Visalia Unified School District/Visalia City Council joint meeting not recorded?

November 9, 2025

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

A previous Visalia Unified School District Board meeting.

On October 23, 2025, the Visalia Unified School District held a special joint meeting with the Visalia City Council. This was the second such meeting held in 2025, and was held in the District’s Board room.

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.

Stay tuned.

Right-wing activists attempt to use Kirk murder to oust local councilman

September 16, 2025

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

Well, about Monday night –

Fifteen folks got up and spoke during public comments at the Visalia City Council’s regular session. Thirteen of them, in an organized group, chose to berate a sitting council member, Emmanuel Hernandez Soto, for ‘liking’ a Facebook post of mine. Every one of them mischaracterized what my post said. It turns out that, in my opinion, they weren’t really all that upset about what I said, but were instead using it as a vehicle to attack someone they consider as too ‘liberal’. The demands for his resignation made clear their intent was to try and create a vacant seat on the council that could be filled by someone they consider ‘conservative’ enough.

An aside: this year Soto has voted 84.5% of the time with the majority on the council. This from posted minutes on the City’s website as of 9/15/25. He’s hardly the raging liberal they seem to think he is.

Here’s some of the remarks by individual speakers last night:

Stephanie McDonald told us that her four year old asked “why are people happy he was shot and killed?” Since it’s unlikely her four year old is surfing the web and reading Facebook posts, it’s more likely that if he actually said anything like that, it’s because the adults around him were talking about it. And obviously only talking negatively about what other people are saying. Stephanie said my post “endorses cruelty” and “hate”.

Beth Salber (? – she didn’t spell her last name, and that’s the best I could make out) said my post “sympathized with the assassination of Charlie Kirk”, and “expressed support for violence”. She continued, “…vile and reprehensible endorsement of violence and hatred”, and “sympathized with spilling the life’s blood of a fellow citizen”. Beth also said liking my post was sympathy for that darkness”. She let the cat out of the bag, however, when she said Soto should resign so as to “let them replace you”. This was the actual goal, in my opinion, of Monday’s pile-on.

Reagan O’Hara, President of the COS Young Americans for Freedom club, was worked up pretty strongly. He was another one who claimed ‘liking’ my post meant that Soto was one who would “celebrate political violence in America”, and accused him of “supporting such a horrific event”.

Patricia Huizar said “liking a post that sympathizes with the assassination of Charlie Kirk…” a line repeated by several speakers. Looks like coaching before the meeting, to me.

Jordon Gomez of Turning Point commented on “barbarians and barbarian rhetoric like that”.

Shelly Gahagan said Soto’s ‘like’ meant he “sympathizes with the violent act and the murder” of Charlie Kirk. She thinks that’s what my post said, because she continued “post celebrating the murder of another human being”.

Sara Smith, of the Visalia Republican Women Federation said my post, and Soto’s ‘like’, “condone violence”.

Jessica Brumley said the post and the ‘like’ “sympathizes with an act of violence against Charlie Kirk”.

Karen Griffin said “action speak louder than words”. Another phrase repeated by several speakers. (maybe or maybe not coached)

Denise Souza was not happy that several people did not participate in the flag salute. I don’t know about others, but I won’t be taking part in saluting the flag of the Fascist States of America. As long as this regime is in power, my thousands of pledges (that apparently have a daily expiration) that I have spoken over the years (starting in grade school) will have to be sufficient.

So, what do I think is behind this very selective “outrage” at Soto? It looks to me like some political operatives thought they found an issue that they could use to try and oust Soto from the City Council. I think the goal is to get a conservative, probably an older white male Christian, into that seat. All it would take, in their minds, is to mischaracterize my post, then try to gin up outrage at Soto over his ‘like’. I trust this will not work, and will be forgotten as soon as Orange Idiot or one of his minions does something outrageous and on point for their usual shenanigans.

Oh, another interesting point – the Tulare County Republicans must monitor my posts. I thanked them for finding me important enough to keep an eye on, and that I would wave at them from time to time from Facebook and Instagram. (waving furiously)

Here’s the post from the day of Kirk’s murder (murder, not assassination), see if you agree or disagree with Monday’s speakers:

September 10, 2025 2:00 PM Pacific Time

I’m afraid I don’t have much sympathy to spare for one particular victim out of the hundreds that will be injured by guns today in the United States. Many of them will die from their wounds. Most are innocent of any crime, and are victims of the easy availability of guns in this country.

Charlie Kirk may die because of the hate he fed our country. He has consistently attacked various communities, spreading lies and hatred. It’s not surprising to me that someone finally broke, and fought back.

Violence is only acceptable to me in immediate self-defense, but that’s never really been what this society has taught its members. The easy availability and glorification of guns has turned what in the past would have been fistfights into shootings.

Whether Kirk lives or dies, he’s now a martyr for the christo-fascists and Christian nationalists. They won’t take the lesson that hate breeds violence, they’ll go after the same minority groups they always have, but with more fervor than ever before.

In the next hours, claims will rocket around the internet that the shooter was gay, or transgender, or an illegal alien, or an atheist, or an Islamic terrorist, or…

Now we wait. Will Kirk live or die? Will the shooter be caught? What were their motivations? How did they acquire the weapon?

The only ones I really feel sorry for are his children. They don’t understand why this happened to their daddy. They don’t deserve this pain.

The Price of the U.S. Presidency

May 13, 2025

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

SOLD!

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.

Hell of a deal.

Hate In A Small Town 4 – it’s Déjà vu all over again

March 19, 2025

Jim Reeves 9-1-1, commentary, Gay, Personal , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

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.

Porterville City Council Still Snubbing LGBTQ Community – (3) the same council as above refuses a Coming Out Day proclamation request.

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 Meister
Vice Mayor Ed McKervey
Raymond Beltran
Stan Green
AJ 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”.

Porterville Mayor attacks LGBT community

February 28, 2025

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

Greg Meister, Mayor of Porterville, California.

Two items on the Porterville City Council agenda for Tuesday, March 4, 2025 are listed below. At the Mayor’s behest, and with the apparent support of at least the Vice-Mayor, the council will consider two items attacking the LGBTQ community in Porterville. The city council has a long history of hate directed at it’s LGBTQ community.

On the consent agenda:

17. Request for Proclamation – Women’s Rights
Re: Considering approval of a request to proclaim Women’s Rights in the City of
Porterville

On the Scheduled Matters 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

These are the first two steps in an attempt by the mayor to impose an ordinance prohibiting trans women from using women’s toilets or locker rooms, and ban them from women’s sports. Despite there being no credible examples, arrests, or convictions of trans women sexually assaulting cis women in those spaces, and that this ordinance will put the city in violation of California law, Meister has decided this is a solution he can get behind.

The head of the NCAA testified before Congress recently that in the 510,000 athletes in the association, he knew of fewer than ten who were transgender. A check of the sporting records does not show a takeover of top spots by trans women. They seem to fall in a random scale among women taking medals or setting records. There is no evidence of an ‘unfair advantage’ for trans women in any sport.

Let’s look at some research. This is posted at the National Institute of Health‘s National Library of Medicine, the National Center of Biotechnology Information:

An official website of the United States government

(Musk and his minions have obviously not stumbled upon this page. Nobody tell him, OK?)

Trans Women and Public Restrooms: The Legal Discourse and Its Violence

Abstract

Safe access to public restrooms is an essential need for participation in civic life, in the workplace, in educational settings, and other public spaces. This is no different for transgender people. However, access to public restrooms according to gender identity has sparked controversy to the extent that transgender people face embarrassment and even expulsion from these spaces. The lack of access of the transgender population to public restrooms has a negative impact on the physical and mental health of this population. Thus, this article aims to address the main consequences that the ban on the use of bathrooms has for the transgender population, specifically the access of transgender women to the women’s restroom. We covered some legal aspects of “bathroom laws” and the main arguments in this discussion. We understand that the prohibition of access to the restroom constitutes a form of gender violence and discrimination, as we conclude that the arguments that express concerns about safety are not supported.

For the entire publication, check here.

Now, I know research and facts will not sway right-wing nut jobs (not that I’m accusing the Mayor of being one, but if the shoe fits…), but the council should know that the larger LGBTQ community and our allies will not stand quietly by while they attack the trans community with lies and hatred. We will be heard and seen.

A public protest will occur before the City Council meeting, at 4:30pm, across from City Hall. The address of City Hall is 291 N. Main Street. Regular council meeting starts at 6:30 pm. Because of the way Porterville handles it’s council meetings, it could be late in the evening before the matter is handled, and public comments are heard.

Porterville steps back into LGBTQ hate

February 23, 2025

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

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:

From: Jim Reeves <jim.visalia@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:55:44 PM
To: Greg Meister <gregmeister@ci.porterville.ca.us>
Cc: Raymond Beltran <raymondbeltran@ci.porterville.ca.us>; Ed McKervey <edmckervey@ci.porterville.ca.us>; Stan Green <stangreen@ci.porterville.ca.us>; AJ Rivas <ajrivas@ci.porterville.ca.us>
Subject: “Protect Women’s Safe Spaces”

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.

Jim Reeves

Visalia

jim.visalia@gmail.com

I’ve received nothing back except the following, from the Vice-Mayor, Ed McKervery:

“Go read what HHS stated about this.

Thanks for your input”

Protest rallies are planned for the next City Council meeting, where the first of many actions to pass this proposed ordinance may occur.

The Tulare Stonewall Democrats plan a protest rally to “Standup For Our Trans Community in Porterville“, 4:30 pm, Tuesday, March 4, 2025, in front of City Hall, 219 N Main Street, Porterville.

The city council meeting starts at 6:30pm.

Even the FAA? Even the FAA.

February 10, 2025

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

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.

Jim J. Reeves, Jr.
jim.visalia@gmail.com
Visalia, CA

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.

It’s going to be a long four years.

A mystery, a hunt, then success!

October 15, 2024

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

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…)

I Tweeted to the Mormon Church today

November 3, 2012

Jim Reeves commentary , , , , , Leave a comment

Can you believe that shit? The unmitigated gall it takes to put something like that out on the Internet is just mind boggling.  And they expect people to believe it!  It must be that whole “Bronze Age superstition with the 19th Century con man update” mindset at work.

Two things:

1. The arrogance of this post is amazing.  It shows what the church hierarchy really thinks about people.

2. These same people expect you to trust that they have superior knowledge of “God’s” will.

Un-fucking-believable.

(this is one of those “the guilty will be hung out to dry!” posts)

P.S. I don’t ‘follow’ the Mormon Church Twitter feed, it was a “promoted” post that popped up when I logged on to Twitter.  I’ve seldom had such a strong and sudden response to any Tweet.