Flock you later

Leave a comment

The Flock Automated License Plate Reader saga continues.

As you’ll recall, my first post about it was “What the Flock?“, where I looked at all of the locations where Visalia Police Department (VPD) had installed cameras.

The next post was about a public records request I submitted to VPD concerning the cameras, “Well, Flock me!”

Another blogger, Paul Flores, had the AI system DeepSeek create an interesting look at what I was doing. “More Flock, More Fun

Today, I got a notice from Visalia PD, advising me they were going to extend their deadline by fourteen days, as provided by law.

I didn’t think I was asking for that much, and I really expected to get very little, with them citing confidentiality laws! 😉

The timer is reset. tick tock

Congress is at it again

Leave a comment

I know it’s been going on for a long time, now, but I still find it annoying. Republicans in Congress are attacking transgender children, again, and trying to hide it in a misleading bill title.

H.R. 2616 is the “Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act or the PROTECT Kids Act”. It of course does exactly the opposite of that.

From the Congress.gov website:

This bill requires public elementary and middle schools, as a condition of receiving certain federal funds for elementary and secondary education, to obtain parental consent before changing a student’s gender on school forms or changing a student’s sex-based accommodations.

Specifically, an elementary school or a school consisting of only grades 5-8 must obtain parental consent before changing a minor student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

A BILL

To require public elementary and middle schools that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to obtain parental consent before changing a minor’s gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their Kids Act ” or the “PROTECT Kids Act”.

SEC. 2. Parental consent requirement related to gender markers, pronouns, and preferred names on school forms and sex-based accommodations.

(a) Requirement.—As a condition of receiving funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), a public school that receives funds under such Act shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s—

(1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or

(2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

(b) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) COVERED STUDENT.—The term “covered student” means a minor who is—

(A) an elementary school student; or

(B) a student in any of the middle grades.

(2) ESEA TERMS.—The terms “elementary school”, “middle grades”, and “parent” have the meanings given such terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

That’s it. That’s the entire bill. The entire intent is to out trans kids, regardless of the student’s wishes. Regardless of the hostility from family or the community. The child’s needs are irrelevant. Only the political points gained by the Republicans matter.

I sent a message to my Congressman, Vince Fong (R) about this bill, urging a NO vote. Here’s his response:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding LGBTQ Americans.  I understand that many people have strong and differing opinions about this issue.  I take all of these views seriously and value the diversity of thought in our district. 

While I am opposed to policies that ignore the fundamental biological differences between men and women and have supported legislation to protect the integrity of Title IX, I believe those in Congress should respect the dignity of all citizens when debating legislation.

Over the last few decades, our political discourse across America has worsened. Instead of having productive negotiations, lawmakers have turned policy debates into uncontrollable arguments, opting instead for whatever gets the most retweets or soundbite coverage on network news. 

For too long, we have denied one another the chance to be seen not as a member of a particular political party, but as men and women with values, families and loved ones, and experiences that have shaped who we are and what we stand for. We must recommit ourselves to civility and respect one another as human beings no matter where we fall on the political spectrum.

Thank you again for contacting me.  Hearing about what is most important to you and your family helps me represent California’s 20th Congressional District to the best of my ability.  It is a great honor to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Should you have additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact me at my Bakersfield, Clovis, or Washington, D.C. offices.  

If you would like to receive regular updates to learn more about my legislative work on behalf of our neighbors and communities, please sign up for my newsletter below.

Sincerely,

I suspect if I were to have access to a “politi-speak” AI, and asked it to explain to me what he said in this response, it would return “not much”. He’s going to vote in support, I suspect, regardless of how this bill would hurt kids.

I wonder what the price of a Republican soul is these days? It must be an impressive payoff, as so many of them have signed on the dotted line so easily.

Oh, credit where credit is due. Fong’s office responded quicker to my message than any Representative or Senator, or Assemblyman or state Senator has in the past. It only took a couple of days to get a response. That’s unusual.

Well, Flock me!

Leave a comment

Flock ALPR, Visalia, California

Some more License Plate Reader fun. KMPH 26 posted a story about Merced’s Police Department discovering a, shall we say – just to be very understanding of the complexity of computerized systems – a “mis-configuration” of their automated license plate reader system. Although not the Flock ALPR, like Visalia’s, they released a statement on April 23, 2026, saying, in part, the following:

Merced, Calif – In the interest of transparency, the Merced Police Department is addressing recent concerns regarding automated license plate reader (ALPR) data sharing.

Following these reports, the Department conducted a comprehensive internal review of its ALPR system. That review determined that prior system configurations allowed data sharing with certain federal agencies.

Upon identifying this issue, the Department immediately disabled the identified connections and will continue to conduct additional audits to ensure ongoing compliance.

Merced joins Santa Cruz, Oxnard, and Ventura Police Departments to identify (through media reports, not, apparently, through their own oversight) problems with unauthorized access to their databases. Each agency has said they’ve fixed the problems, but one has to wonder how many other instances of unauthorized access have occurred.

I’ve sent the following Public Records Request to the Visalia Police Department:

To: Custodian of Records
Visalia Police Department
303 S Johnson St.
Visalia, CA 93291
(Or via NextRequest Portal)

Date: April 24, 2026

RE: CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST – FLOCK ALPR DATA SHARING AND SPECIFIC PLATE RECORDS

To the Custodian of Records:

Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.) and California Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq., I am requesting the following public records held by the Visalia Police Department (VPD):

System Access & Inter-Agency Sharing Logs: Any and all records, audit logs, or documentation showing access to data compiled by the VPD via the Flock Safety ALPR system by any agency other than the Visalia Police Department. This request includes, but is not limited to:

Lists of “Hot List” hits shared with outside agencies.

Audit trails showing when outside agencies (federal, state, or local) queried the VPD’s Flock database.

Current lists of all agencies with whom the VPD has a data-sharing agreement for ALPR data.

The time frame for this request is from the initial installation/implementation of the Flock system to the present date.

Specific License Plate Records: All records, images, and data points captured by the VPD ALPR system (including fixed cameras and mobile units) that reference or identify the following California license plate: JJRJR.

This request includes time stamps, location data (GPS coordinates or camera IDs), and associated photographs for every instance this plate was recorded from the time of system installation to the present date.

Redactions and Privacy:
If the Department contends that any portion of these records is exempt from disclosure, please provide the non-exempt portions pursuant to Gov. Code § 7922.525. If any portion of the request is denied, please provide a written response citing the specific legal authority for the denial within the ten (10) days required by statute
.

Request for Digital Format:
Please provide these records in electronic format. If the records exist in a searchable database or spreadsheet (such as CSV or Excel), I request they be provided in that native format
.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Jimmie Joe Reeves
Visalia, CA

That license plate request is for my own car, and I’m interested how many times the system has seen me while I’m running around town. From what I understand of their operational rules, they should have no images older than 30 days. We’ll see if I get anything, or get buried with data files.

Hate In A Small Town 5 (Visalia Edition)

1 Comment

Since the Pride Month proclamation fiasco in Porterville, California, in the summer of 2013, I’ve written several blogs on ‘Hate In A Small Town’. You can find them here: Hate In A Small Town (1) 9-18-2014, Hate In A Small Town (2) 6-18-2014, Porterville City Council Still Snubbing LGBTQ Community 9-24-2014, and Hate In A Small Town 4 – It’s Déjà vu all over again 3-19-2025. The first blog was printed in the Weekend Edition of the Visalia Times Delta on September 21-22, 2013. Those blogs all dealt with a nearby city, Porterville, California. My city, Visalia, has been better about LGBTQ issues, for the most part, until this incident. (Not that Visalia has been a gay beacon, by any means. In 2002, the ACLU settled a lawsuit against the Visalia Unified School District, in which the District “agreed to adopt sweeping reforms to address anti-gay harassment, including groundbreaking measures to train staff and students with the goal of preventing harassment before it happens,” *see below for the Consent order)

The picture above started making the rounds on social media on Thursday, February 12, 2026. Here’s the background, as I know it at the time of this publication.

A class picture was taken in an auditorium, with some of the ASB officers wearing white t-shirts with lettering, designed to spell out “Always Legit Class of 2026”. See the image below.

The event was apparently also hosting freshman orientation, with students from feeder middle schools on campus. The current story circulating is that two eighth grade boys were seen holding hands, triggering the students in the above picture to spell out a homophobic slur, and have other students take pictures. It’s not known if the targets of the slur saw it in the moment, but they have certainly seen it on social media since. It’s also not clear where Redwood High School staff and teachers were during this incident, as they appear not to have put a stop to the students posing for the picture.

Students immediately posted to Instagram and other social media sites, and the shit hit the fan. “Going viral” doesn’t do justice to how those posts took off, and how they were received by the community.

Visalia Unified School District began immediate damage control. Click on ‘more’ for the rest of the story.

More

Part 2: Visalia City Charter – is the City following it’s “Constitution”?

Leave a comment

Visalia’s City Charter was adopted in 1923. It was updated in 1974, but only one change is obvious in the text. “Article XVI Miscellaneous Provisions Section 21. (Deleted November 4, 1974)” If anything else was changed, there are no indications in the current Charter. (That was a prohibition on city employees supporting a candidate for municipal office. I suspect that runs afoul of Constitutional rights): 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.)

As I’ve been reading through it, I have some questions. They were originally triggered by the sections dealing with the city library, which we no longer have (it’s now a branch of the Tulare County Library). There are a few other things, too.

Ready to dive in? Click on ‘more’.

More

Visalia’s Charter: Time for a Library Trustee Update?

Leave a comment

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.

More

Change is inevitable – except from vending machines

Leave a comment

Change has come to Visalia. Specifically, on Tulare Avenue. From Demaree east to Cotta, new lane configurations have upset a lot of people.

I put a video up on Facebook and Instagram about these new lane configurations, and it’s garnered over 11 thousand views in just one day. (You can view the YouTube version, here.)

Change doesn’t come easily for some folks. My Facebook post has 55 comments so far in the 24 hours since I posted it. (That’s a lot for a post by me.) Most were not favorable towards the new layout.

Change doesn’t come easily for some folks. Here are some comments made, and my response to some of them.

More

The system works, if you werk it. (Ususally)

Leave a comment

On the left, before. On the right, after.

On Monday, January 26, 2026, I’d finally decided to do something. I’ve been having to try to remember to avoid a ‘pothole’ every time I went through the intersection of Mooney and Visalia Parkway. In the westbound lane, I’d more often than not “thump thump” as I was returning home from Costco or Lowe’s. I kept thinking, “they really need to fix that. Don’t Caltrans people ever drive through this intersection? It’s been like this for months! When are they going to fix it??”

When it became clear that they remained blissfully unaware of this nuisance, I decided I would have to report it myself. So I did.

The repair is not perfect, but it is better than it was.

More

Public Records Request: Visalia Unified School District – update 1/21/2026

Leave a comment

So.

What are we to assume with this response? Here are the previous posts about this situation.

  1. The first post. No recording?
  2. The second post. Requesting a clarification.
  3. The third post. No, we don’t have that, and where do you want us to look?
  4. The fourth post. I get a bit detailed about my request.

They don’t have a specific Board policy to not record “special meetings” when they are held in the Board room at VUSD headquarters. They also don’t have any documentation such as emails or memos, from January 1st, 2021 directing these meetings not be video recorded and posted to YouTube.

So. Again. What are we to assume with this response?

Either the decision was made prior to January 1, 2021, so VUSD is not going to provide any documentation, or someone made a decision and informed relevant staff verbally, and left no documentation. Or, perhaps, my specific job titles and descriptions didn’t cover who made such a decision, and VUSD will not step out of the parameters of the specifics in my latest email to provide a response.

At any rate, the practical effect is that VUSD does not video record and make available to the public “special meetings” of the Board of Trustees, regardless of the ability to do so.

Someone, somewhere, sometime, made this decision.

My next step will be questioning the Board of Trustees directly, during public comments at a Board meeting.

We’ll see if that rattles any cages anywhere, and gets me an actually responsive answer.

Stay tuned.

(In case it’s a bit difficult to read the response letter, here’s the text)

January 21, 2026
Sent Via Email Only: jim.visalia@gmail.com
Jim Reeves
Re: Further Response to Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. Reeves:
This letter serves as the further response of Visalia Unified School District (District) to your
correspondence dated December 6, 2025 (received by the District on December 8, 2025), and
January 11, 2026 (received by the District on January 12, 2026). Your correspondence requests
records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code section 7920.000
et seq.
You have requested a copy of the District’s “policy of not recording ‘special meetings'” and “any
internal memos, emails, or other directives of any sort that direct staff not to record ‘special
meetings’ that occur in the Boardroom.”
The District initially responded to your December 6, 2025, request on December 18, 2025,
advising you there were no documents responsive to your request for a “policy of not recording
special meetings” and seeking clarification on both the date range and identifying staff names
and/or titles for your request for “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 to the District on January 11, 2026, stating that “To limit unnecessary records
searches, I believe that the District employee(s) 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. These 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 have been posted to the District’s YouTube
channel as of 1/25/2022, please limit the search to 1/1/2021 through the present date.”
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.
The District takes seriously its responsibilities as a guardian of the public’s information and
understands its obligation under the PRA to assist you with making a focused and effective
request that would facilitate identification of responsive records. (Government Code §
7922.600.) If we have not correctly interpreted your request and you believe that records
should be disclosed, please explain your position and assist the District in clarifying your request.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Snrck Sara Sanchez
Legal Coordinator
Human Resources Development

January 16, 2025 – January 16, 2026

Leave a comment

What can I say about the last year?

“Wow” just doesn’t seem to convey the import in any truly meaningful way.

Today is our 1st anniversary. You can see the wedding video, here, if you like. It was such a fun ceremony, with lots of laughs. Some intentional, some not.

Here’s another picture of us that I like very much, from a couple of years ago.

It’s been a very important year for me. I’ve learned how to be a husband, something I never thought would be a thing. (Not that I think I’m done learning, hopefully that is an ongoing project!)

In our vows, I wrote Kou “always leads with energy, passion, and maybe just a little bit of silliness”, and that remains true today. His love for me is eclipsed only by mine for him.

I could go on about the attention he pays his family, and now mine. How he cares for our dogs as deeply as he would for children. How he takes his role as an educator so seriously, but also that he brings a joy and energy to his profession so often lacking in today’s world. His students justifiably adore him. I don’t doubt that some of his co-workers don’t really know how to take him! Here’s a hint, folks: emulate him, and you too can be a great educator, and a great person!

In short, he is an amazing person, and I love him very much. Happy Anniversary, Kou! Love you!

Older Entries Newer Entries