‘Karen’ demands City of Visalia “fire” me

September 8, 2026

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

It’s been an interesting summer. It’s ending on a (not so) high note, as someone has tried to get me kicked off the Visalia City Council’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Can you guess who it was, and why? Here’s the letter sent to the City Council and the City representative on the Advisory Committee:

Visalia City Council letter re Jim Reeves -redacted.docxDownload

Here’s the cover letter for his email:

Formal Request for Removal of Jim Reeves from the Visalia Citizens Advisory Committee-redacted.txtDownload

I would agree with one thing in his letter. “…minor children are entirely uninvolved.” There was and is no danger to anyone’s children. (except when he gave out his home address while challenging another subject on Facebook, inviting them over to “continue” a heated conversation in person. oh, did he mention that the children are his, and the lawyer is his ex-wife? And she never asked to have her name redacted? No? Interesting.)

Since I wouldn’t submit to his demands, he published an Op-Ed in GV Wire attacking me, then the next day sent this letter to the City of Visalia. In it, he’s essentially begging someone, anyone, on the City Council, to agree with him, and move to have me dismissed from the CAC.

That didn’t happen. I’m still on the Committee. In fact, I’ve recently been made Vice-Chair. (and I’ve already presided over a meeting, as the Chair was not able to attend. Go me.)

There’s been a lot of drama stirred up around this nonsense. I’m comfortable in my editorial decisions regarding this entire series of events, and my actions in response to ‘Karen’. I’ll be happy to be done with it, but ‘Karens’ seldom know when to stop. We’ll see what happens next.

“Will Somebody Shut Him Up??”

September 5, 2026

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

58citycouncilappearancesthrough09052026Download

These are all but one of the times I’ve spoken at the Visalia City Council, during Public Comments. My first time isn’t on their website, and was in 2012, when I accepted the first June Pride Month Proclamation issued by the City of Visalia. It was the first Pride Month Proclamation by a government body in the Southern San Joaquin Valley.

I got bored, so I counted the times I appeared before the City Council, according to the minutes. As of this writing, I’m at 58 times.

There are fewer than 58 entries above, because I spoke several times at several meetings. One time I had so much to say about things that I spoke five times! Another day it was four. It’s usually just once per meeting.

I still get nervous, sometimes, but I probably enjoy it more than I should.

Lest you think I’m hogging all the time, there’s a lady that has spoken over 85 times in the same time frame. I don’t know if she enjoys it or not.

If you would like to let them know what you think about things, here’s the 4-1-1:

PUBLIC COMMENTS  

This is the time for general public comment on issues within the jurisdiction of the Visalia City Council. Each speaker tonight may speak for up to 3 minutes during this general comment period on a matter that is not on this agenda. The public may also make one comment for up to 3 minutes prior to the consideration of the Consent Calendar, and immediately before any regular agenda item is heard. The Council asks that you keep you comments concise and positive. Creative criticism, presented with appropriate courtesy, is welcome. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes and a timer will notify you when your time is expired. Please begin your comments by stating and spelling your name and providing your city of residence.

There are general public comments at the beginning of each session (work session and regular session), before the Consent Calendar, and after each item on the regular agenda, regarding that item.

Come join us at the meetings, on the first and third Mondays of each month (except on holidays, when they generally meet Tuesday). The regular session starts at 7pm, at City Hall, 707 W. Acequia. Work sessions start anywhere between 4pm and 5:30pm. Check the agenda for exact times.

Tulare County GOP Lies in political post

July 21, 2026

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

Screenshot

Tulare County’s Republican party is taking a page right out of Donald Trump’s playbook: Lie about your opponents. Why would they do that?

Here are some reasons.

One big one is they are desperate for someone to run against a popular City Council member, Emmanuel Hernandez Soto, and are trying again to smear him with lies. Back in September, they tried to run Soto off the council by saying he was “sympathizing with those who justified the assassination of Charlie Kirk”. That, of course, is a lie. Here’s what really happened.

I wrote a Facebook post, in which I said the following:

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.

Soto “liked” my Facebook post. Desperate to get another Republican on the Visalia City Council, the local GOP jumped. They tried to skew my post to mean I was justifying the murder of Kirk (it wasn’t an assassination – Kirk wasn’t that important), and by “liking” my post, Soto was justifying it, too. Of course, that’s not what I said, and that’s not what it meant.

That didn’t stop the Republicans of Tulare County. Ten people got up and spoke at a City Council meeting on September 15, 2025, strong in their performative outrage at Soto. They called for his resignation. He did not resign.

Their post claims Soto “consistently votes against District 4’s best interests”. They then claim he voted against Chik-Fil-A and Sam’s Club, but did not provide the dates for those votes.

They really shouldn’t open the “District 4’s best interest” can of worms, though.

Checking the minutes available on the City’s website as of publication date, Soto’s record in the last 71 votes show him voting with the majority 60 times. He voted “NO”, or voted “YES” with the minority, 3 times. He was absent (for his wedding) for 11 votes. (these are total votes, not number of council meetings)

Soto votes with the majority at just under 85% of the time.

If Tulare GOP wants to claim he “consistently votes against the city’s and District 4’s best interests”, they need to admit so do all of the other Council members.

But, as is the case with MAGA and the GOP, facts don’t matter. Tell the lies, because nobody in the base will check what you say. The only priority is to get someone they think of as “liberal” off the council, and fill that seat with a conservative they can control. They can’t control Soto, and that frosts them.

If you live in District 4, vote Soto this November.

Visalia Without Oak Trees

June 24, 2026

Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

“Chainsaws roaring”

If you ask Google “what oak tree is common in the area of visalia, california?” the following are parts of it’s response:

The Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) is the most common and iconic native oak tree in the Visalia area. Visalia is home to the largest remaining stand of native valley oaks in California’s entire Central Valley.

Also,

Because these magnificent trees are tightly woven into the city’s heritage, Visalia strictly enforces a Valley Oak Ordinance. This policy requires public and private property owners to secure official permits before pruning, trimming, or removing any mature valley oak.

That is no longer true.

Something recently happened to change the status of oak trees, which had been protected by City ordinance since 1971.

Visalia’s webpage states: The City’s Valley Oak Ordinance establishes policies for the care, trimming, and removal of valley oaks. Public property owners are required to ensure the protection of these magnificent trees and must obtain permission to remove or prune valley oaks.

Check that bold text. Only “public property owners”, i.e. governments, are required to obtain permits and/or permission to trim or remove Valley Oaks in Visalia.

Here’s what went down.

More

A Tale of Two Cities – 2026 edition

June 15, 2026

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

On June 15, 2013, I posted a blog called “A Tale of Two Cities“. I headed it “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

That blog was about the stark difference between two local cities, and how they handled a Pride Month Proclamation. Visalia’s was historic, for all the right reasons. Porterville’s was historic as well, but for all the wrong reasons.

I just left a Visalia City Council meeting. A huge consent calendar, with several items pulled, and five regular session items. The big item on the agenda was the final budget proposal for fiscal years 26/27, and 27/28 (Visalia does a two-year budget cycle).

A $408 million budget for 26/27, and $358 million in 27/28, Visalia manages to have a surplus in it’s General Fund, even after including deposits into the emergency fund (set to maintain a balance of 30% of the yearly budget). Each year expenditures increase, and every year the City is able to either meet the reserve goals, or to only fall short a small amount. A lot of assumptions go into the budget, but Visalia has a history of managing the citizen’s tax monies, and the city, well.

Porterville, on the other hand…

The Porterville Recorder says the 2026/2027 budget for the city is over $37 million, with expenses forecast at $36.6 million. That’s not much of a cushion. The budget also includes $107 million in planned capital improvement projects for the upcoming year. Seems like a gap, but I’m no expert in city budgets.

But all of that is not what I was going to talk about.

In Visalia, the Mayor was absent for the meeting, and the air conditioning failed early in the afternoon. City staff was able to restore the A/C before the evening regular session, and the council moved on with business. With a consent agenda of 37 items, and 5 items on the regular agenda, Monday’s meeting could have gone on for seemingly forever. It did not. Two hours was all it took the Visalia City Council to pull four items from the Consent Calendar, deal with them, and then pass a two-year budget, put contested special assessments on county tax rolls, recertify a sales-tax measure, authorize a zoning change and General Plan amendment to sell some property it owns, and approve new rates and fees for City operations.

Public comments were made by several citizens (including me, twice), only one of which was hostile towards City Council members or the City Manager. One gentleman was not happy about his dealings with the city, and let them know about it. The rest of the comments were general commentary on issues before the City, but at worst were expressing disappointment with some decisions. The meeting ended at 9pm.

A well oiled, well operating machine.

Porterville, however…

Their meetings drag on. And on. And on. Public comments are often angry and upset. Many people in the City are not happy with the current council. Decisions to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on playground equipment (for parks already neglected by the City), a miniature Washington Monument, and bus wraps. $20,000 (edit: $15,000) for a “celebration” of the nations 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, (how watching a MMA fight held at the White House on a big (not that big of a) TV is supposed to celebrate the Declaration of Independence I don’t know) held in a residential neighborhood. Fireworks. In a residential neighborhood. Loud music. In a residential neighborhood. Attendance in the tens (edit: Council member Beltran says about 70 attended) instead of the thousands expected by those on Council who arranged it. Parking headaches in the neighborhood.

In Visalia, public comments are heard by the Council, who sometimes direct City staff to take the speaker out to the hall and discuss the situation to see how the problem can be resolved. I’ve only seen one example (OK, maybe more than once, but they seem to have gotten over that and have returned to a polite decorum most of the time) of a council member chastising the public for comments made.

Porterville Council members routinely chastise the public for being “disrespectful” and “condescending”. Council members demand respect, but don’t show it to speakers. Several of them denigrate people who disagree with them politically and religiously. One council member accused a charity group of being “angry”, because when he (deliberately, no doubt) said “Merry Christmas” to them, someone responded “Happy Holidays”. That kind of thing is a regular feature of Porterville City Council meetings, and something several Council members regularly indulge in. It’s embarrassing.

This blog could go on for pages, comparing these two cities. It won’t. I’ll end it here, with the statement that I’m really glad I live in Visalia.

Change is inevitable – except from vending machines

February 2, 2026

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

Change has come to Visalia. Specifically, on Tulare Avenue. From Demaree east to Cotta, new lane configurations have upset a lot of people.

I put a video up on Facebook and Instagram about these new lane configurations, and it’s garnered over 11 thousand views in just one day. (You can view the YouTube version, here.)

Change doesn’t come easily for some folks. My Facebook post has 55 comments so far in the 24 hours since I posted it. (That’s a lot for a post by me.) Most were not favorable towards the new layout.

Change doesn’t come easily for some folks. Here are some comments made, and my response to some of them.

More

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

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.

Older Entries