Visalia’s City Charter was adopted in 1923. It was updated in 1974, but only one change is obvious in the text. “Article XVI Miscellaneous Provisions Section 21. (Deleted November 4, 1974)” If anything else was changed, there are no indications in the current Charter. (That was a prohibition on city employees supporting a candidate for municipal office. I suspect that runs afoul of Constitutional rights): 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.)
As I’ve been reading through it, I have some questions. They were originally triggered by the sections dealing with the city library, which we no longer have (it’s now a branch of the Tulare County Library). There are a few other things, too.
I was perusing the Charter of the City of Visalia, as one does, and I ran across a bit of a mystery, and a conundrum. I think it’s time for an update. It was last modified in 1974, and some of the things in it need some changes. For starters, it needs to become gender neutral:
Article VIII City Manager Section 1. The City Manager need not be a resident of the State of California at the time of his appointment. His powers and duties shall be:
The City of Visalia has had a woman as city manager for some time, now. The Municipal Code does, at least, cover itself in this situation, with the following:
1.04.030 Grammatical interpretation. The following grammatical rules shall apply in the ordinances of the city unless it is apparent from the context that a different construction is intended: A. Gender. Each gender includes the masculine, feminine and neuter genders. B. Singular and Plural. The singular number includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. C. Tenses. Words used in the present tense include the past and the future tenses and vice versa, unless manifestly inapplicable. (Ord. 9605 § 2 (part), 1996: prior code § 111)
But that’s not what this blog is about. This is:
Article VI Legislative. The Council. Powers and Duties (5) Appoint a City Attorney, a City Manager, a City Clerk, and five Library Trustees.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Random thoughts, occasional rants, illuminating commentary, and an odd story now and then from the world of 9-1-1 dispatching. All this and more from a gay liberal atheist living in California’s Bible belt. I recently married, so MAGA beware! I’m your worst nightmare! Some names have been omitted to protect the innocent, but the guilty will be hung out to dry!
Visalia’s Charter: Time for a Library Trustee Update?
February 10, 2026
Jim Reeves commentary, News, Personal joint powers, Library, Tulare County Public Library, visalia, Visalia City Charter, Visalia Municipal Code, Visalia Public Library Leave a comment
I was perusing the Charter of the City of Visalia, as one does, and I ran across a bit of a mystery, and a conundrum. I think it’s time for an update. It was last modified in 1974, and some of the things in it need some changes. For starters, it needs to become gender neutral:
Article VIII
City Manager
Section 1. The City Manager need not be a resident of the State of California at
the time of his appointment. His powers and duties shall be:
The City of Visalia has had a woman as city manager for some time, now. The Municipal Code does, at least, cover itself in this situation, with the following:
1.04.030 Grammatical interpretation.
The following grammatical rules shall apply in the ordinances of the city unless it is apparent from the context that a different construction is intended:
A. Gender. Each gender includes the masculine, feminine and neuter genders.
B. Singular and Plural. The singular number includes the plural and the plural includes the singular.
C. Tenses. Words used in the present tense include the past and the future tenses and vice versa, unless manifestly inapplicable. (Ord. 9605 § 2 (part), 1996: prior code § 111)
But that’s not what this blog is about. This is:
Article VI
MoreLegislative. The Council. Powers and Duties
(5) Appoint a City Attorney, a City Manager, a City Clerk, and five Library
Trustees.
Share this: