On November 9, 2025, I posted about my attempts to obtain a video recording of the joint Visalia City Council / Visalia Unified School District meeting of October 23, 2025. In that post, I included the school district’s response, which was “After conducting a reasonable search, the District determines that it has no public records that are subject to disclosure under the PRA and responsive to the request. Accordingly, no records will be produced.”
I thought that was a strange way to put it.
I’ve decided to pursue the matter further, since it’s not clear to me if the District means there is no recording at all, or that there is but is not “subject to disclosure”.
I sent an email on November 4, 2025, to the Board Chairman and the trustee covering my area regarding clarification. The Chairman sent me a response on November 5, 2025, indicating she would forward it to the appropriate person in the District administration, but I’ve not heard back from anyone about it.
I’ve sent the following request as of December 6, 2025:
Sara Sanchez,
This confirms receipt of your email dated November 4, 2025, regarding my request for a copy of any recording of the October 23, 2025 special meeting between the Visalia Unified School District Board of Trustees and the Visalia City Council.
In that response, you said “…the District determines that it has no public records that are subject to disclosure under the PRA and responsive to the request. Accordingly, no records will be produced.”
Please consider this email another request for information under the California Public Records Act.
Does this mean that there are no video recordings of this meeting created by VUSD, or that video recordings of this meeting made by VUSD do exist, but will not be released?
Looking at the “recent meetings” list on the District’s website, it appears that “special meetings” are not recorded. However, the meeting between the District and the Visalia City Council was held in the Boardroom of the District and utilized the same video equipment as regular Board meetings. Did staff not record this meeting, even though the same video systems were, apparently, used?
If there is a policy of not recording “special meetings”, I would like to receive a copy of that policy, or be directed to its location if online access is available. If there is no specific policy in place, I would like copies of any internal memos, emails, or other directives of any sort that direct staff not to record “special meetings” that occur in the Boardroom.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Jim Reeves
I’ve sent this email so that it should be in the district’s possession start of business, Monday, December 8, 2025. We’ll see what happens.
Paul Flores does a deep dive into the situation regarding Visalia Unified School District and the Visalia City Council’s unrecorded joint meeting on October 23, 2025.
The following is a part of the posted agenda for that meeting:
Members of the public may address the Board on any agenda item when the item comes to the Board for consideration. At regular meetings of the Board, members of the public may also address the Board regarding non-agenda items that are nonetheless within the Board’s jurisdiction during the general public comment portion of the agenda. Pursuant to Board Bylaw 9323, the Board will limit individual comments to no more than 3 minutes and individual topics to 20 minutes.
The District reserves the right to not hear comments, or portions of comments, that violate meeting guidelines.
I was the only member of the public to take advantage of the public comments section of the meeting. In it, I updated the School Board and the City Council on the recent Pride Visalia festival, held on October 11, 2025. During the remarks, I reminded and invited both the City Council members and the Board of Directors for the school district that The Source LGBT+ Center was available to consult with them on LGBTQ+ issues, and provide resources and information they might find useful in both their professional and personal lives.
The Visalia Unified School District takes video and audio recordings of the meetings, and posts them to a YouTube channel for the public to view. No post of this special meeting occurred.
I waited several days for the video to appear, as sometimes delays in posting can occur, sometimes the posters fault, sometimes YouTube’s. No recording of the meeting appeared.
I sent an email to the school district, asking if a recording was made, and when it would be available.
From: Jim Reeves jim.visalia@gmail.com Date: October 28, 2025 at 5:32:34 PM PDT To: cgutierrez04@vusd.org Subject: Board special meeting video
Hi, Does a video recording of the October 23, 2025 joint meeting between the School Board and the Visalia City Council exist? I’ve checked the YouTube channel, and found no video. I’ve noticed in the listing of meetings that special meetings don’t show a video. Is there a video available that I can get a copy of? Or an audio recording? Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jim Reeves Jim.visalia@gmail.com Sent from my iPad
After several days, I received the following response:
“After conducting a reasonable search, the District determines that it has no public records that are subject to disclosure under the PRA and responsive to the request. Accordingly, no records will be produced.”
That’s a strange way to phrase it, at least to us non-lawyers.
I’ve followed up with the following email to the Board President, and the Board member for my area:
President Naylor, Boardmember DeJong,
I attended the Special Meeting of October 23, 2025. On October 28, I emailed a request for a copy of the video, or an audio recording, of the meeting since it had not been posted on YouTube. On November 4, I received the attached email, indicating “that it has no public records that are subject to disclosure under the PRA and responsive to the request”. I have noticed in the listing of prior meetings, that ‘Special Meetings’ often do not have a video recording. Is this a formal policy of the District? If so, can I be directed to that policy? It seems odd that no recording is made of the meeting, despite it being held in the Board room, and utilizing the audio/video equipment there. I would like to understand why the District does not record these meetings, and I hope you can clear this up for me. Mr. DeJong, I’m CCing you on this because I reside in your area.
Jim Reeves jim.visalia@gmail.com
Board President Naylor responded:
Jim, Thank you for your email regarding the recording of the special board session with the city. I have forwarded your email to the district office to look into this matter. Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Joy
We’ll see what the next week brings, and if the District responds further.
My goal now is to find out if a recording was not made of the special meeting, why not? Is there a District policy prohibiting it? If so, I want to see that policy, and when and how it was implemented. If it’s just a “we just don’t do that”, I want to know the reasoning why, and under whose authority.
Recently, (11/1/2025), the Twitter (X) account “Republicans Against Trump” (@RpsAgainstTrump) posted this:
Screenshot
I responded with this:
Screenshot
That resulted in the email shown above. I’ve been ‘shadow banned’ for making a comment about how Owen’s comments are simply more insults hurled at straight men, accusing them of being gay.
Twitter used to be an important and influential platform, back when it was actually Twitter. Elon Musk, after buying it and reworking it’s algorithms, has turned it into nothing more than a cesspool filled with misogynists, incels, racists, bigots, and other actual hate-mongers.
I maintain two Twitter (X) accounts. The original was my regular feed, with a wide range of accounts I followed, from science to LGBT to celebrities to local individuals I wanted to keep up with. A few years ago, I created a second account, where I followed many MAGA and other right-wing sites, Republican electeds, and other such nonsense. I, naively, thought I could keep the cesspool away from my regular feed, and only go on the second account when I wanted to see what they were saying.
Now, with Musk twisting the algorithm to its current insanity, my regular feed is frequently nothing but pushed right-wing crap that I don’t follow or interact with.
It may be time to close my Twitter (X) accounts altogether, and stick with Bluesky and Threads. They are quickly becoming what Twitter used to be.
Fifteen folks got up and spoke during public comments at the Visalia City Council’s regular session. Thirteen of them, in an organized group, chose to berate a sitting council member, Emmanuel Hernandez Soto, for ‘liking’ a Facebook post of mine. Every one of them mischaracterized what my post said. It turns out that, in my opinion, they weren’t really all that upset about what I said, but were instead using it as a vehicle to attack someone they consider as too ‘liberal’. The demands for his resignation made clear their intent was to try and create a vacant seat on the council that could be filled by someone they consider ‘conservative’ enough.
An aside: this year Soto has voted 84.5% of the time with the majority on the council. This from posted minutes on the City’s website as of 9/15/25. He’s hardly the raging liberal they seem to think he is.
Here’s some of the remarks by individual speakers last night:
Stephanie McDonald told us that her four year old asked “why are people happy he was shot and killed?” Since it’s unlikely her four year old is surfing the web and reading Facebook posts, it’s more likely that if he actually said anything like that, it’s because the adults around him were talking about it. And obviously only talking negatively about what other people are saying. Stephanie said my post “endorses cruelty” and “hate”.
Beth Salber (? – she didn’t spell her last name, and that’s the best I could make out) said my post “sympathized with the assassination of Charlie Kirk”, and “expressed support for violence”. She continued, “…vile and reprehensible endorsement of violence and hatred”, and “sympathized with spilling the life’s blood of a fellow citizen”. Beth also said liking my post was sympathy for that darkness”. She let the cat out of the bag, however, when she said Soto should resign so as to “let them replace you”. This was the actual goal, in my opinion, of Monday’s pile-on.
Reagan O’Hara, President of the COS Young Americans for Freedom club, was worked up pretty strongly. He was another one who claimed ‘liking’ my post meant that Soto was one who would “celebrate political violence in America”, and accused him of “supporting such a horrific event”.
Patricia Huizar said “liking a post that sympathizes with the assassination of Charlie Kirk…” a line repeated by several speakers. Looks like coaching before the meeting, to me.
Jordon Gomez of Turning Point commented on “barbarians and barbarian rhetoric like that”.
Shelly Gahagan said Soto’s ‘like’ meant he “sympathizes with the violent act and the murder” of Charlie Kirk. She thinks that’s what my post said, because she continued “post celebrating the murder of another human being”.
Sara Smith, of the Visalia Republican Women Federation said my post, and Soto’s ‘like’, “condone violence”.
Jessica Brumley said the post and the ‘like’ “sympathizes with an act of violence against Charlie Kirk”.
Karen Griffin said “action speak louder than words”. Another phrase repeated by several speakers. (maybe or maybe not coached)
Denise Souza was not happy that several people did not participate in the flag salute. I don’t know about others, but I won’t be taking part in saluting the flag of the Fascist States of America. As long as this regime is in power, my thousands of pledges (that apparently have a daily expiration) that I have spoken over the years (starting in grade school) will have to be sufficient.
So, what do I think is behind this very selective “outrage” at Soto? It looks to me like some political operatives thought they found an issue that they could use to try and oust Soto from the City Council. I think the goal is to get a conservative, probably an older white male Christian, into that seat. All it would take, in their minds, is to mischaracterize my post, then try to gin up outrage at Soto over his ‘like’. I trust this will not work, and will be forgotten as soon as Orange Idiot or one of his minions does something outrageous and on point for their usual shenanigans.
Oh, another interesting point – the Tulare County Republicans must monitor my posts. I thanked them for finding me important enough to keep an eye on, and that I would wave at them from time to time from Facebook and Instagram. (waving furiously)
Here’s the post from the day of Kirk’s murder (murder, not assassination), see if you agree or disagree with Monday’s speakers:
September 10, 2025 2:00 PM Pacific Time
I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy to spare for one particular victim out of the hundreds that will be injured by guns today in the United States. Many of them will die from their wounds. Most are innocent of any crime, and are victims of the easy availability of guns in this country.
Charlie Kirk may die because of the hate he fed our country. He has consistently attacked various communities, spreading lies and hatred. It’s not surprising to me that someone finally broke, and fought back.
Violence is only acceptable to me in immediate self-defense, but that’s never really been what this society has taught its members. The easy availability and glorification of guns has turned what in the past would have been fistfights into shootings.
Whether Kirk lives or dies, he’s now a martyr for the christo-fascists and Christian nationalists. They won’t take the lesson that hate breeds violence, they’ll go after the same minority groups they always have, but with more fervor than ever before.
In the next hours, claims will rocket around the internet that the shooter was gay, or transgender, or an illegal alien, or an atheist, or an Islamic terrorist, or…
Now we wait. Will Kirk live or die? Will the shooter be caught? What were their motivations? How did they acquire the weapon?
The only ones I really feel sorry for are his children. They don’t understand why this happened to their daddy. They don’t deserve this pain.
Orange Idiot (AKA Donald J. Trump, 47th President of the United States) has sold the Presidency of the United States to the Arab state of Qatar.
Qatar, and by extension most of the rest of the Arab world, just bought the US government for the cost of a 747 they already had. What a deal!
These planes are not something you run down to the Boeing dealership at pick up on a whim. They take years to build the plane itself, then another period of time to customize the interior (Boeing doesn’t do palaces, that’s a customizer business. Kinda like buying an empty cargo van and turning it into a luxury camper). So this means they already had this plane sitting around, ferrying various princes and maybe a king here and there. They’re not putting out anything extra to gain major shareholder status in POTUS.
They were probably thinking there had been enough orgies in that plane, and it was time to get something fresh anyway, so “gifting” it to the United States Department of Defense to be used as a temporary Air Force One wasn’t a big hit on their bank accounts.
Orange Idiot, however, sees only the gold veneer and luxury accoutrements, and that fits his self-image of King of America. He’s like a greedy, selfish kid who just got exactly what he wanted for Christmas. The security risks are not even on his radar.
MAGA is screaming that it’s a gift to the entire US, and since it will be under the “ownership” of DOD, and after Orange Idiot leaves office it will go to his “museum”, that makes it OK. Those of us who have read the United States Constitution and have even a basic understanding of it’s words, know it’s completely unconstitutional for Orange Idiot to accept this plane. He’s going to try, anyway. It will take either an act of Congress to prevent it, but that’s unlikely as long as the Republicans maintain control there, or a ruling by the Supreme Court against the deal. We can’t really trust SCOTUS these days, unfortunately. They’ve shown a smidgen of backbone in a couple of rulings against Orange Idiot, but we can’t count on that, sadly.
So, the price of the Office of the President of the United States of America is a used 747 with a garish luxury interior. One they already had parked at the airport in Qatar.
As of March 20, 2025, the Visalia Police Department has switched from open transmission, receivable on any scanner, and on many types of consumer 2-way radios such as Amateur Radio Service equipment, GMRS, FRS, and phone apps, to fully encrypted transmissions. This prevents the general public from monitoring police transmissions.
This is in response to a 2020 California Department Of Justice requirement that certain “personally identifiable information (PII)” be encrypted. Here’s what Google’s AI said about it:
DOJ Mandate: In October 2020, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) notified law enforcement agencies that they must encrypt any radio communications transmitting confidential Criminal Justice Information (CJI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII).
Alternative Approaches: While encryption is the primary method, the DOJ allows agencies to meet the requirements through alternative policies that restrict the sharing of PII while still allowing the transmission of other information through open frequencies.
Examples of Alternative Methods: Using MDTs, department cellular phones, or landline telecommunications to transmit and receive PII . Breaking up personal information by transmitting details such as a person’s name, birthday, and address in separate transmissions or even in different channels .
Agencies Opting for Open Radio Communications: Some agencies, like the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and dozens of counties and cities, have opted to continue sharing their radio communications while protecting personal information through alternative methods.
Visalia PD has gone to full-time encryption, and hopes CAD (computer aided dispatch) updates on a webpage, along with press releases, will assuage the public’s displeasure over loosing the ability to monitor the transmissions.
The trouble with those plans is that information will only become available after the event, and will contain no details other than the general area of the event, and a vague incident type category.
Needless to say, many people are not happy. I’m one of them.
I dispatched law enforcement for 25 years at the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office. (BTW, this is my opinion only, not TCSO’s. While they have not gone to full encryption yet, they do have the ability to do so.)
I see no good reason to go to full encryption of all transmissions.
With the ever-growing YouTube proliferation of videos showing the interaction between police and the general public, and with the common theme of highlighting bad interactions rather than good ones, you’d think police departments would be working on improving their public relations, instead of hunkering down and, effectively, saying ‘it’s none of your business except for what we decide to tell you, later’. It give the impression that you’re hiding something. It also makes it easier to actually hide something.
Now, I think quite highly of the Visalia Police Department. I know the Chief, and worked with his wife some years ago when she was also a dispatcher. This decision, however, is very disappointing.
I can, just off the top of my head, think of two alternatives to full-time encryption.
(Almost?) Every police car has a mobile data terminal computer, called various things, but I’m most familiar with MDT. PII can be transmitted there. Most MDTs these days use a cellular phone data connection, and are both encrypted and next to impossible to monitor. (no FCC type-accepted equipment can be sold or used in the US that can receive cell phone frequencies.) Use the MDT for PII.
Visalia PD has two primary channels. Channel one is the main dispatch channel, and could be broadcast in the clear for non-PII information. Channel two could be fully encrypted at all times, and officers could switch to that channel for confidential information. The radios can be programmed with each channel either encrypted or not, so the officer has only to change channels. No other action on their part is required. The Tulare County Sheriff’s Office has used a secondary channel for such information requests for years. It’s easily accomplishable, and does not cut the public out of it’s ability to monitor the police.
Option 2 seems to me to be the most easily accomplished compromise between meeting the requirements of the DOJ and maintaining a positive relationship with the community.
There are also some technical issues with encryption that I would not be surprised VPD is discovering right now. Since open transmissions by VPD in the past have been analog FM, poor signal traffic can often be understood, especially by seasoned dispatchers. Weak signals, broken transmissions, noisy environments all make for difficult to hear or understand messages. An officer on the ground wrestling with a drunk suspect and is calling for help needs the ability to be heard by dispatch. Digital takes some of that away, as it’s all or nothing. A weak signal is not heard at all, and if a signal drops out, it’s simply not there anymore. The dispatcher cannot make out what their radio does not receive.
Police Captain Daniel Ford will be speaking on this subject at the next Visalia Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting, to be held Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at the conference room of the City Offices located at 220 N. Santa Fe, in Visalia. The meeting time is 5:30pm, and it is open to the public. (the city webpage says meetings are held at the Convention Center, but this is outdated information)
Go back to open transmissions, VPD. It’s better for everyone. Especially you.
From Executive Order 14168, issued January 20, 2025:
…
Sec. 2. Policy and Definitions. It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality. Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:
(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”
(b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively.
(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.
”Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the fetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal estrogens and maleness develops.”
Since all mammals are, at conception, female, Orange Idiot’s Executive Order mandates that the United States government declare and recognize all of us as female.
See what happens when you let the back-row students make the rules? Nonsense.
Two items on the Porterville City Council agenda for Tuesday, March 4, 2025 are listed below. At the Mayor’s behest, and with the apparent support of at least the Vice-Mayor, the council will consider two items attacking the LGBTQ community in Porterville. The city council has a long history of hate directed at it’s LGBTQ community.
On the consent agenda:
17. Request for Proclamation – Women’s Rights Re: Considering approval of a request to proclaim Women’s Rights in the City of Porterville
On the Scheduled Matters agenda:
24. Consideration of Proposed Establishment of Ordinance to Protect Women’s Safe Spaces Re: Council direction on the proposed establishment of an Ordinance to Protect Women’s Safe Spaces
These are the first two steps in an attempt by the mayor to impose an ordinance prohibiting trans women from using women’s toilets or locker rooms, and ban them from women’s sports. Despite there being no credible examples, arrests, or convictions of trans women sexually assaulting cis women in those spaces, and that this ordinance will put the city in violation of California law, Meister has decided this is a solution he can get behind.
The head of the NCAA testified before Congress recently that in the 510,000 athletes in the association, he knew of fewer than ten who were transgender. A check of the sporting records does not show a takeover of top spots by trans women. They seem to fall in a random scale among women taking medals or setting records. There is no evidence of an ‘unfair advantage’ for trans women in any sport.
Safe access to public restrooms is an essential need for participation in civic life, in the workplace, in educational settings, and other public spaces. This is no different for transgender people. However, access to public restrooms according to gender identity has sparked controversy to the extent that transgender people face embarrassment and even expulsion from these spaces. The lack of access of the transgender population to public restrooms has a negative impact on the physical and mental health of this population. Thus, this article aims to address the main consequences that the ban on the use of bathrooms has for the transgender population, specifically the access of transgender women to the women’s restroom. We covered some legal aspects of “bathroom laws” and the main arguments in this discussion. We understand that the prohibition of access to the restroom constitutes a form of gender violence and discrimination, as we conclude that the arguments that express concerns about safety are not supported.
Now, I know research and facts will not sway right-wing nut jobs (not that I’m accusing the Mayor of being one, but if the shoe fits…), but the council should know that the larger LGBTQ community and our allies will not stand quietly by while they attack the trans community with lies and hatred. We will be heard and seen.
A public protest will occur before the City Council meeting, at 4:30pm, across from City Hall. The address of City Hall is 291 N. Main Street. Regular council meeting starts at 6:30 pm. Because of the way Porterville handles it’s council meetings, it could be late in the evening before the matter is handled, and public comments are heard.
I asked ChatGPT for an image of Elon Musk, reading emails, with a confused look on his face. It wouldn’t create one, telling me that was a violation of it’s community guidelines. I suspect you can’t use a real person’s image as the basis for a hack job, I mean a creative interpretation. Oh well. This teenaged DOGE simulation will work almost as well.
So last week, Musk sent out that now notorious email to every federal employee, where he ordered them to respond by Friday, listing five things they did last week. He then Tweeted that if they didn’t respond by the deadline, he would take that as their resignation.
Somebody really needs to explain how the government works, because he doesn’t have a clue.
Anyway, I’m on Social Security, after paying into the program since 1974, so I better respond, right? Here’s my letter to Elon:
Here are the 5 bullet items I did last week, Elon. (As a Social Security recipient, I figure you’d want my response, too.) 1. I attended a City Council meeting. Two of them. The work session, and the regular session. 2. I attended a local sales tax oversight committee meeting. 3. I mowed my lawn 4. I took my husband to dinner several times during the week 5. I fed, watered, and emptied our dogs. (Thanks, David Gerrold, for the “empty the dogs” line! I love it! Sorry, I digress.)
Random thoughts, occasional rants, illuminating commentary, and an odd story now and then from the world of 9-1-1 dispatching. All this and more from a gay liberal atheist living in California’s Bible belt. I recently married, so MAGA beware! I’m your worst nightmare! Some names have been omitted to protect the innocent, but the guilty will be hung out to dry!
JimmieJoe / KC6YRU 
Visalia Unified School District/Visalia City Council meeting not recorded? Follow up –
November 9, 2025
Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal Brown act, city council, education, News, visalia, Visalia Unified School District, Visalia Unified School District Visalia City Council joint meeting, VUSD Leave a comment
Paul Flores does a deep dive into the situation regarding Visalia Unified School District and the Visalia City Council’s unrecorded joint meeting on October 23, 2025.
Share this: