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.
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.
The Internet meme definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. I’m beginning to think it might be slightly insane to expect Porterville to ever join the rest of us in the 21st century. Here we go, again.
My previous blogs about Porterville and it’s LGBTQ+ community can be found at these links:
Hate In A Small Town (1) – where a Mayoral Proclamation proclaiming June 2013 as LGBT Month in Porterville is trashed by the rest of the Council and results in the Mayor and Vice-Mayor being removed from their ceremonial offices, the proclamation rescinded (a first anywhere, as far as I could find), and a bland replacement proclamation designating June 2013 as “a month of community charity and goodwill to all in Porterville”. They also changed the rules so that a vote of the Council would be required to issue a proclamation, rather than leave it as a function of the Mayor alone.
Hate In A Small Town 2 – Does Your God Hate? – One the one year anniversary of the Pride Proclamation, the LGBTQ+ community held a rally across from City Hall. Some haters joined in proclaiming the hate of God towards gay folk.
Fast forward to 2019, and a different City Council.
We thought Porterville was finally growing and becoming a loving place. On May 21, 2019, a proclamation was issued by the City Council (a different council than the first mentioned above, and different from the current one), recognizing Harvey Milk Day In Porterville. On Tuesday, October 15, 2019, by a three to two vote, Porterville’s City Council declared October 11, 2019 as National Coming Out Day in the city. Things were looking up.
We should have known better.
Hate In A Small Town 4 –
The current city council of Porterville, California (ironically enough, an “All American City”).
Mayor Greg MeisterVice Mayor Ed McKerveyRaymond BeltranStan GreenAJ Rivas
The Mayor and Vice-Mayor have teamed up to introduce anti-trans resolutions in Porterville. One would ban trans women and girls from bathrooms, locker rooms, and team sports. The other would require schools in the city to report to parents any requests by students to use names, pronouns, restroom facilities, or play on team sports that do not match their birth sex. (This would violate California state law, but that doesn’t seem to faze this council. They know about it, but are trying to find a way around that messy problem.)
From the March 4 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.
From the March 18 agenda:
21: Consideration of Proposed Establishment of Ordinance Safeguarding Parental Rights in Education and Child Upbringing
Re: Council to provide direction on the proposed establishment of an Ordinance
If you want to find these documents online, go to this page, and select the appropriate date.
A lot of people spoke during “oral communications” (they really need to change that name. ‘Public Comments’ seems much more appropriate). You can see the You Tube video here, but the whole show is almost six hours long! (they love to talk, and talk, and talk. It’s important that they express how MAGA they are) Most comments by the public were against the proposed actions.
Dr. Kathryn Hall, M.D., a long-time pediatrician in the area, who has treated many from Porterville over the years, spoke.
I said a few words, too.
The MAGA runs deep in this council. The Mayor and Vice-Mayor, at least in the two meetings I attended, tried very diligently to out-MAGA each other. Go watch some of their meeting video, if you have the stomach for it.
The Vice-Mayor doesn’t like being challenged on his ignorance. He takes it personally. He views folks who oppose these hate proposals as “triggered activists”. And after I spoke, he amended it to “triggered activists, from out of town”. He said he would not “participate in their psychosis”, referring to anyone who believes differently from him. The Vice-Mayor spoke disparagingly of the local LGBT+ center, essentially blaming it for gains made by the LGBT+ community in Tulare County. He was annoyed that anyone would speak confrontationally, and not grovel or kiss his ring. He condemned speakers for (paraphrasing, I’m not going back and try to find the exact words he used) yelling at them, rather than having a ‘conversation’. He seemed to forget that during ‘oral communications’, the public can only speak, and the council can only listen. There is no ‘conversation’ allowed by the Brown Act. He chastised speakers for being condescending towards the council, when most of his remarks on the issue were truly condescending of the public. I tell ‘ya, it’s all projection with these guys.
I did invite the council to contact The Source LGBT+ Center, and educate themselves with factual information on transgender issues. I’m not holding my breath on that.
Hate in a small town. It hasn’t been rooted out yet. It’s discouraging, but like I said during my comments, “we’re here, we’re queer, and we’re not going away”.
It’s like déjà vu all over again. Porterville’s current Mayor, Greg Meister, has proposed a new city ordinance, which he is calling “Protect Women’s Safe Spaces”. In it, he wants to bar “biological men” from using women’s facilities, locker rooms, or playing in women’s sports. Meister is quoted in the Porterville Recorder saying the ordinance is “really drawing some lines for sure”.
In 2008, Porterville became the only city in California to adopt a formal position on Proposition 8, which would have inserted into the state Constitution limits that would only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman (it passed, but was later rendered moot as SCOTUS made marriage equality the law of the land with Obergefell v. Hodges)(In 2024, California voters removed the language of Prop 8 from the state Constitution with Prop 3). The city council voted to urge Porterville voters to support Prop 8.
In 2013, then Mayor Virginia Gurrola issued a proclamation recognizing June as LGBT Pride Month in Porterville. All hell broke loose. In a fiasco-ridden panic to rescind the Mayor’s Proclamation (a proclamation she was entirely authorized to issue), it took three months for the other council members to get their act together and not only rescind the proclamation, but to remove the Mayor and Vice-Mayor from their ceremonial positions.
In 2014, then Mayor Cameron Hamilton became the right-wing echo chamber’s darling for his infamous “grow a pair” remarks, when a student-led anti-bullying program called “Safe Zones” was brought before the Council for support, by councilmember Virginia Gurrola. The conservative majority on the council wasn’t having anything to do with what they thought was a LGBT positive proposal. They shot it down, and Mayor Hamilton earned his 15 minutes of fame on Fox by uttering his now-infamous line.
In 2019, glimmers of hope were seen in Porterville, as then Mayor Martha Flores issued a proclamation recognizing May 22, 2019, as Harvey Milk Day. It was signed by the Mayor, and council members Milt Stowe, Monte Reyes, and Daniel Penaloza. Vice Mayor Brian Ward (author and instigator of many previous anti-LGBTQ actions by the Porterville City Council) did not sign the proclamation. (He was out of town at the time, but rest assured he would not have signed it regardless, in my opinion)
Also in 2019, on October 15, (a few days late due to scheduling issues) Porterville City Council recognized October 11 as National Coming Out Day. That proclamation was signed by Mayor Martha Flores, Vice Mayor Monte Reyes, council members Virginia Gurroloa, Milt Stowe, and Daniel Penaloza. Mayor Flores did throw some cold water on the festivities, however, when she, in an attempt, I assume, to sound inclusive, mentioned that she had “it” in her own family, referring to homosexuality.
We thought Porterville had turned a corner. We should have known better.
In 2021, more animus towards the LGBTQ community was on display when the city council decided that it needed to regulate billboards in the city, after The Source LGBT+ Center put up a couple of advertisements for STI testing.
Fast forward to 2025, and with a new administration in power in Washington, D.C., Porterville has decided it hasn’t been demonstrating it’s LGBTQ animus strongly enough recently. The Mayor, therefore, has decided to jump on the ‘transgender women are the devil’ bandwagon. Even though it very likely violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Meister wants the city staff and attorney to bring an ordinance before the council that would ban “biological men” from “women’s spaces”.
Here’s an email I sent to Mayor Meister and the other members of the city council:
Greg Meister, Porterville Mayor, and members of the City Council:
If the anti-trans bathroom ordinance proposed by Mayor Meister passes, and should the person pictured below have reason to visit your city, do you REALLY want him to walk into the women’s restroom?
Meet Luke Ireland, U.S. Air Force. Both of these pictures are from the Air Force Times, the first from about a decade ago, the other from about three years ago.
He is a trans man, and your proposal would require him to use the women’s facilities in Porterville. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem. There are no verifiable arrests or convictions of a trans-woman sexually assaulting a cis-woman or girl in a bathroom or locker room. It’s just not a thing, but you seem determined to embarrass Porterville by adding to its already notorious reputation as anti-LGBTQ. I thought Porterville was making progress, but we’ll see if and when this comes up for a vote if that progress is real, or just fantasy.
I want you to consider the following scenario:
A man decides to follow a woman (or a young girl) into a restroom in order to sexually assault her. He does not want to attract attention, so what does he do? Just walk in? Risky. He stands out dressed like a man. Maybe someone sees him following his target into the restroom. As the ordinances stand now, if he wants to get in without attracting attention, he’ll need to get into some kind of women’s wear.
Under your proposed ordinance, it will be common to see people who look like men walking into the women’s restroom, because you’ve required trans-men to use them. Our bad guy can now just walk right in, and if anyone challenges him, he can claim to be a trans-man, who you required to use this restroom. Nobody will know the difference, unless you’re going to post genital inspectors at the door.
Knock off the anti-trans discrimination and hate, Mr. Mayor. It’s a bad look for you, and sets Porterville back a decade.
On 2/4/205, Chief Operating Officer, Air Traffic Organization, Timothy L. Arel of the FAA sent out the following order:
Screenshot
The Orange Idiot’s administration has decided that “Notice To Air Missions” was too inclusive and equitable for it’s administration, so it ordered the change back to “Notice To Airmen”.
Here’s the email I sent to Michael R. Beckles, Director of Policy at the FAA:
Mr. Beckles, I am disappointed that the deliberate divisions being sown by the new Administration have been allowed to reach into the FAA. To change “Notice To Air Missions” back to “Notice To Airmen” is a sad reflection of misogyny and disrespect being allowed to infiltrate FAA. I assume, of course, that you are aware that women are pilots, and have been for as long as flying machines have existed. I would have included the current occupant of the office of President in that statement, but with him I’m not sure of much of anything. While I’m aware that the President appoints the Director and Deputy Director, I have long believed the FAA was an independent agency, not manipulatable by the day-to-day political winds that blow through Washington, D.C. I was apparently incorrect in that belief. As I said, disappointing.
I suspect the powers-that-be won’t be impressed by my email, but at least it will be logged somewhere. Maybe some historian decades from now will run across it, and wonder.
The Orange Idiot and his minions continue their attacks on everything decent and good in our country. It’s almost like a Russian dictator was pulling strings, and reviewing videos.
On September 8, I wrote about the City of Visalia and it’s Charter. I noticed in one section it said (Deleted November 4, 1974). No mention of what that section was, or why it was “deleted”.
Under Article XVI, Section 21 said simply “(Deleted November 4, 1974)”
Well, I needed to know what that was all about.
I cogitated about it for a while. A mystery that kept bugging me, begging to be solved. Last Monday I decided to track down the truth, if possible. Looking online hadn’t turned up the missing section, and it had been 50 years since the change was made. The local newspaper doesn’t have online access for historical stuff, and while I had the date of the vote taken to approve changes to the Charter, I didn’t know when the City Council had acted to put the measure on the ballot. That could have been almost any time in 1974, to have time to get it on the mid-term election ballot in November. I really didn’t want to sit in front of the micro-fiche reader at the library, scrolling through the newspapers for every day that year! (Are micro-fiche readers and their films still a thing?)
The hunt had to be done the old-fashioned way – sleuthing in person.
I headed down to the library to see if they had a copy of the original charter, but they were closed for Indigenous People’s Day (It might be called something else, too, but never mind that…)
Next stop – The City Clerk’s office. I was surprised to find the offices open, since it was that holiday. I also expected it might take a while to find that for which I was looking. I was afraid that the relevant documents would be in that warehouse where the US Government stuck the Ark of the Covenant, as seen in one of the Indiana Jones’ movies, or in Warehouse 13. The City Clerk thought it might take some digging, too. The Assistant City Manager came by as we were discussing the Charter, and since he’s new to the city as well, he didn’t know anything about the change. The Clerk took my info, and told me she would research it. I expected I might hear something back in a week or so, if I was lucky. Surprise, surprise, they found and emailed me the original text before I even got home! Talk about service!
The original Charter contained the following:
Article XVI. Miscellaneous Provisions:
Section 21.
Neither the City Manager nor any person in the employ of the City shall take any active part in securing, or shall contribute money toward the nomination or election of any candidate for a municipal office.
Seems in 1974 the City decided to do a bit of tweaking to the Charter, and since the only way it can be changed is a vote of the people, it was on the ballot in November 1974. The above section was deleted. (I’m assuming it was due to infringing on people’s rights to support the candidate of their choice, even though they were city employees.) Some other wording was added, looks like to clarify some minor things that had changed in the previous 50 years.
It’s been 50 years since that update, and I think it’s time to do another refresh.
I noticed references to the City Manager (and other offices as well) as “he” or “his” throughout the Charter. We don’t have a “he/him” City Manager now, so time to change the masculine pronouns to gender-neutral.
(the fact that changing masculine pronouns in city documents will undoubtedly raise the blood pressure of those who see such things as “woke liberalism” is a bonus in my book!)
Thank you to the new City Clerk, Jennifer Gomez, for digging this up for me!
Mystery solved!
(even if it was a bit anti-climatic. I was hoping for some good, scandalous dirt! oh well…)
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: