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

January 29, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

More

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: Visalia Unified School District – the next step

January 11, 2026

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

I’m still trying to find out why “special meetings” held in the Visalia Unified School District’s Boardroom are not recorded and posted to YouTube, as are their regular meetings. (“Special meetings” held elsewhere I don’t expect to see video recorded, simply due to the equipment not being available at remote locations. That doesn’t apply to the Board room, since the equipment is all right there.)

Here’s my latest email to the District:

1/11/2026
Sara Sanchez, Legal Coordinator, Human Resources Development
Visalia Unified School District

Dear Sara Sanchez,

This is a request under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.).

Background:
On December 18, 2025, you responded to my prior correspondence regarding:
Request No. 1
A copy of the District’s “policy of not recording ‘special meetings'”.
You responded:
“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.”
Request No. 2
“This request seeks 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.””
You responded:
“Pursuant to Government Code section 7922.600, the District seeks clarification regarding your
request in order to have a focused and effective request that reasonably describes identifiable
records. The clarification will help us narrow the search in our email and other records systems
and retrieve a more manageable number of communications that can be reviewed by District
staff. In particular, please specify the date range of the “internal memos, emails, or other
directives of any sort that direct staff not to record ‘special meetings’ that occur in the
Boardroom.” Additionally, please identify the names or titles of District personnel regarding
whom you are seeking the requested correspondence.”

To limit unnecessary records searches, I believe that the District employee 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. Those 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 are posted to the District’s YouTube channel as of 1/25/2022, please limit the search to 1/1/2021 through the present date.

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

They’ll get the email Monday morning. We’ll see what happens. Cross your fingers.

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

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.

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.

Visalia Police encrypt all radio traffic

March 24, 2025

Jim Reeves 9-1-1, commentary, News , , , , , 1 Comment

As of March 20, 2025, the Visalia Police Department has switched from open transmission, receivable on any scanner, and on many types of consumer 2-way radios such as Amateur Radio Service equipment, GMRS, FRS, and phone apps, to fully encrypted transmissions. This prevents the general public from monitoring police transmissions.

This is in response to a 2020 California Department Of Justice requirement that certain “personally identifiable information (PII)” be encrypted. Here’s what Google’s AI said about it:

DOJ Mandate:
In October 2020, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) notified law enforcement agencies that they must encrypt any radio communications transmitting confidential Criminal Justice Information (CJI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII).


Alternative Approaches:
While encryption is the primary method, the DOJ allows agencies to meet the requirements through alternative policies that restrict the sharing of PII while still allowing the transmission of other information through open frequencies.


Examples of Alternative Methods:
Using MDTs, department cellular phones, or landline telecommunications to transmit and receive PII .
Breaking up personal information by transmitting details such as a person’s name, birthday, and address in separate transmissions or even in different channels .


Agencies Opting for Open Radio Communications:
Some agencies, like the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and dozens of counties and cities, have opted to continue sharing their radio communications while protecting personal information through alternative methods.

Visalia PD has gone to full-time encryption, and hopes CAD (computer aided dispatch) updates on a webpage, along with press releases, will assuage the public’s displeasure over loosing the ability to monitor the transmissions.

The trouble with those plans is that information will only become available after the event, and will contain no details other than the general area of the event, and a vague incident type category.

Needless to say, many people are not happy. I’m one of them.

I dispatched law enforcement for 25 years at the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office. (BTW, this is my opinion only, not TCSO’s. While they have not gone to full encryption yet, they do have the ability to do so.)

I see no good reason to go to full encryption of all transmissions.

With the ever-growing YouTube proliferation of videos showing the interaction between police and the general public, and with the common theme of highlighting bad interactions rather than good ones, you’d think police departments would be working on improving their public relations, instead of hunkering down and, effectively, saying ‘it’s none of your business except for what we decide to tell you, later’. It give the impression that you’re hiding something. It also makes it easier to actually hide something.

Now, I think quite highly of the Visalia Police Department. I know the Chief, and worked with his wife some years ago when she was also a dispatcher. This decision, however, is very disappointing.

I can, just off the top of my head, think of two alternatives to full-time encryption.

  1. (Almost?) Every police car has a mobile data terminal computer, called various things, but I’m most familiar with MDT. PII can be transmitted there. Most MDTs these days use a cellular phone data connection, and are both encrypted and next to impossible to monitor. (no FCC type-accepted equipment can be sold or used in the US that can receive cell phone frequencies.) Use the MDT for PII.
  2. Visalia PD has two primary channels. Channel one is the main dispatch channel, and could be broadcast in the clear for non-PII information. Channel two could be fully encrypted at all times, and officers could switch to that channel for confidential information. The radios can be programmed with each channel either encrypted or not, so the officer has only to change channels. No other action on their part is required. The Tulare County Sheriff’s Office has used a secondary channel for such information requests for years. It’s easily accomplishable, and does not cut the public out of it’s ability to monitor the police.

Option 2 seems to me to be the most easily accomplished compromise between meeting the requirements of the DOJ and maintaining a positive relationship with the community.

There are also some technical issues with encryption that I would not be surprised VPD is discovering right now. Since open transmissions by VPD in the past have been analog FM, poor signal traffic can often be understood, especially by seasoned dispatchers. Weak signals, broken transmissions, noisy environments all make for difficult to hear or understand messages. An officer on the ground wrestling with a drunk suspect and is calling for help needs the ability to be heard by dispatch. Digital takes some of that away, as it’s all or nothing. A weak signal is not heard at all, and if a signal drops out, it’s simply not there anymore. The dispatcher cannot make out what their radio does not receive.

Police Captain Daniel Ford will be speaking on this subject at the next Visalia Citizen’s Advisory Committee meeting, to be held Wednesday, April 2, 2025, at the conference room of the City Offices located at 220 N. Santa Fe, in Visalia. The meeting time is 5:30pm, and it is open to the public. (the city webpage says meetings are held at the Convention Center, but this is outdated information)

Go back to open transmissions, VPD. It’s better for everyone. Especially you.

Sunnova – our rules only apply to you, not us

February 11, 2025

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

So here’s the latest on the solar panel repair fiasco. They, of course, refuse to pay ME $100 for THEIR missing an appointment, although if the missed appointment had been MY fault, they would charge ME $100. My take on the situation? Don’t deal with Sunnova if you can avoid it.

02/11/2025

Dear Jim Reeves,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns about the appointment.

I understand your frustration regarding the missed appointment and the lack of communication surrounding it.

After reviewing your case, I would like to clarify that while we strive to adhere to our service protocols and keep our customers informed, in this instance, the situation did not meet the criteria for a $100 fee as outlined in our policy. As a company, we do not apply fees for situations where we fail to meet the scheduled appointment window, and unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding your case do not qualify for a credit.

Please know that we take your concerns seriously, and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. We will continue to review our procedures to ensure better communication and service moving forward.

If you have further questions or need assistance, please reply to this email or log in to your MySunnova portal and chat with one of our friendly agents. They are available to help you with anything from account inquiries to troubleshooting.

Here’s how to get started:

  1. Visit MySunnova: Go to https://www.sunnova.com/mysunnova.
  2. Sign in: Enter your login credentials.
  3. Start Chat: Look for the chat icon in the lower left of your screen and initiate a conversation.

Our agents are ready to assist you promptly from 7 AM to 7 PM, Monday to Saturday.

Kindly,
Jenifer C.
Customer Service Representative
Sunnova Energy Corporation
Hours of operations are (CST):
Monday – Friday 7:00 AM to 12 midnight
Saturday 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM
Sunday 12:00 PM to 12 midnight

The prior email chain:

RE: System SO0024XXXX
I was scheduled for a repair appointment for 2/5/2025, with the technician scheduled to arrive between 8am and 11am. I was home and available during those hours.
No one came to my home, and I was not contacted about a delay or a cancellation.
In the text message I received confirming my appointment is the following:
“$100 missed visit fee if the tech can’t access the system OR you cancel after 5pm the day before the appt.”

Since Sunnova’s text message says “we reserve the right to charge a $100 missed visit fee…”, I expect you’ll return the favor. I expect a $100 credit on my account for your tech not showing up to the scheduled appointment in the scheduled window (indeed, not showing up or contacting me for the entire day).

Please respond with confirmation that my account has been credited $100, and schedule a repair appointment since the original problem still exists.

Jim Reeves

On Feb 7, 2025, at 6:28 PM, Customer Service customerservice@sunnova.com wrote:

 Dear Jim Reeves,

Thank you for contacting Sunnova Energy regarding your appointment.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for the inconvenience that the rescheduling of your visit has caused. Due to protocol issues, we were compelled to change the date. However, I would like to emphasize that the fee will only be applied if the client is not at home when our technician arrives. If you are not present at the time of the technician’s visit, I extend my deepest regrets for the inconvenience. Nevertheless, I would like to underscore that the visit has already occurred.

Should you have further questions or need assistance, please reply to this email or log in to your MySunnova portal and chat with one of our friendly agents. They’re available to help you with anything from account inquiries to troubleshooting.

Here’s how to get started:

  1. Visit MySunnova: Go to https://www.sunnova.com/mysunnova.
  2. Sign in and enter your login credentials.
  3. Start Chat: Look for the chat icon in the lower left of your screen and initiate a conversation.
    Our agents are ready to assist you promptly from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.

Thank you for choosing Sunnova!
Best regards,
Jorge H.
Sunnova Energy Corporation
Customerservice@sunnova.com

2/7/25

“Jorge”,

The problem was not the need to reschedule my appointment due to “protocol issues” (whatever that means), my complaint was/is that the text messages confirming the original appointment included notice that my missing the appointment, or cancelling after 5pm the day before, would trigger a $100 fee.
Sunnova technicians did not arrive during the originally specified window, and did not notify me that they would be unable to fulfill their appointment, and especially for not alerting me to that before 5pm the prior day.
Therefore, since it is clearly Sunnova policy that appointments that are missed without notice prior to 5pm the day before are subject to a $100 fine, I expect no less than the same treatment in return.
I expect and demand that Sunnova credit my account $100 for Sunnova’s failure to arrive during the scheduled appointment window, and for not notifying me before 5pm the day prior.

Jim Reeves
Sent from my iPhone

*********************************************

Here’s the text message I received once sending a confirmation of the appointment they set:

SUNNOVA APPT CONFIRMED for 2/05/2025 between 8:00 AM – 11:00 AM
$100 missed visit fee if the tech can’t access the system OR you cancel after 5PM the day before the appt.
RESCHEDULE/CANCEL via MySunnova appt link OR agent chat.
Reply STOP to opt out of appt texts

*********************************************

So in the final analysis, if the customer screws up and misses the appointment, they’ll charge $100 fee to the customer’s account. If Sunnova screws up and misses the appointment, it’s “oh well, we don’t pay you for our failure”.

EDIT: Addition:

This is not the only problem I’ve had with them, just so you know. They charged an exorbitant amount ($8,400) to remove and then later reinstall the panels to allow a new roof to be installed. They also failed to obtain the proper city permit to do the job, and then took 6 months to “investigate” the issue, all the while charging me for estimated production that my panels did not produce while they sat in my backyard waiting to go back up on the roof. Needless to say, after all that it may be a decade before I see any real financial savings from the system.

If you decide to have solar panels installed on a lease program, or any program where you don’t pay upfront for your own privately held system, be sure you won’t need a new roof during the life of the contract. It won’t pay if you have to remove-reinstall the system. The only benefit now will be in monthly cash-flow, as my electricity bill will decrease by some.

Needless to say, I’m not a happy camper right now.

Did I witness fraud? Maybe yes, maybe no

January 1, 2025

Jim Reeves Personal , , , Leave a comment

Jefferson School, circa 1917, demolished in 1967. Was there fraud involved? I think maybe.

I attended 4th grade at Jefferson School in 1966, maybe 1965. I remember a huge brick building, with cement aprons around the sides and back for basketball and four-square courts, volleyball poles, and assorted other recess activity markings. I don’t really recall much of the interior, other than the auditorium/cafeteria. That is (was) located on the ‘backside’ of the building as we’re looking at it in the above picture.

Now, Jefferson School is Jefferson Park. The cement is long gone, along with the building. This image is taken from about where the event I witnessed took place, which would be along the north side of the building. (the front of the building shown in the picture above faces east)

So, fraud? I don’t know. My memories are those of a 9 year old, seeing something odd over the course of the school day. Those memories are 58 years old, but I believe I’m recalling it pretty well, since it made an impression on me at the time.

Here’s my scenario:

It’s the mid-1960’s, and Visalia is growing. The school, a (presumably) unreinforced brick structure, might be considered unsafe in the event of an earthquake. The 7.5 Tehachapi earthquake of 1952 might have been the driving force of the demolition of the school, but if that’s so, they waited a long time to act. I don’t know if the school suffered any damage during that quake, however.

Here’s what happened, as I remember it.

I was at school, and it was time for the first recess. I went out to the north side playground, and noticed a ladder perched up against the side of the building. There was a tripod of some sort a few feet away.

Noted. Grown-up stuff, only momentarily interesting.

At lunch, the ladder was still there, this time with someone at the top, futzing with the top layer of bricks underneath the eaves of the building. The tripod now had some kind of film camera mounted to it. Adults standing around, doing grown-up things, again only momentarily interesting. There’s the bell, time to get back to class.

Afternoon recess, and the ladder is still there. So is the man at the top of it, still futzing with the bricks. This time it’s different, though. He comes down, and they set up the film camera.

Now here’s where I think the fraud comes in.

During the recess, and I think the timing was just a coincidence, they started filming. The man climbs the ladder, takes a chisel and a hammer, and begins beating on the bricks under the eaves. The brick comes out with little effort. The man removes it, holds it out so the camera can see it, then climbs down.

End of recess, the bell rings, and we go running back to class. (we’re 9 and 10 year olds. We still run to class)

So.

They took most of the day to work that brick loose, then filmed a man climbing the ladder, hitting it a few times with a hammer and chisel, and then pulling the brick out. I think someone may have wanted that building to seem much more dangerous than it might truly have been.

Anyone know where those bricks ended up? Brick fireplaces were pretty common in home construction back then, and that school would have made a lot of them.

It might have been a perfectly innocent thing. I was only 9 years old, after all, and not at all cognizant of grown-up things. But I’ve always had this memory, and there’s little chance I will ever know what really happened.

So, I wonder.

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…)

Older Entries