Steven G. “Slade” Childers (Left-circa 1972 – Right-2025)
Wait, no… that’s not right. Steven sued Dallas. The Dallas Police Department.
Why?
Because they didn’t want a homosexual working for them. Really.
Later court and legislative battles are often remembered, like Lawrence V. Texas, California Propositions 22 and 8, and the Supreme Court of the United States case Obergefell V. Hodges. But in 1981, Childers V. Dallas was an early opening salvo in the battle for equality.
It was the 1970’s. Stonewall was just a few years earlier, in June of 1969. The Dallas LGBT community held their first Pride Parade in 1972, and Steven G. “Slade” Childers was there. He was 21 years old at the time, and working for the City of Dallas, Texas, in the city water department.
It had become clear to Slade that he was not being promoted in his current position, so when he saw a job opening listed for “storekeeper seven” with the city, he applied. The listing did not specify it was with the Police Department, so at this time, it could be assumed it was a position with the city administration. Slade took the placement test, making the highest score. He was put on the list for interviews, and was called by the Police Department for a job in their evidence storeroom. He was not hired, and not informed why.
The next year, he applied again, and again scored highest on the written test. He was called in by the Police Department for the same position as before. During this interview, he asked the person conducting the interview, the same person who had interviewed him before, why he hadn’t been hired?
Although it probably didn’t seem like it at the time, the proverbial feces hit the oscillating air mover.
My request for information regarding the purchase and “upfit” of 14 new Dodge Durango Police SUVs landed in the Visalia City Clerk’s email Monday, 1/12/2026, and the response landed in my email Tuesday, 1/13/2026, shortly after 5pm. Talk about quick service!
If you’d like to follow me down this particular rabbit hole, click on ‘more’ below, and you’ll see the pages of information about the Durangos, and the “upfit” equipment to be installed in each.
If you don’t want to fall down that hole, then I’ll just say that it takes a lot of equipment to outfit a modern police vehicle, and while I think $33,000 each is making someone a lot of money, I doubt this is a case of “we can get it cheaper somewhere else”.
Thank you to the City Clerk for the rapid response to my request.
I’m still trying to find out why “special meetings” held in the Visalia Unified School District’s Boardroom are not recorded and posted to YouTube, as are their regular meetings. (“Special meetings” held elsewhere I don’t expect to see video recorded, simply due to the equipment not being available at remote locations. That doesn’t apply to the Board room, since the equipment is all right there.)
Here’s my latest email to the District:
1/11/2026 Sara Sanchez, Legal Coordinator, Human Resources Development Visalia Unified School District
Dear Sara Sanchez,
This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.).
Background: On December 18, 2025, you responded to my prior correspondence regarding: Request No. 1 A copy of the District’s “policy of not recording ‘special meetings'”. You responded: “After conducting a reasonable search, the District determines that it has no records that are subject to disclosure under the PRA and responsive to the request. Accordingly, no records will be produced.” Request No. 2 “This request seeks 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.”” You responded: “Pursuant to Government Code section 7922.600, the District seeks clarification regarding your request in order to have a focused and effective request that reasonably describes identifiable records. The clarification will help us narrow the search in our email and other records systems and retrieve a more manageable number of communications that can be reviewed by District staff. In particular, please specify the date range of the “internal memos, emails, or other directives of any sort that direct staff not to record ‘special meetings’ that occur in the Boardroom.” Additionally, please identify the names or titles of District personnel regarding whom you are seeking the requested correspondence.”
To limit unnecessary records searches, I believe that the District employee responsible for recording Board of Trustee meetings held in the Boardroom of the Visalia Unified School District, or their supervisor(s), are the most likely sources of the information requested. Those job titles may include senior administrative assistant, technological services; senior information technology technician; information technology technician; and/or information technology assistant.
Please provide copies of any memos, emails, or other directions to District employees responsible for recording and posting the regular Board meetings that direct them to not record or post ‘special meetings’ held in the Board Chambers. Since Board meetings are posted to the District’s YouTube channel as of 1/25/2022, please limit the search to 1/1/2021 through the present date.
If any portion of these records is deemed exempt from disclosure, I request that you redact only those portions and provide the remainder of the records, citing the specific legal justification for each redaction as required by the CPRA.
Please inform me in advance of any fees associated with compiling or copying these records. If the estimated costs exceed $20, please contact me for approval before proceeding.
As provided by the CPRA, I look forward to your response within 10 calendar days regarding the availability of these records.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely, Jim J. Reeves, Jr. jim.visalia@gmail.com
They’ll get the email Monday morning. We’ll see what happens. Cross your fingers.
Perusing the Visalia City Council agenda can be tedious, at times. Monotonous, filled with, frankly, less than enlightening information. Generally, there’s not much to grab your attention, as it’s the nuts and bolts of running a city. I often refer to it as “the sausage making” of city government. Sometimes, though…
Last November, I noticed consent calendar entries for new police cars (SUVs, actually. Seems nobody is producing sedans for police work anymore). Included in the agenda packet information was an approval request for:
“Award a Contract for 14 New Police Patrol Vehicles – Request authorization to award a purchase contract for fourteen (14) fully marked Police patrol units with National Auto Fleet Group located in Watsonville, CA, in the amount of $1,281,193 for 2026 Dodge Durango’s, appropriate $14,130 from General Fund, $106,395 from Measure T, and $122,674 from the Replacement Fund for total appropriations of $243,200.”
Each Durango had a purchase price of $57,193.47, with an equipment “upfit” of $33,895.03 each.
Now, we can ponder about a $1.3 million purchase being included in a “consent calendar” item, relegating it to the shadows and holding no public discussion on the expense. (You should see some of the “consent calendar” items and the associated dollar amounts that float through the Tulare County Board of Supervisors meetings. Yikes. And some retro-active, at that! – but that’s maybe for a different discussion.)
I’m a bit torn between the idea of not bogging down meetings with endless procedure, and I also firmly believe in hiring good people, setting their parameters and goals, and then getting out of their way and let them do their jobs, but… that’s a lot of money for important city assets.
Here’s my public records request to the City of Visalia (sent late on a Friday, so no action until next week at the earliest):
To: City of Visalia City Clerk cityclerk@visalia.city 01/09/2026
Dear City Clerk,
This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.).
I request that the following records be made available for public inspection and/or that copies be provided:
On 11/17/2025, the Visalia City Council passed consent item #8, “Award a Contract for 14 New Police Patrol Vehicles”. The agenda packet includes quotes from National Auto Fleet Group for 14 new Dodge Durango Pursuit AWD vehicles, at $57,193.47 per vehicle. Also included in the quote are twelve “upfit” specifications, at $33,895.03 per vehicle. These vehicles are listed as available under Sourcewell Contract 091521-NAF.
I would like documentation on the “stock” equipment level of the vehicles being purchased. This would be satisfied by the information included in the “Monroney” sticker attached to new vehicles. I would also like a detailed listing of the equipment to be installed in the “upfit” of the vehicle prior to delivery to the City of Visalia.
If any portion of these records is deemed exempt from disclosure, I request that you redact only those portions and provide the remainder of the records, citing the specific legal justification for each redaction as required by the CPRA.
Please inform me in advance of any fees associated with compiling or copying these records. If the estimated costs exceed $20, please contact me for approval before proceeding.
As provided by the CPRA, I look forward to your response within 10 calendar days regarding the availability of these records.
The Visalia Unified School District responded to my request for information. There were two parts to that response.
Part One:
So, if I’m reading this correctly, there is no policy that says ‘special meetings’ will not be video recorded. That seems odd. If it’s routine to record Board meetings when held in the Boardroom, why aren’t ‘special meetings’ video recorded? Does this mean some manager told staff to not record the meetings? On what basis was that order, if it happened, made? If no such order was made, is the staff member making the decisions themselves? I rather doubt that.
Part Two:
They want the name or title of the District personnel that I’m requestion information about in order to search email or other records. Unfortunately, the District does not list employee positions online. I am unable to determine who might be the person(s) whose records would be appropriate to check for information with an online search.
They also want a date range to search, but how do I determine what time frame would be appropriate, since they do not include all of the past agendas and minutes on their web pages.
I’m currently researching online documents from the District to see if I can figure out just why they don’t record ‘special meetings’, but if I can’t find anything I may have to start making phone calls.
Seems like a lot of work for such a simple request.
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.
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!
Follow Up – Public Records Request – City of Visalia – Dodge Durangos & “upfit”
January 14, 2026
Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal budget, business, News, Public records act, visalia, Visalia City Council, visalia police department, VPD Leave a comment
My request for information regarding the purchase and “upfit” of 14 new Dodge Durango Police SUVs landed in the Visalia City Clerk’s email Monday, 1/12/2026, and the response landed in my email Tuesday, 1/13/2026, shortly after 5pm. Talk about quick service!
If you’d like to follow me down this particular rabbit hole, click on ‘more’ below, and you’ll see the pages of information about the Durangos, and the “upfit” equipment to be installed in each.
If you don’t want to fall down that hole, then I’ll just say that it takes a lot of equipment to outfit a modern police vehicle, and while I think $33,000 each is making someone a lot of money, I doubt this is a case of “we can get it cheaper somewhere else”.
Thank you to the City Clerk for the rapid response to my request.
Images of the vehicle invoices next:
MoreShare this: