A charter city is a municipality where the governing system is defined by its own unique legal document—a city charter—rather than solely by general state, provincial, or national laws. Visalia’s charter was created in 1923, and updated in 1974. We’re due for some critical thinking on the charter, and some updates to reflect today’s world. Much of the charter still works, but much of it also needs amending. I uploaded the Charter to Grok, and asked it to analyze the current document, and suggest things to bring it into the 21st century. Here’s what it came up with. (The current Charter can be found at the end of this blog.)
Analysis of the City of Visalia Charter
The provided Charter of the City of Visalia, adopted in the early 20th century and last amended in 1974 (with Section 21 deleted), establishes a council-manager form of government with broad home rule powers over municipal affairs, as permitted under Article XI of the California Constitution. It is a concise document (around 25 articles) that emphasizes local control, fiscal conservatism, and procedural safeguards, reflecting the era’s priorities like post-Depression financial limits and mid-century urban planning. The charter aligns with California’s framework for charter cities, granting supremacy over “municipal affairs” (e.g., elections, officer compensation, zoning) while subordinating to state law on “statewide concerns” (e.g., housing mandates, labor relations under certain statutes).
Key strengths:
Home Rule Emphasis: It robustly asserts powers over utilities, zoning, franchises, and emergencies, consistent with charter city autonomy.
Fiscal Prudence: Strict limits on taxes (1% property tax cap, specials for libraries/parks), debt (20% of assessed value), and bidding (aligned with state thresholds) promote accountability.
Governance Structure: Council-manager system with appointed officials (e.g., City Manager handles operations) supports professional management.
Public Safeguards: Provisions for initiative/referendum/recall, open meetings, and audits enhance transparency.
Key weaknesses/outdated elements:
Language and Inclusivity: Gendered pronouns (“he,” “his”) assume male officeholders, excluding modern norms of gender neutrality.
Lack of Modern Priorities: No explicit focus on equity, sustainability, technology, or post-2020 innovations like remote governance.
Potential Conflicts with State Law: Some sections (e.g., zoning, elections) predate major reforms like Proposition 13 (1978), SB 9 (2021 on lot splits/duplexes), or redistricting laws (e.g., AB 764, 2024). Courts have increasingly classified housing as a statewide concern, limiting charter city exemptions.
Rigidity: Fixed processes (e.g., 2-hour notice for special meetings) hinder agility; no provisions for term limits, ethics commissions, or diverse representation.
Omissions: Lacks sections on climate resilience, data privacy, or economic development tools common in updated charters.
Overall, the charter functions but feels archaic compared to peers like San Francisco (reformed 1996, ongoing updates) or Oakland (1998 shift to mayor-council). Modern best practices, per the League of California Cities’ Charter City Toolkit and the National Civic League’s Model City Charter (9th Edition, 2021), emphasize flexibility, equity, and performance metrics. California’s 121 charter cities (out of 482 total) often use charters for tailored governance; Visalia could enhance efficiency without losing core principles.
In my previous blog, “Hate In A Small Town 5 (Visalia Edition)“, I talked about the how the community responded to ten Redwood High School seniors taking a picture of themselves in tshirts that spelled out “2FAG6OTS”. It’s caused quite the dust-up in our community, and has become international news.
You can read my previous post about the situation to see what the Visalia Unified School District has done about the situation, but I wanted to highlight a particular response by one of the Visalia Unified School District Board of Trustees, Paul Belt.
In a Facebook post on 2/17/26, Belt says the incident was a “student mistake”. Then in the comments, he blames it all on being part of a “spiritual battle”, rather than young people being raised in an environment that condones such actions. He seems much more bothered by the uproar in the community than he is with the students actions. “Hatred and vitriolic language have no place for young minds to grow and flourish”. Does he think the students should be free to express hatred and vitriolic language, since it’s just a “mistake”.
I wonder if he would think it was a “mistake” if the students had spelled out “SATAN ROCKS”, or something similar. I’m suspecting not, but, hey, you never know, right?
I think we can tell what Mr. Belt thinks about the LGBTQIA+ community, when he says a deliberately committed act of making and posting a derogatory image to social media is a “student mistake”.
Screenshot
The March 10, 2026 School Board meeting promises to be a packed affair. A lot of folks have a lot to say to the Board and the District. I think it will be a long night, unless the Board moves to limit comments.
The regular session begins at 5:30pm, at the Board room of VUSD, 5000 W. Cypress, Visalia.
UPDATE 2/23/2026:
Belt has deleted (or hidden) his posts about the “student mistake” from his Facebook page. Makes one wonder if someone at the Visalia Unified School District yelled at him, sorry…, ‘recommended’ he delete those posts.
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
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.
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.
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.
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’s Charter: Time For A Refresh
March 9, 2026
Jim Reeves commentary, News Charter City, history, News, politics, visalia, Visalia Charter, Visalia Municipal Code Leave a comment
A charter city is a municipality where the governing system is defined by its own unique legal document—a city charter—rather than solely by general state, provincial, or national laws. Visalia’s charter was created in 1923, and updated in 1974. We’re due for some critical thinking on the charter, and some updates to reflect today’s world. Much of the charter still works, but much of it also needs amending. I uploaded the Charter to Grok, and asked it to analyze the current document, and suggest things to bring it into the 21st century. Here’s what it came up with. (The current Charter can be found at the end of this blog.)
Analysis of the City of Visalia Charter
The provided Charter of the City of Visalia, adopted in the early 20th century and last amended in 1974 (with Section 21 deleted), establishes a council-manager form of government with broad home rule powers over municipal affairs, as permitted under Article XI of the California Constitution. It is a concise document (around 25 articles) that emphasizes local control, fiscal conservatism, and procedural safeguards, reflecting the era’s priorities like post-Depression financial limits and mid-century urban planning. The charter aligns with California’s framework for charter cities, granting supremacy over “municipal affairs” (e.g., elections, officer compensation, zoning) while subordinating to state law on “statewide concerns” (e.g., housing mandates, labor relations under certain statutes).
Key strengths:
Key weaknesses/outdated elements:
Overall, the charter functions but feels archaic compared to peers like San Francisco (reformed 1996, ongoing updates) or Oakland (1998 shift to mayor-council). Modern best practices, per the League of California Cities’ Charter City Toolkit and the National Civic League’s Model City Charter (9th Edition, 2021), emphasize flexibility, equity, and performance metrics. California’s 121 charter cities (out of 482 total) often use charters for tailored governance; Visalia could enhance efficiency without losing core principles.
MoreShare this: