Congress is at it again

April 30, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, Gay, News, Personal , , , , , , , , , , 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!

April 24, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , , , , 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.

Visalia’s Charter: Time For A Refresh

March 9, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News , , , , , , Leave a comment

Visalia logo

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.

More

“The Devil Made Me Do It!”

February 18, 2026

Jim Reeves Gay, News , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

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.

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

January 21, 2026

Jim Reeves News, Personal , , , , , , 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

Steven does Dallas

January 17, 2026

Jim Reeves Gay, News , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

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.

The plot, as they say, thickens.

More

Follow Up – Public Records Request – City of Visalia – Dodge Durangos & “upfit”

January 14, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , 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:

More

Public Records request: City of Visalia

January 9, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Legacy Visalia City Logo
Visalia

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.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
Jim J. Reeves, Jr.

jim.visalia@gmail.com

Visalia, CA 93277

The Missing Video – VUSD update

December 7, 2025

Jim Reeves News, Personal , , , , , , , Leave a comment

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.

Visalia Unified School District/Visalia City Council meeting not recorded? Follow up –

November 9, 2025

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Jim Reeves & The Missing Meeting: An Analysis of Transparency, Accountability, and the Curious Case of Visalia Unified’s Unrecorded Oct 23, 2025 Session

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.

Older Entries Newer Entries