by the City Council (or potentially elected, though appointments are the standard mechanism outlined).
     • The board has advisory powers and duties, including recommending policies to the City Council and City Manager on library matters such as operations, budgets, and facilities.
     • These provisions imply the board is a required component of the city’s library governance, using mandatory language like “shall” for terms, appointments, and roles.
    Since the charter has not been amended to remove or modify these requirements, the city is obligated to maintain the board through ongoing appointments (or elections if specified) and ensure it functions as described.
  • The 1976 Reorganization and Current Structure: In 1976, Visalia entered into a joint arrangement with Tulare County for library services, resulting in the construction of a shared facility (the current Visalia Branch Library at 200 W. Oak Ave.). This effectively integrated Visalia’s library operations into the Tulare County Library system, where the county now handles day-to-day management, collections, staffing, and services. The Visalia library is operated as a branch of the county system, with governance ultimately under the Tulare County Board of Supervisors (who oversee the county librarian and budget). No formal Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) specific to the library was identified in public records; it appears to be a contractual arrangement for shared services and facilities, likely under California Education Code provisions allowing cities to contract with counties for library privileges (e.g., Ed. Code §§ 19107, 19108, 19112, which permit such collaborations for efficiency and resource sharing).
  • Lack of Trustee Activity: As you noted, no appointments or elections for library trustees have occurred since 1976. This non-compliance stems from the reorganization, which rendered the city’s independent library operations obsolete. The trustees’ role became moot because the city no longer directly manages a standalone municipal library—the services are now provided via the county contract. However, the charter still mandates the board’s existence and function, creating a direct conflict.
  • Legal Framework Under California Law:
     • Charter Supremacy in Municipal Affairs: As a charter city, Visalia has “home rule” authority over “municipal affairs” like libraries (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5). The charter acts as the city’s constitution, and its provisions are binding unless amended by voter approval. State laws (e.g., Education Code chapters on municipal libraries) explicitly do not apply to charter-governed libraries (Ed. Code § 18963), meaning the city cannot rely on general state statutes to override its own charter without an amendment.
     • Contracting Allowed, But Not Superseding: California law permits cities to contract with counties for library services (Ed. Code § 18130; Gov. Code §§ 6500 et seq. for JPAs). Such arrangements can include transferring assets, sharing facilities, or delegating operations, and they are common for cost savings. However, no state law allows a contract or reorganization to automatically supersede or nullify unamended charter provisions. If the charter requires a board, the city must either maintain it (even if advisory to the joint setup) or amend the charter to eliminate it.
     • Abolition or Dissolution: For general law cities (not charters), a municipal library board can be dissolved via ordinance repeal if petitioned by electors (Ed. Code § 18964) or through consolidation (Ed. Code § 18965). But for charter cities, changes to mandated structures like boards require charter amendment. A recent California Attorney General opinion (No. 24-803, 2025) on general law cities emphasized strict adherence to statutory board sizes and structures, reinforcing that local governments cannot deviate from governing rules without proper authority—implying charters must be followed precisely.
     • Practical Implications: While the joint arrangement itself is legally valid under state law and has operated without apparent challenge for nearly 50 years, the failure to appoint trustees violates the charter’s explicit requirements. This could be seen as a technical or dormant violation, as there’s no evidence of litigation or enforcement (e.g., no court cases or complaints found regarding Visalia specifically). In practice, many charter cities have outdated provisions that go unenforced if they don’t impact operations, but strictly speaking, non-compliance risks legal challenges (e.g., from residents via mandamus to compel appointments).
    Recommendations
  • To Resolve: The City Council could propose a charter amendment to voters to remove or update the library trustee sections, aligning the charter with current reality. This would require a ballot measure (simple majority approval) and could be framed as housekeeping to reflect the 1976 changes.
  • Potential Defenses if Challenged: The city might argue the trustee provision is inoperative (moot) since there’s no city-managed library to oversee, or that the council’s broad charter authority allows de facto suspension. However, this is weak without amendment, as charters use mandatory language to prevent such circumvention.
  • Further Verification: For definitive confirmation, review the full charter text (available via the City Clerk’s office or American Legal Publishing’s codification) or consult a municipal attorney. If you’re a resident (noting your location in Visalia), you could file a public records request under the California Public Records Act for details on the 1976 agreement and any internal memos on trustee compliance.
    If you provide more specifics from the charter (e.g., exact wording) or the joint agreement, I can refine this analysis.

I added this to the prompt, from the Charter:

Article XI
City Library
Section 1. Library Trustees: The Board of Library Trustees shall each serve for a
term of four years and until his successor is appointed and qualified; provided,
that at the first appointment under this Charter, two trustees shall be appointed for two years, and three trustees for four years and until their successors are
appointed and qualified. In case of a vacancy, the same shall be filled by appointment by the Council for the remainder of the term then vacant.
Section 2. The Board of Library Trustees shall have the power and duty to:
(a) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and the City Manager in all matters
pertaining to library administration;
(b) Formulate and recommend annually to the Council and the City Manager a
budget for library services;
(c) Act in an advisory capacity to the Council and the City Manager regarding

Grok: Yes, reviewing the provided text from Article XI, Section 1 and the start of Section 2 of Visalia’s City Charter does not change my previous conclusion. It actually reinforces that this situation constitutes a violation of the charter.
Why It Remains a Violation
The sections you quoted use clear, mandatory language that imposes ongoing obligations on the city:

  • Section 1 states: “The Board of Library Trustees shall each serve for a term of four years and until his successor is appointed and qualified…” It details staggered initial terms, vacancy filling “by appointment by the Council,” and implies continuous existence with regular appointments to maintain the board (five trustees total, based on cross-references in the charter to officers including “five Library Trustees”).
  • Section 2 assigns specific “power and duty” to the board, including acting in an “advisory capacity” to the City Council and City Manager on library administration, formulating and recommending an annual budget for library services, and (as the text cuts off) likely additional advisory roles regarding library matters.
    This language is not optional or conditional—it requires the board’s ongoing existence, with appointments by the City Council to fill terms and vacancies as they arise. The charter does not include any sunset clause, contingency for joint operations, or provision allowing the council to suspend, dissolve, or ignore the board without amendment. Since no appointments have occurred since the 1976 reorganization (nearly 50 years), and no successors have been appointed as terms expired, the city is not complying with the “shall” directives for appointments, term continuity, and board functioning.
    Context from the Joint Arrangement
    The 1976 construction of the joint Tulare County/Visalia City Library building (now the Visalia Branch of the Tulare County Library system) shifted practical operations to the county. This was enabled by state law allowing cities to contract for or join county library services (e.g., California Education Code sections on county free libraries and joint facilities). The arrangement is legal and has functioned effectively since then, with the county handling governance via its Board of Supervisors and county librarian.
    However, the charter’s library-specific provisions predate this (from the 1923 charter adoption, with no amendments apparent to remove or alter Article XI). The joint setup does not automatically nullify charter mandates—California courts and legal principles hold that charter provisions control “municipal affairs” unless amended by voters. Advisory boards like this cannot be unilaterally discontinued by council inaction or contract; doing so bypasses the charter’s requirements.
  • Additional Supporting Details
  • The charter’s cross-references (e.g., in Article VI on council powers) explicitly include appointing “five Library Trustees” as a duty.
  • No public records, agendas, or reports indicate recent appointments, active board meetings, or any formal dissolution/transfer of the board’s role.
  • In practice, this appears to be a long-standing, unenforced provision—common in older charters where structures become obsolete—but strict compliance requires either adherence or amendment.
  • No evidence of challenges (e.g., lawsuits or grand jury findings) forcing appointments exists in available sources, so it’s likely treated as dormant. But if enforced (e.g., via taxpayer suit or writ of mandate), the city would need to show compliance or amend the charter.
    Path to Resolution (Unchanged)
    The cleanest fix remains a voter-approved charter amendment to repeal or revise Article XI, reflecting the current joint county-operated reality (e.g., eliminating the board or making it optional/advisory to the county system). This is a standard “housekeeping” measure many charter cities undertake periodically.
  • If you have the full text of Section 2 (it cuts off at “regarding”) or other articles referencing the library/board, that could provide more nuance—but based on what’s here and the charter’s structure, the non-appointment and non-functioning board directly contravenes the mandatory requirements. For official interpretation, the City Attorney’s office or a municipal law expert would be the best next step.

Now, I’m still on the fence about AI on anything I don’t already know the facts about. However, this looks like it might be factual.

So, the question –

Do I start digging with the City, opening this can of worms, and see about getting the charter updated? After 50 years, it’s probably time.