Visalia Unified School District board members faced a packed house on Tuesday, March 10, as multiple major issues drew in different segments of the community to discuss and debate the proposed layoffs of school employees and a photo featuring Redwood students spelling out a homophobic slur on campus.

Before the meeting started, protesters from two groups camped outside the Visalia Unified headquarters: a group supporting the LGBTQ community in Visalia and another supporting the California School Employees Association (CSEA.) The CSEA union represents classified staff – employees such as custodians, drivers, and paraeducators – at Visalia Unified.

Community turnout filled the district’s boardroom and sent members of the community into an overflow room as the meeting began at 5:30PM.

Speakers from the public – including current and former students – spoke out to implore the Visalia Unified board to improve the student climate at its schools. School employees alongside union representatives from other schools and districts pleaded with the board to avoid laying off staff.

During board member comments, all board members spoke to acknowledge the Redwood controversy. Superintendent Kirk Shrum also dedicated time to acknowledge those wanting to see action from the district.

“I want to reaffirm that hate speech at any time will not be tolerated at VUSD, and I want to thank Principal Gridiron and his team who, along with district support, quickly addressed the situation,” he said. “To our LGBTQ students and adults, I want to affirm that you are valued members of our school community.”

He said that Visalia Unified leadership is continuing to work with the community to make Visalia’s schools safer.

Members of the community from The Source LGBT+ Center, a Visalia-based nonprofit serving as a resource for the LGBT+ community in the Central Valley, asked Shrum and the board to perform an audit of educators’ LGBT+ cultural competency training and support systems for LGBTQ+ students.

They also asked for an audit of the school’s compliance with the California FAIR Act, which requires that social studies instruction includes the roles of, and contributions by, LGBTQ+ Americans.

During the meeting, all board members also specifically noted the tough decisions to be made regarding layoffs.

Ultimately, the board voted 5-2, with Kenneth DeJonge and Randy Villegas voting no, to approve plans to eliminate 10 full-time-equivalent counselor positions, three full-time-equivalent social science teacher positions, and 86 full-time-equivalent classified positions, including paraprofessionals, custodians, warehouse workers, and behavior intervention technicians.

Redwood photo – and the history of Visalia Unified

Visalia made national headlines in early February when a group of Redwood High School students, including some in student leadership, used shirts meant for a senior class photo spelling out “CLASS OF 2026 ALWAYS LEGIT” to spell out an entirely different phrase, “2 FAG6OTS” – using a six as the second G in the homophobic slur.

Visalia Unified officials responded, with Superintendent Kirk Shrum stating on February 13 that “appropriate disciplinary action has been taken in accordance with District policy,” and stating later on February 17 that the school district was meeting with students to “address hate speech, civility, and the responsibility that comes with being a member of our Visalia schools and community.”

On February 26, Visalia Unified leadership held a closed-door meeting with members of the LGBTQ+ community and faith leaders as outrage over the photo continued to build, according to ABC30.

The Redwood incident isn’t the first time that Visalia Unified has made news for homophobia: the ACLU of Northern California sued the district in 2001 on behalf of George Loomis, a student who said he was harassed by both students and teachers at Golden West High School. The ACLU claimed the district’s approach to gay students was to get them off campuses entirely by placing them in “inappropriate special education programs.”

More recently, at the same time that student protestors placed pro-Black Lives Matter signs at El Diamante in the summer of 2020, students began a briefly-lived #DearVUSD movement – including a dedicated Instagram account sharing anonymous submissions – that called out the district for a perceived failure to protect vulnerable students.

Michael Anne de Campos, a Redwood student at the time, spoke to the board in 2020 to share concerns about the culture on the Redwood campus:

“It’s horrible to be a student who’s in the LGBTQ community. I’ve been bullied for years, and I mean — I have it better than most, and I still had it rough,” she said at the time. “And you shouldn’t have to go to the administration and beg them to listen to your sexual assault story. I have over 15 girls who have come to me directly with how they went to the administration with their sexual assault and they just disregarded it — they never received justice, and that is disgusting.”

“What a lot of them want to see, they don’t want justice now. They want to know that you guys are going to establish a protocol so that it doesn’t happen again,” she said later in the meeting. “We already have the trauma. We’re here to make sure no one else has to go through what we went through.”

Community speaks out about photo

Approximately 20 public comments related to the Redwood photo were in support of the district taking action to ensure students on Visalia’s school campuses feel safe and supported.

Jake Ramos, a Visalia student, said they had been “bullied for as long as [they] can remember for being queer.”

“I’ve been bullied by actual teachers. People on the internet joke that we should bring back bullying, but it’s never left, because that’s what this is,” Ramos said. “It starts with a word and it ends with kids killing themselves. I don’t go to Redwood, but this affects me too, because I know exactly how these students feel.”

Remy Gomez, a sixth grader at Royal Oaks Elementary, spoke to say that what happened at Redwood was disappointing to her as a potential future student.

“I was not sure if I wanted to go anymore. I play softball competitively and I know Redwood has a great team, and I’m also in orchestra, and I was looking forward to playing,” she said. “The students who participated in this need to be held responsible for that.”

June Rodriguez, who said she was previously a student at Redwood, said that her experience “made the situation not even a little bit surprising.”

“Many of the students in this photo, I recognize,” she said – stating that she had similar abuse directed at her during her time at Redwood, culminating in her transferring to Golden West to escape homophobic abuse.

Jose Ruiz-Garcia, the Community Programs Manager at The Source LGBT+ Center, said that the Redwood incident was not an isolated experience.

“All of the youth currently in my programs have expressed having experienced bullying and harassment because of their sexuality or gender identity,” he said.

Sabrina Norton, a Visalia resident, spoke to ask the superintendent and the board for more clarity on the district’s next steps.

“There were things you could confirm without identifying a single student that participated that day,” Norton said, “and it would have gone a long way in building a bridge between those of us here tonight and the thousands of people out there saying, ’Who cares? Let kids be kids.’”

Board members respond

All of the board members responded to the Redwood incident and the public’s frustration.

“I hope all of us realize this is, and it was, and I pray will continue to be, what we look in education as a teachable moment – where all of us learn, and all of us move on,” Paul Belt said.

Joy Naylor said she appreciated the community coming out and speaking.

“Everyone should feel safe – all students,” Joy Naylor said. “If that means we need to kind of look within ourselves and find out how we fix this – it’s not about punishments, it’s about educating. We’re in the business of educating students, and that’s what our focus needs to be.”

Walta Gamoian echoed her remarks.

“I do want to thank the people that came out tonight. I want this place to be a place where you can express your opinions, views, and concerns,” she said. “I would like to give kudos to Dr. Gridiron at Redwood High School. He has done a great job doing restorative justice, getting kids together, understanding that respect and belonging are really important, and that each of those kids has a role in that.”

Kenneth DeJonge said that he ran for his board seat to support the community and its children – and that he only knew the same information that the general public did.

“I’m also here to support individuals that feel singled out, that feel that they don’t belong,” DeJonge said. “That’s not something that I believe in as a community member – a lot of that comes from a Christian perspective, at least my Christian perspective. That, uh, all are welcome and all deserve love.”

“There’s lots of things that trouble me, you know, as far as the Redwood incident. I know as much as the public, unfortunately. I don’t think that’s a position I should be in as a board member, and that’s something that I’ll speak to our superintendent about,” he added.

Jacqueline Gaebe and Randy Villegas also spoke to support students experiencing bullying, and they endorsed the request by The Source LGBT+ Center to audit the district’s practices.

“While we can’t control what happens outside the school, under no circumstances should any student feel that this would be acceptable on one of our campuses,” Gaebe said. “Our school climates do matter, and our students do deserve better – so thank you to the community that showed up.”

“No child should show up to their place of learning and be confronted with hate at them – directed at them just for being who they are,” Villegas said. “We must fight for the dignity, and the safety, of all of our LGBTQ students, all of our staff, and our community here in Visalia and beyond.”

Two board members push back on layoffs

While all of the board members showed a united front to support students experiencing bullying, the board split on a 5-2 basis regarding the subject of employee position reductions.

Mena Rocha, a labor relations representative for the Visalia chapter of CSEA, spoke to the Valley Voice before the meeting.

“This is the fifth consecutive year of laying off classified staff members,” she said.

The work that’s eliminated simply falls on other employees, Rocha said, spreading those spared from layoffs even thinner.

“If you talk to the custodians, they’re very honest – they’re like, they can’t keep up with the workload that they have. They work in teams. Can they effectively clean three schools in one night?” Mena said. “One of our members, with 29 years spent, he’s being laid off from taking care of the stadium. Who is that going to fall on?”

Katie Cain spoke as the CSEA chapter president for College of the Sequoias, as a Visalian, and as someone who attended Visalia Unified schools “from kindergarten through graduation.”

“For the last three years, the district has consistently underprojected their revenue anywhere from $43m to $247m. In those same years, the district has consistently laid off or reassigned classified staff, and the significance of that fact is the value of that discrepancy each year was enough to pay all the annual salaries of your entire classified staff body five times over, at minimum,” she said. “Not just the laid off people.”

As staff were laid off, administrators were added, she claimed.

“How many of those administrators were laid off? How many of them took a pay cut? Because we know they aren’t worried about paying their bills like the classified staff are,” she said.

Shrum addressed comments by staff and CSEA supporters when the board discussed the layoff proposals.

“We recognize that staffing adjustments cause concern and I want to speak directly to the heart of the matter, our commitment to our workforce and the stability of our schools,” Shrum said.

In March 2025, though positions were eliminated, Shrum said the district managed to avoid any employee terminations through shifting impacted employees to other positions.

“At this point today, all but 14 of the impacted classified employees have been assigned to a position for the 26-27 school year,” he said. “And we will continue to work with our labor partners, CSEA chapter leadership, during the coming months to identify positions for as many of these employees as possible.”

“We are encouraged by the career opportunities reflected in the overall increase of 143.1 FTE during the past two years,” he added.

Villegas spoke to support the classified employees’ concerns.

“In the past, we have approved a waiver for not spending 55% on classroom salaries, and so, as we look towards these layoffs, I’m perplexed as to how we’re both failing to meet the required amount of spending per state law on classroom salaries, while at the same time proposing layoffs,” he said.

DeJonge, who said upfront that he was a classified employee at another district in Terra Bella, asked who would do the work that the eliminated positions covered.

“Is there no other place that we could figure out a way to shore up for staff? I’ve said this over and over again – things don’t teach kids, it’s people. We all have that story about the wonderful teacher or groundsworker who made a difference in our lives being a kid at school,” DeJonge said, “but how do we do that if we keep cutting our people?”

Paul Belt spoke to defend the proposal. He called the cuts difficult, but necessary, and said that cuts were being made across the board – each department was asked to cut “five percent, straight across.”

“No business can continue to just spend more money than they’re taking in. They will go out of business. And the numbers have been very, very clear. I mean, these numbers are staggering – millions and millions,” he said.

“It’s not them against us – people, if we don’t save money, if we don’t make good decisions, we’ll all lose our jobs – that’s the reality,” Belt said. “As difficult as it is, I know we have to make wise cuts, and it’s being shared all the way across the board. And it’s not limited to just classified employees.”

Gamoian began to speak before moving to support the classified employee layoff proposal.

“This was worked out with our district and the bargaining team. They talked about it, they worked hard on it. That – we’re going to move forward – well, okay, I’m not going to argue with you. I’ll just make the motion,” she said, before making her motion.

Before voting to support a separate motion that eliminated some counseling and social science teacher positions, Gamoian encouraged her fellow board members to reach out to state lawmakers, as she does.

“We have to advocate at the state level  – I mean, they’re messing with Prop 98 [which guarantees a minimum amount of funding for schools in California] again. So, there’s Legislative Action Week – get on and sign up, and be with me at these things, and talk to our representatives. So, I invite you to do that, and check your email where those are,” she said.

Speaking before the vote, Naylor said that the decisions were difficult, but necessary.

“We only have so many resources, and we can’t just say, we’re gonna throw it out there, and you know what, if we sink, we sink,” Naylor said. “I work at the sheriff’s office, and you know what, we have to cut, and we have to make sure that our accounts payable – that we can meet our budget, and we can meet our payroll. And I do that every day.”

“Sometimes, they’re hard decisions, and they hurt, but you gotta balance the budget – that’s the bottom line.”

The post LGBT community and school employees show up, speak out at Visalia Unified board meeting appeared first on Valley Voice.

A Tulare group home for girls and young women aged 11-21 has allegedly been a nexus for reports of fights, underage intoxication, vandalism, and sexual trafficking of minors by minors, according to the City of Tulare. City officials are now trying to shut it down, at least temporarily, after the home was the subject of 100 police calls for service in a four month period.

The home is located in the Del Lago neighborhood of Tulare, nestled between family homes. Neighbors have told the Tulare City Council and the Valley Voice that its residents are out of control and have had a negative effect on the surrounding area.

Tulare City Attorney Mario Zamora filed a Complaint for Nuisance Abatement against the home’s operators and the property’s owner on October 21, which could potentially shut down the facility until its inhabitants can be controlled.

Zamora told the Voice that the city initially sent letters to Scott’s Social Services, which operates the home, and the home’s landlord in September without response, but that discussions are now underway with the property’s owner.

“We have received a response from the property management company on behalf of the owner and we are discussing a resolution,” Zamora said.

He also told the Voice that city officials had reached out to the home’s regulator, the California Department of Social Services, as well as state legislators to try and resolve the problems the home’s residents are causing their neighbors.

“The City has reached out to the Dept of Social Services and to my knowledge, we have received no response,” Zamora said. “In addition, staff also reached out to the City’s State Assembly and Senate members and we have received an acknowledgement of the issue.”

Representatives with Scott’s Social Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Representatives with the California Department of Social Services were unable to provide a response by publication time. When responses are received, this article will be updated.

City says home is “maintaining a safe haven for illegal and other activities”

The home – legally referred to as a Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP) – is operated by Scott’s Social Services. The organization has two facilities in Bakersfield and one in Tulare.

The STRTP operates out of a rented residence and was provisionally licensed by the state to hold up to six residents in December 2024.

Scott’s Social Services states that their homes provide “a well-structured and positively focused program for girls, offering 24/7/365 supervision to address substance abuse and serious emotional and behavioral challenges,” that they have “two decades of experience,” and that they serve “girls ages 11-18 and non-minor dependents ages 18-21.”

According to records provided by the City of Tulare, the home has been the subject of 100 police calls for service between June 29 and October 17, 2025. The vast majority of police calls to the home are for missing persons – and most occur between 7PM and 12AM. State regulations allow the home to have only one staff member present between 10PM to 7AM.

Calls for “Disturbing the Peace” were another major category, with sixteen logged.

The city’s legal filing lists multiple incidents allegedly connected to the facility’s residents, including:

• On July 26, after running away, becoming intoxicated, returning, and attempting to light herself on fire, a girl at the facility told police she was raped 2-4 days earlier when she “went to hangout and smoke at a nearby park with another juvenile resident” and an unknown man raped her. She also claimed she was being trafficked by another girl at the facility,
• Police responded to an August 25 fight in which one underage resident allegedly stabbed another with a sharp comb, and the two residents subsequently armed themselves with glass and a fire extinguisher,
• One underage girl at the facility was allegedly having sex with an adult man in Tulare in exchange for alcohol. She allegedly trafficked another underage girl at the facility, arranging for her to have sex with the man in exchange for alcohol. On July 23, the second girl informed police about the incident, and the man was arrested and charged.

Attorneys for the city claim that even more cases have gone unreported, and some victims in the surrounding area refused prosecution of cases due to a fear of retaliation.

The August 25 incident’s aftermath was documented by Visalia Stringer, where footage shows a woman lying on the ground surrounded by multiple police cars and a LifeStar ambulance parked across the street.

According to court records, Tulare resident Amrinder Singh was arrested and charged with the July 23 incident. He pleaded not guilty to felony rape, felony unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, and providing compensation for sex.

Singh “proceeded to have sexual intercourse with the victim after she refused consent and [told] the subject she was scared and didn’t want to,” a probable cause statement by the Tulare Police Department alleges. “The victim is 14 years of age. Upon speaking to the suspect, he confirmed to believing the victim was under the age of 18 and said she looked young, despite [what] she was telling him.”

Neighbors, city react to home’s impact

Multiple residents told the Voice that Scott’s Social Services introduced chaos to the neighborhood. They asked that their names not be published due to a fear of retaliation.

“Everyone’s quality of life has gone down since the group home opened. It’s been pretty terrible since they moved in,” one Del Lago resident said.

“There are a lot of elderly that are fearful to open the door,” a neighbor said. “There is a special needs child that, every time the police or ambulance sirens come down the street, he has a seizure. He recently had to be taken to [Valley] Children’s Hospital.”

“They fight like hell with each other and then yell at the neighbors,” a resident said. “When the police show up, such as for the recent stabbing, they fight with the cops right in their front yard.”

The home’s neighbors also began speaking at Tulare City Council meetings, with the first mention of the home at the August 19, 2025 meeting.

“This has had a real, incredible impact on our neighborhood, it has been a nuisance since the day it opened, and it’s a significant hardship for us, and we are urgently requesting that you help us remove this problem from our neighborhood,” said Rodney Klassen, a law enforcement officer and neighborhood resident, at the Tulare City Council’s August 19 meeting.

“These kids loitered in front of a neighbor’s yard smoking marijuana, they were asked to leave and refused to do so – it took a counselor more than 20 or 30 minutes to get them back into their group home,” he said. “They drink alcoholic beverages in the back yard of the group home and they toss their containers over the fence into a neighbor’s back yard. That neighbor has small children with special needs.”

State law forces city to be reactive, not proactive

Tulare’s City Manager, Marc Mondell, told Klassen and the city council that state legislators had tied Tulare’s hands in responding to the problem.

“The legislature’s perspective – I don’t want to speak for the legislature, I’m only trying to interpret their perspective – is these individuals have to go somewhere, so they’re going to make it so that they can go anywhere,” Mondell said.

When a group home comes into a city, they’re often the last to know, Assistant City Manager Thomas W. Gaffery IV said. State law doesn’t allow for land use restrictions on the homes, and group homes aren’t even required to obtain a business license, he added.

City officials did say that they were able to still enforce other parts of city code and law on the home – including nuisance laws. That, eventually, led to the nuisance lawsuit being filed on October 21.

Klassen spoke again at the October 7 meeting.

“We have video of one of them coming out of that house, out of the front door, and going immediately to where a rock had been stashed, and picking a rock up and threatening to throw it at one of the other kids,” he said.

Klassen then said that a neighbor had found a straight razor laying next to a utility box in the neighborhood – where he says the children often sit at 10 or 11pm at night.

“The way they’re most commonly used by that type of mentality is to slash the face and neck, and slashing the neck can be very lethal. So, we’re very concerned not only about the violence they will commit on each other, but when they may turn that violence onto the other neighbors as well,” he said.

Scott’s Social Services and other homes

STRTPs are licensed by the California Department of Social Services to provide “short-term, specialized, and intensive therapeutic and 24-hour care and supervision to children.” Children can be placed in the homes by county welfare departments, probation departments, or tribal organizations.

Only four Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program facilities exist in Tulare County:

• Scott’s Social Services’ Tulare home, licensed since December 2024, treating “girls ages 11-18 and non-minor dependents ages 18-21,” with a maximum capacity of 6,
• Courage to Change, a ranch in Exeter licensed since 1998, treating boys 13-18 with a maximum capacity of 16,
• Two homes operated by Success in Recovery, licensed since 2003 and 2011, treating boys 13-17 with a maximum capacity of 6 each.

Although the Scott’s Social Services’ facility in Tulare has been licensed since 2024, its Bakersfield homes have been licensed since 2020 and 2021.

State officials publish statistics on citations given to all licensed facilities – separated by “Type A,” citations for an immediate risk to health, safety, or personal rights, and “Type B,” citations for a potential risk – for the last 60 months.

The Scott’s Social Services’ Tulare home has been given five Type A citations and seven Type B citations in the short time it’s been open, compared to:

• Two Type A and two Type B citations for Success in Recovery’s first home,
• Five Type A and Type B citations for Success in Recovery’s second home,
• Five Type A and fourteen Type B citations for Courage to Change, which has more than double the residents of the other homes.

Eight of the citations in Tulare stemmed from an unannounced inspection on July 22, 2025, which found:

• The facility was understaffed at certain periods, with only one staff member available for four children during times that two staff members were required,
• A shed containing cleaning chemicals was unlocked and potentially accessible to residents,
• Health screenings of staff members were not documented, as required by law,
• Some windows were missing screens, a bathroom had a crack in the wall, and a hallway wall had a hole,
• A monthly log of manual restraints, required by law, was not maintained,
• Training required by law was not completed for at least some staff members,
• No written records were kept of staff training, required by law, were kept
• No “emergency binder” containing an emergency/disaster plan, required by state law, was created.

Husband and wife team made $530,992 from multiple nonprofits in 2023

All STRTPs must be run on a nonprofit basis and governed by a Board of Directors, according to state regulations. Most tax returns by a nonprofit are public, including revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities, and compensation to key employees.

Robert and Tiffany Carter are the CEO and CFO of Scott’s Social Services, respectively. On the organization’s website, they boast of their experience helping children through STRTPs and social work. They’re also listed as “Key Employees” on the organization’s tax return.

Scott’s Social Services’ most recent tax returns available are for 2023. In that filing, Tiffany and Robert were listed the only “Key Employees” paid by the organization, and the organization’s payroll for other employees, such as support staff, is broken out separately.

Their income from the organization is higher than “Key Employees” from other nonprofits running STRTPs in Tulare County.

Success in Recovery only paid one “Key Employee” in 2023 – its CEO – and paid him $170,252. It also operated two homes with a combined capacity of 12 residents.

Courage to Change paid its “Key Employees” a total of $224,325 in 2023, according to its filing. The organization only operated one facility with a capacity of 16 residents.

Tiffany was paid $260,000 by Scott’s Social Services, and Robert was paid $169,992, for a combined payout of $429,992. In 2023, Scott’s Social Services operated two homes with a combined capacity of 12 residents.

Scott’s Social Services’ CEO Robert Carter also earned funds from other STRTPs at the same time.

In 2023, he was listed as a STRTP Director for James Penny House, a Bakersfield group home, and was paid $101,000.

Robert Carter is also currently listed as an Executive Vice-President of Kern Bridges Youth Homes, and as the organization’s STRTP Director. He was paid $122,977 by Kern Bridges in 2024, according to Kern Bridges’ tax filings.

Next steps in Tulare cases

A hearing on the city’s request for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for January 29, 2026 in Department 1 of the Tulare County Superior Court in Visalia.

Singh’s arraignment is scheduled for November 14, 2025 for his felony charges – as well as a new charge of contacting a minor with sexual intent.

The post Neighbors, city say Tulare group home is out of control appeared first on Valley Voice.

The Porterville City Council is one step closer to funding lawsuits by residents against the State of California after voting to bring a new “Individual Liberty” ordinance back to a future meeting. While the ordinance lays out a number of hot-button social and political issues that council members want to take a stand on, it doesn’t focus on one issue in particular, and punts the parameters of the lawsuit funding program to a future meeting.

The “Commitment to the Principles of Individual Liberty” ordinance, approved with a 4-1 vote on Tuesday, October 21, sets out a series of commitments by the City of Porterville and would create a “legal defense assistance program and fund” that residents could tap into.

The ordinance states the “scope and requirements of the [legal assistance] program shall be set forth by Resolution of the City Council,” though no guidelines have been discussed yet.

It combines themes from two prior proposals in February and March: a “Parental Rights in Education” ordinance, which would have required schools to tell parents if their children requested pronouns different from their sex at birth, and a “Protect Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinance, which would have made it unlawful for someone to use a bathroom, locker room, or other “private facility” that does not match with their sex at birth.

The new ordinance also states that the City of Porterville would uphold specific commitments, without any specific penalties or requirements placed upon schools or businesses in Porterville. Those commitments include:

• That the City of Porterville “will not engage in illegal discrimination against individuals based on their vaccination or medical status, and will respect the privacy of individuals’ medical information,”
• That the City of Porterville “shall not follow or enforce executive or administrative directives that have been determined to unlawfully infringe upon constitutionally protected rights,”
• That the Porterville City Council “affirms its commitment that City residents, to the fullest extent required by the Federal and State Constitutions, are entitled to be made aware of information and matters related to their minor children’s health and education, including all physical health matters, educational curriculum, or sexual and/or gender orientation, identity or expression,”
• That the Porterville City Council “affirms its commitment that City residents, to the fullest extent provided for by the State and Federal Constitution, are entitled to legal protections against discrimination, including discrimination based on sex, and women are entitled to equal educational opportunities and safe private environments in order to minimize the risk of sexual harassment and violence.”

Public comment

“I don’t think that our children should grow up going into restrooms or stuff like that and a man walks in on them or vice-versa. I think that liberties should be protected, medical freedoms should be protected, and parents’ rights should be given back to them,” Darin Garrett, a Porterville resident said.

Garrett also noted the controversy around the ordinance, and said that those who came up to speak on the issue should speak respectfully to the councilmembers and represent Porterville with “love, kindness, peace and forgiveness.”

“I just can’t comprehend we’re even discussing this where I’ve got to worry about my two little granddaughters and a man walking in on them, so I just want to encourage you guys to do the right thing,” Rick Sullins said.

Diane Wagner spoke to oppose the ordinance.

“This is about politics. It’s about an attempt to legalize discrimination and fund it with public dollars. It’s about inserting the government and the extreme views of some of our city leaders into classrooms, businesses, and bathrooms,” Wagner said. “This ordinance is about control – control over what other people’s children can learn, how teachers can teach, and even how individuals can live or express themselves.”

Karen Anderson spoke to remind the council of “their responsibility to represent everyone in this community.”

“Not just those who look like you, think like you, worship like you, and vote like you – but everyone,” Anderson said. “Public office is not about advancing personal ideology and rewarding political allies.”

Council discussion includes dissent

Porterville Mayor Greg Meister, opening the discussion on the ordinance, called it “very exciting.”

He drew parallels between this ordinance and sanctuary city ordinances in larger areas of the state, saying the council is “following their lead,” only focusing on “addressing constitutional issues and protecting constitutional rights” instead of immigration policy.

“There’s already a precedent set that holds standards like this, where you have cities like LA – who is a charter city as well – and they use the same structure to protect illegal immigrants,” Meister said. “And you can go to the City of San Francisco or the County of San Diego who have structures like this to protect what they feel is their constituents.”

(Los Angeles, San Diego County, and San Francisco do have ordinances prohibiting municipal resources being used to assist immigration enforcement officials, but they do not provide funding for citizens to sue over immigration policies.)

Council member AJ Rivas said he didn’t understand “what people were so afraid of” around the ordinance.

“It’s real simple. It’s not violating anybody’s rights,” Rivas said. “This protects everybody.”

Meister added that California lawmakers continue to “violate” parental rights and “intrude into constitutionally protected rights,” and that critics might not “see the bigger picture.”

“There will be attorney groups that do pro bono work – and the city is not taking the stance,” Meister said. “It is the constituent that would be suing the state – the city is only helping direct [lawsuits].”

Councilmember Raymond Beltran spoke against the idea of a legal assistance fund. He said that while he’d signed on to a prior parental rights proclamation, this ordinance could open a “pandora’s box.”

“Going down this road just enables in four years, in six years or eight years, when council turns over at some point – people come with their agenda and say we’re a sanctuary city, or something that might be opposed to some of the council members that sit up here now,” Beltran said.

“We’re going to create this fund of money we don’t have so that people can then just say, hey, I want to sue because I don’t believe in this. We can’t pick and choose what constituents come and want to sue the federal government,” Beltran said. “Maybe somebody wants to sue the federal government over immigration, and we’re gonna have to allow that. I don’t think that’s what the taxpayers paid us to come up here to say: ‘Hey, let’s put some of our community needs aside because I don’t like what the state or federal government are doing.’”

“To really jump into this because ‘I want to be bold,’ ‘I want to make a statement,’ – I want to build our damn library, I want to figure out our wastewater treatment center. Those are things I was elected to deal with – not this. I signed on [a parental rights] proclamation, I’ll do that ten times out of ten,” he said. “Let’s stay in our lane, where it’s important to our taxpayers.”

Ed McKervey, an ardent advocate for this ordinance and the prior “Parental Rights” and “Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinances, responded with a look back to the impact of COVID restrictions on the City of Porterville.

“When we mandated these things in COVID in the city, people lost their livelihoods. Churches went out of business, because of the policies of the city and the policies of the state. We’re not gonna do that again,” McKervey said. “COVID decimated a lot of cities – and they gave us $20m in ARPA funds, and we wasted them, and we could have built a library, and we didn’t.”

“This is a really good thing to do to stand on the principles of the constitution and individual liberty, and we have a duty to protect every citizen in our city, and we work on it all the time with our police and our fire, this is an extension of that because the people are being put in positions and they shouldn’t be put in, and they’ve lost their livelihood as a result, and it’s created division,” McKervey said. “And you need to stand on principle for our people, and not on the politics of this.”

Meister, following after McKervey, rejected the idea of the city council “staying in [its] line,” stating that the citizens of California had “complied into tyranny.”

Council members ultimately voted to have city staff change some parts of the ordinance, including formatting and spelling fixes, and to bring it back for a first reading.

Before his vote, Meister hit back at those who said the city should focus on other priorities, like rebuilding its library.

“Political theater is real,” Meister said. “When you have someone coming up here and saying, ‘I want to build the damn library!’ like they’re hard, we haven’t even settled on the lawsuit. We have a grant fund – we don’t have the funds to build the library today. We don’t have them.”

“You cannot build the library today. It’s political theater, and it’s really disappointing,” he added.

The post Porterville council votes to move forward with new “individual liberty” ordinance appeared first on Valley Voice.

The Porterville City Council will continue working on two ordinances that have sparked significant outcry: a new “Parental Rights in Education” ordinance, and a “Protect Women’s Safe Spaces” transgender bathroom ordinance previously discussed on March 4.

Mayor Greg Meister directed city staff at the council’s March 18 meeting to craft both proposals into ordinances that would allow citizens to sue government agencies for violations with potential loans provided by the city for citizens’ legal costs.

The published text of the proposed “Parental Rights in Education” ordinance would require public schools in Porterville to notify parents if their children are requesting access to private facilities for another gender or asking to be referred to by a different name or pronouns.

The ordinance also reinforces existing mandated reporter laws, requires schools to provide more time for parents to review sexual education materials, and prohibits contraceptive distribution at schools.

Under the proposed text, parents would be granted standing to sue schools that violate the regulations. A city “Legal Assistance Fund” would provide funding for attorney, court filing, and expert witness fees.

During the meeting, Mayor Greg Meister stated that legal funds would likely be distributed through loans.

“What we do have the ability to do is have a civil right of action, and some form of maybe a payback plan,” Meister said, “where someone could come to us, in private, and set up some form of system where we protect the civil rights of our constituents here in Porterville.”

Prior to the meeting, the Valley Voice reached out to the Porterville Unified School District for comment on the potential city ordinance, and to find out what policies it has in place today for transgender students.

A district representative stated that the district currently follows “all applicable federal and state laws.”

“Porterville Unified School District has always been committed to following all applicable federal and state laws that govern public education in California. Our policies and practices are designed to comply with federal regulations, the California Education Code, and other relevant state requirements while prioritizing the safety, well-being, and educational needs of all students,” a statement from the district read.

“Our focus remains, as always, on our core mission of providing quality education in a supportive environment where students can thrive, maintaining appropriate communication with families, and operating our schools in accordance with federal and state law.“

Council tackles Parental Rights ordinance

Many opponents of the ordinance accused the council of pursuing the “Parental Rights in Education” ordinance with a bias against transgender youth.

Multiple council members chafed at the idea that the parental rights ordinance targeted transgender youth specifically, though the first item of the ordinance specifically called for “Parental Notification for Gender Identity Changes.”

“When you allow a child to go and change their records at the school without their parental permission, that usurps the parental rights,” Vice Mayor Ed McKervey, who proposed the ordinance, said. “And it’s not exactly all this gender ideology everybody’s saying. This is about parental rights. That’s what it says in there.”

Council members Raymond Beltran and AJ Rivas agreed.

“This isn’t necessarily trying to pick out one classification of individual, it’s more giving rights back to the parent,” Beltran said. “In society over the last 30 years, parents are allowing the government to raise their children: feed three meals a day, daycare, sex education, the government is becoming the parent.”

“We don’t have – or I don’t – have any issues with anybody or what they reclassify themselves as, because I have family members that are like that,” Rivas said. “And I’ve dealt with them. So, I know exactly what they’ve gone through, and I hear what the opponents [of the proposition] are saying. All it is is nothing but fear-mongering.”

McKervey said that it would take time before the council could implement the parental rights ordinance due to ongoing legal cases, but that he was intent on seeing it implemented.

“Now, this thing may not be able to go forward in its current form, but it’s going to go forward in some form, I’ll guarantee you that. We’re gonna find a way to put this through,” he said.

Beltran stated that he recommended tabling the ordinance, but continuing work on it in the background, due to the ongoing legal cases.

Meister said that he didn’t want to table the ordinance – as it would sit in stasis until brought back to the council – resulting in his direction to city staff to continue the development of both the “Parental Rights” and “Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinances.

“Silence is acceptance. We can no longer be silent on these issues. We have to start standing up, and to municipalities across this state, I challenge you to take this stand,” Meister said. “If we continue to comply, we will comply ourselves into tyranny. It’s that simple.”

School system grievances

McKervey and Meister both had pointed words for the public school system.

McKervey said that AB 1955 – a state law that prohibits schools from requiring employees to inform any person, including a parent, about a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity – was government overreach into schools, and effectively treated children as adults.

“You need to consider taking your kids out of school. You need to consider homeschool. You need to consider other alternatives, because they have the power right now, and they’re winning,” he said. “And unless you change that, you may have to change where you send your kids to school.”

“‘Public schools’ is a farce. We no longer have public schools, they are state-ran schools,” Meister said.

“The administrators and teachers in our community are great people, we greatly respect them, but unfortunately they are caught in a bad position between parents and a student that may be going through hard issues,” Meister said, ”and this is a time for a parent to be a parent and help their child in a hard situation.”

Meister said that “whistleblower teachers” he said had reached out to him, and pointed to “curriculum for sex ed, for 13 year olds,” which he stated included instructions for various types of sex and masturbation.

“The teachers are frightened to have to teach this,” he said.

Public comment against the ordinance

LGBTQ advocates showed up in force to the March 18th’s meeting. Many were familiar faces who spoke about the transgender bathroom ordinance on March 4.

Dr Kathryn Hall, a retired pediatrician who lives in Lindsay, told the council the parental rights ordinance was misguided.

“When schools respect students’ privacy by not outing them about their consent, it does not harm anyone. Parents who feel a need to know their children’s gender identity can ask their child, but it is reasonable to wait until the child is feeling ready to tell them,” Hall said.

“Conversion therapy is ineffective, harmful, unethical, and illegal in many areas. No one should be subjected to it. Please protect all Porterville youth, all Porterville LGBTQIA+ adults, and all Porterville women, cisgender or transgender, by not instituting transphobic bathroom bans or supporting outing students against their will,” she added.

Matthew Aquino, a Porterville high school teacher, said that he would not comply if the council passed the ordinance – and that he would not be the only one. He encouraged the council to reconsider their views.

“Not only does this ordinance endanger children to physical abuse at home, it is also completely pointless. Do you know why? Because my colleagues and I will never comply with this ordinance,” he said. “We will resist your authoritarian overreach and your anti-human agenda, and you won’t be able to do anything about it, because at the end of the day, you have lies, insecurity, and fear on your side – and we have truth, morality, and the principle of liberty on our side.”

Catherine Wilkinson, a 14-year-old student, told the council about a transgender friend she had met while at a medical facility following an attempt at suicide.

“The girl who I shared a room with, she was a trans woman. She killed herself recently, a couple a months ago. She ended her own life because her mom didn’t love her – didn’t love all of her,” she said. “I shared a room with her my entire stay there and she told me that – I just want to wear a dress and feel pretty, like all of the other girls at school. I just want to have friends.”

“She had to be taken away from her mother because of abuse that was happening, and she was sent back to her mother to continue to be abused. She was outed without her own free will, and she ended her own life,” she said.

Public comment for the ordinance

While many LGBTQ advocates spoke against the ordinance, some spoke during public comment at the beginning and end of the meeting in support of the ordinance.

Rick Sullins, a Porterville resident, said he didn’t want his grandchildren using restrooms with the opposite gender.

“This is why we voted for you guys. A male is a male, female is a female, I don’t know what the solution for the rest of them are, but I appreciate you protecting my granddaughters,” he said. “I appreciate you protecting my grandsons, and not confusing them.”

Chris Rutledge, a Porterville resident, said that he didn’t initially plan on speaking, but wanted to support the council. He said that he didn’t want his 17 year old son learning about sexuality at school.

“I believe that’s something he needs to make up his mind on his own. He doesn’t need to be taught that from anybody,” Rutledge said. “Whatever he chooses to be, he chooses to be, but he doesn’t need to see it or hear it from anybody else. I want to applaud you men for what you’ve done here.”

Both received applause from the assembled crowd.

Greg Shelton, a former Porterville City Council member, spoke at the public comment period at the end of the meeting, after the majority of the crowd dissipated.

“It’s refreshing to see some of the old timers trot out their well-worn tropes, and the sky is falling. I wonder where modesty made you become a bigot. I’ve spoken to women about the idea of men in their bathrooms, and every one of them I’ve spoken to wasn’t a fan of it,” he said.

Shelton said that, with the small number of transgender citizens, the opposition to the bathroom ordinance amounted to a ‘tyranny of the minority.’

“It just feels like it’s the fifteen minutes of fame – and they’re back, we’re gonna go with the oldies, and we’re gonna get our fifteen minutes of fame,” Shelton said. “I just think it’s silly. I think it’ll waste time. It’s just incredibly insensitive and intolerant of everybody else.”

Next steps

The council did not set a date to revisit the “Parental Rights” ordinance or the “Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinance.

The next regular Porterville City Council meeting will be held on April 1, 2025 at Porterville City Hall, 291 N. Main St, Porterville, CA 93257.

The post Porterville council will continue to pursue controversial ordinances, litigation funding appeared first on Valley Voice.

The proposed ordinance, entitled “Safeguarding Parental Rights in Education and Child Upbringing,” would give parents standing to sue schools, school districts, or public agencies if they do not receive those notifications. Under the proposal, those suits could be supported by Porterville city funds with a “Legal Assistance Fund” that would provide assistance for attorney, court filing, and expert witness fees.

The council will discuss the ordinance, proposed by Porterville Vice-Mayor Ed McKervey, as part of its March 18 meeting agenda. It would need to be brought back to a second meeting for a public hearing and second reading before it could be enacted.

McKervey asked for it to be added to the agenda at the council’s March 4 meeting, after significant protest and discussion around a proposed “Protect Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinance. He said that the “Parental Rights” ordinance was in response to “overreach” by state officials.

“The state continues to overreach the bounds of the family,” he said at the meeting. “This secures those fundamental parental rights and makes that boundary very clear on where the city will stand in support of our parents and their rights in our education and our child upbringing.”

At that meeting, McKervey and Porterville Mayor Greg Meister also floated the idea of using city funds to support lawsuits – specifically, suits against the state by women who end up sharing gender-specific spaces with a transgender person.

The “Women’s Safe Spaces” draft ordinance would prevent transgender individuals from using a bathroom, locker room, or other “private facility” in Porterville that does not match their sex at birth. That ordinance was not brought back for discussion at the March 18 meeting, but may appear in a later one.

The ordinance

The Parental Rights ordinance would place three requirements on public and charter schools, as well as any school which provides government funds. It does not mention private schools.

Schools would be required to notify a parent within three days if their child begins the process of social transitioning – requesting to be referred to by alternative pronouns or another gender – with school staff, or if they request access to “gender-specific facilities […] based on gender identity.”

The ordinance states that notification may only be delayed “if the school has documented reasonable suspicion that disclosure would result in imminent, severe harm to the student” – and in such cases, the school must report that concern to “the appropriate child welfare authorities.”

Parents must also be provided with “full transparency” regarding sexual education curriculum, including lesson plans, videos, outside speakers, outside organizations providing presentations, and instructional materials.

This section largely mirrors state education code, which requires districts to provide the same opportunities to parents, though Porterville’s ordinance would extend the state’s 14-day advance notice minimum to a 30-day minimum.

The Porterville Unified School District provides an annual notice to parents notifying them of those state requirements, according to documents on its website.

Schools would also be prohibited from distributing condoms, birth control, emergency contraceptives, “or any other contraceptive” without parental consent. They would also be barred from referring students to abortion providers or facilitating abortions on school grounds.

School employees would be prohibited from providing “guidance or recommendations regarding sexual activity” according to the ordinance, unless it was “required under mandated reporting laws.”

The ordinance also restates existing mandated reporter laws, and states that parents must be notified “in cases where mandated reporting laws require parental involvement for the safety of the minor.”

Following in others’ footsteps – and missteps?

The proposed ordinance refers to a “Chino Valley Unified School District case” as establishing the legality of notifying parents that their children are requesting gender identity changes. That case, however, ultimately found that a policy similar to Porterville’s violated the California Constitution.

The Chino Valley case was brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta in San Bernardino County Superior Court after the Chino Valley district enacted a policy similar to the Porterville draft on July 20, 2023.

The policy, BP 5020, required parents to be notified if students asked to be “identified or treated as a gender […] other than the student’s biological sex or gender listed on the student’s birth certificate or any other official records,” if students requested access to school programs and private facilities used by a sex other than the student’s biological sex, and if the student requested to “change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records.”

A San Bernardino County judge granted a temporary restraining order against BP 5020 in October 2023. He said it was “discriminatory on its face” according to ABC7 Los Angeles, and pointed to remarks by a Chino Valley board member before the vote referring to transgender individuals as mentally ill.

The Chino Valley board then introduced a new policy, BP 5010, on March 7, 2024. That policy only included the requirement for staff to notify parents when they “become aware that a student is requesting to change any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records.”

The judge’s final ruling, dated September 9, 2024, found that the BP 5020 provisions relating to gender-specific requests violated the California Constitution and California’s Education Code.

“There is no forced secrecy in this case; parents are still free to have conversations with their child about gender identity; and parents still have the right to observe a classroom, talk to a teacher, and review educational records,” the judge wrote. “In other words, a parent asserting their rights will likely be informed.”

However, the part of the policy requiring school employees to notify parents when a student requests to change “any information contained in the student’s official or unofficial records” was upheld.

Both sides were able to walk away from the case claiming they had won: the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the Chino Valley district, stated that they had secured a victory for the district and its parents.

Meanwhile, Bonta’s office wrote in a press release that he had secured a “win for all students in Chino Valley and across the State” after the judge struck down the gender-specific parts of the policy.

The next Porterville City Council meeting will be held on March 18, 2025 at Porterville City Hall, 291 N. Main St, Porterville, CA 93257.

The post Porterville council keeps spotlight on transgender issues with parental rights proposal appeared first on Valley Voice.

The city may soon also consider using public funds to support lawsuits launched against the state by women who end up sharing private spaces with transgender individuals.

“We really have to look and be creative with this ordinance, and it is the people who have the standing,” Mayor Greg Meister said. “The women that are injured from laws that are passed by the state that are unconstitutional, and violate women’s eighth amendment right, which is cruel and unusual punishment to force biological men into women’s spaces.”

“What we do have the ability to do, is to support a lawsuit for the people,” Meister said. “So if there is someone who is harmed by these laws from the state, the city can support lawfare on the state – and that is the direction that I’d like to try to take this ordinance.”

In addition to discussion of the “Women’s Safe Spaces” ordinance, plans to create a “Safeguarding Parents’ Rights in Education” ordinance were proposed by Porterville Vice-Mayor Ed McKervey at the end of the March 4 meeting.

Text of the education ordinance could be put forth for consideration at the council’s March 18 meeting.

Council uniformly supports restrictions, debates using city funds

All of the council members expressed support for restrictions on keeping transgender individuals out of gender-specific bathrooms, locker rooms, or other private areas; all also said that they supported safety for women, but did not harbor any animus towards the transgender community.

Some were more circumspect about the possibility of using public funds to support private lawsuits.

By the end of the discussion, city staff were directed to rewrite the ordinance to take into account the potential for a legal defense fund to support private lawsuits against the state, and to account for future potential Supreme Court decisions that could change laws such as California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which currently includes protections for individuals’ gender identity.

The council would then discuss the updated ordinance.

Meister drew parallels between the potential Porterville legal fund and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent move to create a $25m legal fund to back lawsuits by the State of California against President Donald Trump’s administration.

McKervey said that the “culture war has shifted,” and had choice words for those that spoke against the ordinance – noting that there were “a lot of triggered activists.”

He supported the idea to expend city funds on potential private lawsuits.

“I like the idea that we draw the boundary and say, our city will stand with the people of the city,” he said, “and I would suggest that maybe we set aside some money for litigation to protect those that are harmed by this, in preparation for something, even though there may not be a harm now.”

He said he didn’t appreciate the “hate, and the threatening behavior, and the epithets, and the slander from the audience,” and that the council needed to “continue to have this conversation until that tone comes down, and we have a real conversation where we’re talking with each other, instead of at each other.”

Council member AJ Rivas pushed back against public comments that said transgender individuals were more likely to be harmed, rather than to harm others, in public restrooms, and said that he supported the restrictions.

Rivas listed off cases of alleged assaults by transgender individuals from Virginia, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and other states. He also read off the statement that “bathrooms are often the places of sexual assault of women and children by transgenders.”

The order of news headlines and the specific statement appear identical to a list of articles compiled by the Utah Gay-Straight Coalition. That list was used to influence transgender policy discussions in Utah, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Council member Raymond Beltran said that he supported the ordinance, saying that he believed the state’s overreach had gone too far – noting the presence of female menstrual products in sixth grade bathrooms.

He also said he worried about the financial impact of a legal fund on the city’s budget.

“We already run a very, very tight ship with things that are needed. Diverting any funds for legal fees to fight something like this, until something comes from federal and especially Supreme Court, I’d just hate to set aside $100,000 or $500,000 when it could be going to things,” Beltran said.

“We already cut fees for utilities for youth sports, we’re doing another traffic report we did in an area already, we are redoing buses,” he added. “It feels like we’re just spending money we don’t have yet.”

Protests and public comment

Protesters gathered across the street from Porterville City Hall at 4:30PM, two hours before the council was set to meet in open session. Upwards of fifty protesters were outside before the council meeting started, and a smaller contingent stayed outside during the meeting.

The fireworks started early inside chambers – the meeting opened with an invitation for invocations from the public, which led to early commentary and controversy.

One woman’s invocation called for “victory over the proclamation to ensure the protection of women’s safe spaces,” while another woman elicited gasps and cheers from the crowd when she came to the podium to “call on to [her] Lord Satan, since you guys are here to pray to your God.”

Dr. Kathryn Hall, a pediatrician who practices in Visalia and lives in Lindsay, spoke to support the transgender community.

“The proposed ordinance and proclamation – they are misleading, unnecessary, and harmful. No transgender person presents a risk to others in a bathroom. There are no cases of women being assaulted by trans women in bathrooms. It does not happen,” she said. “The rationale for this ordinance and this proclamation does not exist.”

“The effects of this ordinance would be to require trans men, who are often bearded, bald, bulked up, to use women’s restrooms. They would not be a threat to anyone in there, but the women may perceive them as a threat, which could result in risk to both,” she added. “Trans women would be forced to use a men’s restroom, where they would be at significant risk. This ordinance would create unnecessary anxiety for cisgender women and actual risk for both trans women and trans men.”

Erica, a woman from Porterville, said she spoke on behalf of transgender youth in the city who did not feel safe speaking publicly.

“You, Mr. Mayor, stated that you did not know if any transgender people live in Porterville. Then what’s the point of the ban? You’re targeting a minority that you didn’t even know was in the city,” she said. “You claim the ban is to protect women, yet no one – not even women’s rights groups – asked you to do this.”

Brock Neeley, a Porterville LGBTQ+ activist – and one of the organizers of the protest – told the council their ordinance “blatantly” violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and said that state officials were lying in wait for any action the council might take.

“I’ve had a conversation with [California Attorney General] Rob Bonta already, he’s waiting. He’s got the filings already written. You’re gonna cost this city a whole bunch of money if you pass this,” he said. “The other thing is, if [City Attorney Julia] Lew helps you with this, she’s probably gonna face disbarment. How much money and staff time are you going to waste on this crap?”

Support from the public

While many of the public comments were against the proposed ordinance, some spoke at the meeting to support it. One was a familiar face to some in the crowd – former Porterville City Council Member Greg Shelton.

Shelton was on the council in 2013, when he and other members of council rescinded an LGBT Pride Proclamation passed by former Porterville Mayor Virginia Gurrola.

He harkened back to the experience in his comments to the council.

“It’s interesting to hear some of the guys reheating the nachos, you know – it’s, oh my gosh, it’s intolerance, it’s acceptance, it’s rights,” he said. “And I always find it interesting now, as I did then, that the people that scream the loudest about tolerance are the most intolerant people of everybody else.”

“I identify as a human with an X and a Y chromosome, I don’t know what that makes me. The females that I know, they’re not comfortable with this – now they’re not down here grandstanding. They stay at home, they pay their bills, they go to work,” he said. “But they don’t like the idea. And I don’t blame them.”

“Thank you for taking the hits,” he said. “I’ve been there. Good job.”

Rosemary, a Porterville resident, told the council that she has friends who are gay and transgender, and that she wasn’t at the meeting to “put them down,” but that she wanted privacy and respect as a woman.

“As a mother, and a grandmother, I would want to make sure that my child is safe, my grandchildren are safe when they’re in the public bathrooms or any public place,” she said. “Not all transgender people are bad. They’re good people – they’re just different than what I am. And I can accept that, if they can accept me as a woman.”

Korey Wells, a Springville resident, spoke during a public comment period at the end of the council meeting – at 10:55PM, after the chambers had largely emptied out. He commented on multiple items, but said he supported the ordinance.

“There’s a lot of kind of crazy verbiage that was used tonight. I am a proud white male, and I am a sigma alpha chad white male, and you know – whatever, I don’t care. It’s weird that they use the word ‘cis’ in the place of straight. Who cares,” he said.

“There are in fact boys and men going into the women’s and girls restrooms in these schools. At McDermont, the girls who are playing and practicing, when they’re doing their games, they ask for their coaches and their teammates to escort them to the bathroom so that they can have a partner walking with them to protect them,” he continued.

New Education and Child Upbringing ordinance

At the end of each meeting, council members are given an opportunity to propose new business.

McKervey motioned for the council to consider a “Safeguarding Parental Rights in Education and Child Upbringing” ordinance at its next meeting.

He said that he had vetted his proposal to avoid legal challenges.

“The state continues to overreach the bounds of the family. This secures those fundamental parental rights and makes that boundary very clear on where the city will stand in support of our parents and their rights in our education and our child upbringing,” he read.

Meister supported the motion and seconded it.

“I know we’ve worked and talked about this a little, talking about some of the bills the state has passed that violate parental rights, and hiding information from parents like gender identity or even to the point of giving children material to be sexually active like condoms and birth control – all the way to taking a child to get an abortion without parents’ consent,” Meister said. “I love where you’re going with this, Vice-Mayor, because what we’re trying to do is return to common sense and the constitution of the United States.”

The motion passed unanimously.

The next regular Porterville City Council meeting will be held on March 18, 2025 at Porterville City Hall, 291 N. Main St, Porterville, CA 93257.

The post Porterville council may consider funding private lawsuits in bathroom ordinance twist appeared first on Valley Voice.

A public hearing at a future council meeting and a second reading of the ordinance would be required before the ordinance could be enacted.

If it passes as written, transgender individuals would need to use facilities matching their sex at birth, rather than the gender that they currently identify as, or they would risk fines up to $1,000 after multiple violations. Businesses who do not obey the ordinance could risk fines up to $5,000.

The draft resolution would apply to buildings owned or operated by the City of Porterville, public schools, colleges and universities in the city, any private businesses open to the public “unless they provide single-occupancy, gender-neutral facilities,” and any entity that receives funding from the City of Porterville.

Areas with “public restrooms, locker rooms, and similar facilities” would be required to post signage indicating spaces as male or female “based on biological sex,” and “business and institutions” would be required to “inform employees and patrons of their compliance with [the] ordinance.”

No specific example of required verbiage or signage was provided in the draft. Businesses would be allowed, but not required, to provide single-occupancy/unisex accommodations.

Porterville Mayor Greg Meister told the Porterville City Council at its February 18 meeting that he wanted to propose the ordinance to protect women’s safe spaces in the city.

“The goal of this is to set law in the City of Porterville to protect women’s safe spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, sports — things where women in Title IX have the right to have their own space, and it’s something that is a big issue in our country,” Meister said at the meeting. “And it’s something that is a big issue in our country, and I feel the need to fight at a local level to protect women in our community.”

Enforcement options

Guardians or parents of children under the age of six years old would be exempt from the ordinance, as would individuals assisting persons with disabilities “in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

First responders would also be exempt if they are required to enter a sex-specific facility as part of an emergency response.

The draft spells out escalated penalties for individuals who violate the ordinance, with fines reaching up to $1,000 and “potential prohibition from entering certain public facilities.”

• Upon the first offense, a violator would receive a written warning,
• On the second offense, a violator would receive a fine of up to $500,
• On the third offense, a violator would receive a fine of up to $1,000 and “potential prohibition from entering certain public facilities.”

Businesses that do not enforce sex-specific spaces could be fined up to $5,000 per violation. Law enforcement “or designated city personnel” would be able to remove “individuals who refuse to comply with facility usage regulations.”

Motivation

Meister told the Los Angeles Times that “no one, including women’s rights groups, approached him about the ordinance, which he came up with on his own,” and that there were “no instances in Porterville of transgender women using their preferred restrooms,” according to a Times article about the proposal of the ordinance.

He said that he wanted to confront the possibility before it became an issue, the article states.

In an interview with KMPH FOX26, Meister said that a real-world example was the presence of menstrual products in boys’ restrooms at school as enforced by California’s AB367, the “Menstrual Equity for All” bill. The law requires menstrual products to be provided in “at least one men’s restroom.”

“So, unfortunately with that being a law, and not to demonize our school districts, but they have to follow the laws in order to get their funding. So we have tampon dispensers in our boys’ restrooms,” he said. “If you’re not drawing lines, then that means a biological female can go into the boys’ restroom, and if you reverse those rules, that means a biological male can go into the girls’ restrooms, it means they could go into the locker rooms, it means they could play in their sports.”

Reaction

He told KMPH that he’s “received nothing but love from the local community,” “emails from all over the state,” and “disappointment, people that feel they’re under attack – the LGBQ community.”

Meister said the ordinance is “not against them,” and that he believes they have rights as well – that the single-stall bathroom provision would allow “people that are experiencing gender dysphoria the opportunity to have their safe space as well.”

Advocates for the LGBTQ community in Porterville and Tulare County have pushed back against the potential ordinance.

The Tulare County Stonewall Democrats are organizing a protest on March 4, two hours before the Porterville City Council meeting.

Porterville Equality and Fairness for All, an organization started after a 2013 controversy over a proclamation supporting LGBT Pride Month in Porterville, posted that it would “have to become active again” in response to the news of the ordinance.

“This time they want to know about your genitals in order to decide where you can or cannot go and what activities you can and cannot participate in everywhere in the City. This includes your children also,” the group posted later in the week. “It’s up to you and everyone you can persuade to like this page to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Erika Hawkyard, Director of Programs for The Source LGBT+ Center, told KMPH that the ordinance would not protect women.

“I think it’s important to understand for trans individuals as well, discriminating against trans people will not affect the safety of anyone in a restroom,” she said.

The Porterville City Council will meet at 6:30PM on March 4, 2025 at 291 N. Main St in Porterville. The meeting will also be available electronically via YouTube and Zoom.

The post Porterville council to discuss first draft of Women’s Safe Spaces ordinance, includes fines up to $5k appeared first on Valley Voice.

FPA Women’s Health opened last year in the Tulare Medical Center, a complex of offices near Adventist Health Tulare but unrelated to the hospital or the Tulare Local Healthcare District.

The center’s property owners’ association sued the clinic and its landlords, Leopoldo and Jennifer Valdivia, in September, pointing to association restrictions that prohibit providing or assisting in abortions at the location FPA is renting.

A duel between the two has played out since September in the Tulare County Superior Court – and now, at least one part of the case is headed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno.

Temporary restraining order appealed

At the outset of the case, attorneys for the Tulare Medical Center Property Owners’ Association filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent FPA from offering abortion services at its location.

At the time the case was filed, FPA’s website claimed the Tulare location would offer surgical abortions and the abortion pill; FPA’s website has since been amended and now states that it only offers the abortion pill in Tulare.

The restraining order could only be granted if the association had proof they would “ultimately prevail on the merits of [their] claim,” but Judge Bret D. Hillman declined to approve the order, stating that there was a question of whether the restrictions were legal under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The association has now appealed that decision.

Hillman wrote in his ruling that while the association’s other property owners and renters may have been disrupted by protests against the family planning clinic, they could not prove that they had suffered “irreparable harm” because of the controversy, another requirement for a temporary restraining order.

“[…] the court finds that, at this stage, the Association has not carried its burden to show a likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether the CC&Rs violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act, or other California laws, the court also concludes that the Association fails to show that the balance of harms supports the issuance of a preliminary injunction,” Hillman wrote in his ruling. “Accordingly, the request for a preliminary injunction is denied.”

During the hearing, Hillman told an attorney for the association that he welcomed the opinion of an appellate court.

“I think you’ve got a fairly clear contractual issue here, and I think you got a lot of countervailing public policy issues and identity issues on the other side of that question. I’m perfectly willing to do what the Appellate Court wants me to do on this,” Hillman says in a court transcript, “but at this point, I don’t think it’s clear enough, as I said in the ruling, that I can find the plaintiff is going to prevail.”

The appeal was lodged with California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal on February 13; the appellate court case number is F089334. No decision has been made as of publication time.

SLAPP motion only partially granted

Late last year, attorneys for FPA and the Valdivias hit back against the property owners’ association in a cross-complaint, alleging that the bylaws are invalid or otherwise unenforceable.

The cross-complaint asked for declaratory relief – for Hillman to provide a decision and finality to the dispute over the association’s restrictions – as well as injunctive relief, asking for Hillman to bar the association from enforcing the restrictions on FPA and the Valdivias while the trial proceeded.

They also alleged that by filing their suit and “disrupting” the landlord-tenant relationship between FPA and the Valdivias, the association was interfering with contractual relations and personal finances.

That led the two sides into deeper legal mud: the association petitioned the court to dismiss the cross-complaint through an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion, meant to allow a quick dismissal of lawsuits that are filed because of first amendment activity.

“TMCPOA is accused of one thing by Cross-Complainants: attempting to enforce their CC&Rs – in prelitigation correspondence, mediation, and this litigation. This conduct falls squarely within the anti-SLAPP statute’s protection of the freedom of speech and right to petition,” the association’s motion read.

Hillman ruled on January 7 that while the anti-SLAPP motion could strike the parts of the cross-complaint alleging contractual and economic interference, it could not strike the parts of the complaint asking for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“[…] unlike the defendants’ declaratory relief claim, which arises from an underlying “actual controversy” concerning the validity of the CC&Rs, defendants’ contractual/economic relationship interference claims arise directly from the Association’s protected petitioning activity, since that activity is the only alleged activity of ‘interference,’” Hillman’s ruling states.

“The Association contends [FPA and the Valdivias] cannot show a probability of prevailing on their “interference” claims because Civil Code section 47 immunizes the Association’s litigation-related speech and conduct. The court agrees,” it continues.

A case management conference is scheduled for March 28, 2025 at 8:30am in Department 2 of the Tulare County Superior Court.

The post Tug-of-war continues over Tulare family planning clinic appeared first on Valley Voice.

Former Tulare hospital executive Dr. Yorai “Benny” Benzeevi will avoid jail time and serve 463 days of probation in Los Angeles County after pleading no contest to six felonies and two misdemeanors.

The charges stemmed from acts undertaken when he and his company, Healthcare Conglomerate Associates, managed Tulare Regional Medical Center and the Southern Inyo Hospital.

A negotiated plea deal, which Judge Michael Sheltzer upheld, required Benzeevi to complete 420 hours of community service, 120 days of house arrest, pay $2m restitution to the Tulare Local Healthcare District, and pay $400k restitution to the Southern Inyo Healthcare District.

Benzeevi and HCCA managed hospitals in both districts, and his charges related to crimes against both hospitals.

He had completed his community service, house arrest, and restitution requirements by the time of the sentencing hearing on November 14. He will also be required to pay upwards of $1,000 in fines and fees before his probation ends.

Benzeevi is only serving 463 days of probation instead of two years as he was credited for 267 days of house arrest. The credit came from the time between when Benzeevi would have normally been sentenced and the November court date, Sheltzer said.

While sentencing normally would have taken place 20 days after the February hearing in which Benzeevi changed his plea, the sentencing was repeatedly delayed due to the Israel-Hamas War.  Benzeevi’s funds were frozen – including funds located in Israeli banks – during the case, and the funds’ release was required to provide restitution to the districts. The war is slowing bureaucratic and court operations in Israel, delaying the un-freezing of his Israeli bank accounts.

Sheltzer handed down the sentence after victim impact statements were given by Xavier Avila, a Tulare Local Healthcare District board member, and Patty Drilling Phelps, a Tulare dentist and founding member of Citizens for Hospital Accountability, a grassroots group which pursued and opposed Benzeevi’s management of Tulare Regional Medical Center.

Avila and Drilling Phelps both asked the court to sentence Benzeevi to actual jail time, as did the Tulare County District Attorney’s Office.

Sheltzer said that he was bound to hold up the original plea agreement, which only included probation, as Benzeevi had held up his end of the deal – and Sheltzer said he favored the deal because it gave the opportunity for immediate monetary restitution.

“The primary reasoning for this […] was so that restitution would be paid in full,” Sheltzer said. “If Dr. Benzeevi was not allowed to work, that major goal would not be accomplished. It would not serve the public purpose to put him in the four walls of a jail cell, even though I realize that perhaps some members of the community feel that would be more appropriate.”

It also prevented years of additional litigation.

“I didn’t honestly expect this case to settle,” Sheltzer said. “I’m glad that it did.”

Tulare County District Attorney Tim Ward said he was pleased with the resolution to Benzeevi’s case.

“As I stated at the time of the plea, our focus was to financially restore the losses caused by the defendant while having him admit his guilt. I believe that goal has been met – $2.4 million dollars in restitution has been returned to victims in Tulare and Inyo and the defendant is a convicted felon. However, we cannot forget the human and extremely personal toll the defendant’s actions took on the community,” Ward said in a press release.

“Though we advocated for time in custody, we respect the court’s decisions today. We now look forward to focusing our efforts on the remaining defendant in this case.”

DA asks for year in jail. Benzeevi attorney: he’s suffered enough

The Tulare County District Attorney’s office requested that the judge sentence Benzeevi to one year in jail and one year probation instead of two years’ probation.

“The seriousness of the crime goes far beyond any illicit benefit that Dr. Benzeevi may have received and strikes to the heart of the citizens’ right to have any local government place the interests of the citizenry above all,” a filing written by Trevor Holly, Assistant District Attorney, reads. “This is a serious matter, and the Court must not only look to an appropriate punishment given Dr. Benzeevi’s conduct, but also consider that the punishment be substantial enough to deter other public officials from engaging in the same conduct. Therefore, the People respectfully request a sentence of 365-days and felony probation.”

Holly said the same in court.

“We have our public officials in charge of operating institutions and spending money for the public good,” he said. “We expect more from them, and one of the things we expect is that they will not enter into contracts, where they have a financial interest in doing so.”

Benzeevi’s attorney, Nina Marino, told the court that Benzeevi was a good person who had been given bad advice.

“He’s a good person. He had good intentions. He got bad advice. He lost his marriage, he lost all his financial security, he lost his employment, he’s lost his career,” she said. “I’ve said before he took full responsibility, he takes full responsibility. He’s paid his debt to society, and we ask the court to impose the sentence indicated.”

In a filing, Marino states that Benzeevi “relied extensively on the advice of counsel in his contractual undertakings on behalf of HCCA,” and that he “dedicated his career to providing medical care to underserved communities,” including in Merced, Fresno, El Centro, Madera, Visalia, Selma, Turlock, and Tulare.

The case has taken a personal toll on Benzeevi and his family, she said in the filing: he and his wife separated in 2017 “after enduring several years of racial and anti-Semitic slurs, public ridicule, insults, and threats” stemming from the case, and his wife filed for divorce in 2023, according to court records.

Additionally, Benzeevi “now faces disciplinary proceedings before the Medical Board for his convictions in this matter,” and after filing his “no contest” plea, Marino states Benzeevi lost a job at a Los Angeles-area urgent care clinic.

“By all accounts, Dr. Benzeevi has been punished and he continues to be punished. He has suffered and will continue to suffer severe collateral consequences because of the prosecution and convictions,” the filing states. “This is a factor this Court should consider when imposing sentence.”

Charges pleaded, charges dropped

Benzeevi initially faced 46 felony and misdemeanor counts related to embezzlement, fraud, conflicts of interest, and violations of the Political Reform Act.

42 of those charges were dismissed with the plea deal. The remaining counts relate to:

• The use of Tulare district funds to finance a lawsuit against Dr. Abraham Betre
• The creation of a line of credit for the Southern Inyo Hospital using Tulare’s funds
• Making loans to Southern Inyo through a financial entity he created and controlled
• Issuing promissory notes to Tulare secured by a deed on district property, including the Evolutions gym
• Selling $3m in Tulare Regional hospital equipment in a leaseback transaction
• Funding the private intelligence agency Psy Group to influence the recall election of former Tulare hospital board member Dr. Parmod Kumar, a supporter of HCCA’s management who Benzeevi hired as the medical director at Southern Inyo
• Participating in efforts to avoid the recognition and seating of Senovia Gutierrez, the former Tulare hospital board member who won Kumar’s seat after he was recalled, and a critic of HCCA’s management

If Benzeevi had been convicted on all 46 charges, he could have faced up to 44 years in prison, though under existing guidelines and California’s Prop 47, that would have been incredibly unlikely.

“There’s no way that any court is going to sentence you to 44 years in county jail,” Sheltzer told Benzeevi during a February 9 hearing.

Impact on other cases

Benzeevi is the second leadership figure of Healthcare Conglomerate Associates to face consequences for actions taken when HCCA managed the two hospitals – Tulare Regional from 2014 to 2017, and Southern Inyo from 2016 to 2017.

Alan Germany, former CFO for HCCA and Tulare Regional, and Southern Inyo’s former Chief Restructuring Officer, pleaded “no contest” to two counts: a misdemeanor count of failing to file a financial disclosure form required of public officials, and a felony count of violating Government Code 1090, a public conflict-of-interest law.

Germany was sentenced to two years of probation, 540 hours of community service, and restitution payments of $100k to the Tulare district and $50k to the Southern Inyo district.

Bruce Greene, HCCA’s former attorney, was charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, initially through a criminal filing by the District Attorney’s office; and, after multiple delays in the initial case, he was indicted by a grand jury in 2024, closing the initial case and opening a new one.

He has maintained his innocence and has previously refused plea deals in his case.

Holly said that while Benzeevi could be used as a witness in Greene’s case, the Tulare County District Attorney’s office did not make a cooperating plea agreement. it was unlikely that he would be called to do so due to potential attorney-client privilege issues.

“60 days after sentencing, when the appellate rights have expired, either side may call him as a witness and he’s under the same obligation that everyone else is,” Holly said. “It all gets very complicated though, so I don’t know if anyone will call him as a witness.”

Victim impact statements

Avila told the court that Benzeevi’s actions warranted a “firm response” and had significantly damaged the community, and that his actions led to the closure of the hospital – during which time Avila said he had been told of patients who showed up to an empty building at best, and lost their life at worst. His full statement is available here.

“The board is not asking that this court reject the plea presently before it, but it does strongly urge the court to sentence Dr. Benzeevi to meaningful jail time. Although the crimes to which Dr. Benzeevi is pleading no contest to are non-violent in nature, the resulting damage caused to this community is certainly an act of violence,” Avila said.

“My board is forced to fight a lingering negative perception of the district and the hospital leadership. It shocks the conscience that all this happened under the leadership of a licensed emergency medical position,” Avila said.

Drilling Phelps said that Benzeevi’s actions led directly to patient harm and deaths, and that his harm must be considered in sentencing. Her full statement is available here.

“It cannot be overlooked that there was physical harm done to patients – in some cases, resulting in the ultimate sacrifice of death. There were victims who suffered and died. Let that sink in a moment. They died because of greed and the need for power, placing profits over people,” Drilling Phelps said. “There were inadequate supplies, some taken away from our hospital to Southern Inyo, inoperative equipment, lack of infection control and physical plant disrepair because money was being hoarded rather than put back into the hospital. The Medical Executive Committee was disbanded by the district board at the behest of Drs. Benzeevi and Kumar, so there would be no oversight of physicians, nor oversight of hospital care.”

“HCCA touted first-world financial success while operating a third-world hospital. Morally, these were intentionally cruel, careless and inhumane acts. The district attorney and the court examined the hospital district’s financial loss and its legal ramifications. Overlooked is the human component: the irreparable harm done to patients at the hospital while financial crimes were perpetrated,” it continues.

What’s next

Proceedings for Greene’s trial are tentatively scheduled to start on February 24, 2025. The Voice will continue to cover that case to its conclusion.

The post Former HCCA CEO sentenced for crimes running Tulare and Inyo hospitals, avoids jail appeared first on Valley Voice.

Former Lindsay Police Chief Richard Carrillo and former Lindsay Finance Director Salvador Guzman have separately sued the City of Lindsay. Both claim they were fired wrongly in retaliation for whistleblowing on alleged financial malfeasance by city staff.

In his lawsuit, Carrillo says he reported what he found to the Tulare County District Attorney’s office, and that he and Guzman were interviewed by the DA’s Public Corruption Division. While the DA’s office would not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, a spokesman confirmed that Lindsay City Hall was served with a search warrant in early March 2024.

A note in the city’s Fiscal Year 2023-2024 audit states that the warrants were part of an investigation “into individuals serving as former management to the city,” and that some worked for the city through December 2023.

Carrillo filed suit in February, and Guzman filed suit in March. They are represented by separate attorneys, but both share some common allegations, including that former Lindsay City Manager Joe Tanner engaged in double-dipping related to vacation benefits.

Tanner was hired in 2020. He was placed under investigation and administrative leave in December 2023, and fired on March 5, 2024. After Tanner was placed on leave, Lindsay’s Director of Recreation Services, Armando da Silva, took on the title of acting city manager.

Carrillo was placed on administrative leave in January of this year, and fired in February amidst heavy public outcry against the decision, as previously reported by the Porterville Recorder and the Sun-Gazette. Guzman, who was hired in August 2023, was also fired in January 2024.

Lindsay city attorney Megan Crouch declined to comment for this article and declined to provide further detail on the investigation into Tanner, citing employee confidentiality and ongoing litigation.

An analysis of council agenda packets shows that the city paid approximately $3,979 to the law firm of Herr, Pedersen & Berglund – a separate firm from the one the city normally uses – for “MATTER: CM INVESTIGATION,” with CM presumably standing for “city manager.”

Guzman and Carrillo further claim Armando da Silva – Tanner’s temporary replacement as city manager – attempted to receive a premature raise in violation of city policy. The two one-time key employees allege it was openly expressing their concerns about the issue that led to their firings while da Silva was the acting city manager.

Da Silva is still employed with the City of Lindsay in his original role as the Director of Recreation Services.

Shelly Bryant, an attorney for Carrillo, told the Valley Voice that they expect to win their case, pointing to a recent victory for the former police chief of Parlier.

“The city should be very concerned about this case. The former police chief of Parlier recently won a jury trial,” Bryant told the Voice. “See the article at: Former Parlier police chief wins $1M lawsuit over firing by city – ABC30 Fresno. We expect the same result in Chief Carrillo’s case.”

Tanner and attorneys for Salvador Guzman declined to provide comment for this story.

In legal filings, the City of Lindsay has denied the allegations raised by Carrillo and Guzman.

$37,000 in alleged vacation time double-dipping

Guzman’s lawsuit claims that the domino effect at Lindsay City Hall started when Tanner asked to cash out his vacation hours.

Guzman says he was asked in September 2023 to cash out 80 hours, and was asked in November to cash out more. Guzman said that when he looked at the November request, Tanner had approximately 190 vacation hours over two years of employment, which “seemed excessive.”

“Guzman discovered that Tanner had been taking vacations without reporting them and then cashing out the funds. Guzman discovered that Tanner had cashed out about $37,000 in total,” the document reads.

Guzman approached Carrillo after discovering the double-dipping, which Carrillo corroborates in his suit.

“[…] Tanner admitted he had been paid cash for vacation credits that he used to get paid during his vacation absence. He offered to reimburse the city and provided a $25,000 personal check. Tanner implied that Guzman should keep things quiet,” Carrillo’s lawsuit reads. “Finance director Guzman declined to hide city manager Tanner’s unlawful conduct.”

Carrillo’s suit claims he reported the information to Lindsay City Council member Rosaena Sanchez. A special meeting was called on December 6, 2023, and Tanner was placed on administrative leave.

Da Silva’s raise – or lack thereof?

The next day, da Silva allegedly emailed other city officials attempting to receive increased pay and benefits, according to Carrillo’s lawsuit. Carrillio’s suit states he and Guzman believed receiving a raise was against city policy unless da Silva occupied the position for one month or more.

Both claim that discussing da Silva’s compensation would lead to their firings.

An online version of Lindsay’s Rules and Regulations states that an employee “who temporarily assumes the duties of a superior position for an extended period of usually one (1) month or more, may upon approval of the city manager receive premium pay commensurate with the duties assumed.”

Carrillo walked into Guzman’s “work area” when he and Mari Carrillo, Lindsay’s human resources manager, were discussing da Silva’s salary request, his lawsuit claims.

He interpreted the conversation to mean that da Silva would be in the acting role for a longer period of time, and says that he “told a few command staff members of the Police Department” that da Silva would be sticking around due to the conversation he overheard.

Gossip allegedly led to shouting match

The gossip fired da Silva up, both lawsuits allege.

Guzman claims that da Silva called a meeting with him the same day and “started yelling at [him],” alleging that he was leaking information and “telling Chief Carrillo about his payroll.”

Guzman’s lawsuit claims that da Silva’s “harassing conduct” caused Mari Carrillo to begin crying, and made Guzman “completely distraught” and feel “hopeless” after the meeting.

Mari Carrillo is still listed as the human resources manager for the City of Lindsay, but the city has had two acting human resources managers since February 5, 2024: Vanessa Duran until July 14, 2024, and Lance Rowell since that date.

Crouch, the Lindsay city attorney, declined to comment on the status of Carrillo’s employment or why Carrillo is not currently in her role.

Richard Carrillo’s suit says da Silva also came to the police department to confront him, saying da Silva was “angry” and “heard [Richard] Carrillo was telling people that da Silva was asking for a pay raise.”

Da Silva claims PD officer complained about Chief Carrillo

During the conversation, Richard Carrillo claims that da Silva said he received a complaint call about the chief from an anonymous officer. He believed da Silva was lying, and asked da Silva who the officer was – which da Silva declined to answer.

Da Silva discussed the subject with Carrillo later on the same day, the suit claims. He says he asked da Silva if it could have been “any Joe” calling him, and that da Silva replied it could have been.

Carrillo replied by stating if someone was impersonating a police officer, Carrillo could potentially obtain a warrant to identify the person who called da Silva, as impersonating an officer is a crime. The conversation ended there.

The city retroactively approved a pay raise for da Silva on December 12, 2023, according to Carrillo’s lawsuit. Video from the December 12 meeting shows that while an evaluation was scheduled in closed session for da Silva, the acting city manager, no action was reported to the public.

Richard Carrillo suspended, fired

Richard Carrillo says he was fired in January, though a press release issued by the city of Lindsay states his employment was terminated on February 8.

Carrillo claims that da Silva effectively engineered his firing during his tenure as acting city manager as retaliation for raising questions around his raise, and that da Silva “falsely stated, orally and in [a letter],” that Carrillo was “discourteous” for mentioning the pay raise request to other employees, “insubordinate,” “dishonest,” “engaged in discrimination, harassment, and retaliation,” “engaged in conduct that impaired, disrupted or caused discredit to the city” and “threatened da Silva.”

Carrillo says an investigation into the allegations was headed up by da Silva, whom he saw as a biased party that didn’t provide due process.

Carrillo took those claims public in a January 18 Sun-Gazette article, in which he is quoted recounting the story of the pay raise, the conversations he had and the alleged anonymous officer complaint. The article also includes multiple quotes from a letter which Carrillo was given on January 11.

“Da Silva drafted a lengthy letter outright alleging Carrillo of violating confidentiality, intimidation and harassment and lying. Absent though was any evidence. In fact, the letter Carrillo was served on Jan. 11 states that the city intended on firing him before any disciplinary process would have even taken place,” the Sun-Gazette article reads.

Carrillo also says he complained to da Silva about multiple biased disciplinary hearing administrators, and complained to at least one administrator directly about allegations of retaliation by da Silva.

Bryant, Carrillo’s attorney, told the Voice that Carrillo was sent multiple notices of intent to terminate his employment, and that the final letter of intent was the January 11 letter. A pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled for February 5, but Carrillo did not attend that hearing as he did not have confidence in the process.

Guzman fired while on sick leave

In Guzman’s suit, he claims he was brought into a meeting with da Silva and “yelled at and berated” on December 28.

Guzman claims he had emailed the Lindsay City Council, Lindsay human resources director Mari Carillo and the city’s attorneys on December 26 to report that da Silva was taking vacations without reporting the hours to the city.

“Guzman discovered that da Silva had also been taking vacations without reporting them. Da Silva had about $4,000 of vacation hours on the books,” the document reads.

Word had gotten back to da Silva by the time of the meeting.

“Da Silva blamed Guzman for all the problems at the city and asked why he was questioning [da Silva’s] vacation,” the document reads, “proving that he knew about Guzman’s email to the city council. Da Silva said he is going to report Guzman, which Guzman believed he meant to terminate him.”

Guzman said that he called in sick for a few days afterward, “feeling completely distraught and emotional,” before he was called in to da Silva’s office on January 4 and terminated.

Alleged misuse of city credit cards, fuel funds

In his lawsuit, Guzman made unique allegations of credit card misuse against da Silva and Neyba Amezcua, Lindsay’s former city services director. Guzman also alleges Amezcua was given “numerous raises” over a short period of time, with no documentation to support them

Records from Transparent California, which collects the pay for public officials in the state, show that Amezcua received a “total pay” of $111,339 in 2022 as director of city services. In 2021 and before, she is listed as a city services assistant director. Amezcua was paid $91,345 in 2021, $75,014 in 2020, $67,384.66 in 2019 and $69,640 in 2018.

Amezcua declined to comment due to ongoing litigation and confidential personnel matters, stating that she looked forward to addressing claims “in the appropriate forum when the time comes.”

Guzman said that while he was attempting to find cost savings in the city’s spending in August 2023, he found that the city services department — headed by Amezcua — was spending more on fuel than the Lindsay Police Department.

“Guzman reasonably believed the cost to be excessive because the City of Lindsay is a small city and city services has only about six cars for eight-hour shifts while the police department has more cars for 24-hour shifts,” his lawsuit reads.

Reports of misspending allegedly ignored, dismissed

Guzman says he brought his concerns to former city manager Tanner in September 2023, but that they were dismissed.

Lindsay’s 2024-2025 budget states that actual Public Safety budget spending for “Vehicle Fuel and Oil” in Fiscal Year 2023 – which runs from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 – was $83,138.

Budgets for departments overseen by City Services – “maintenance, streets, parks, building, code enforcement, planning, engineering, water, wastewater, storm drain utilities, refuse services, land application site, and special districts” – showed a total of $54,487 in “Vehicle Fuel and Oil” spending, a significant amount but less than the Public Safety spend:

• $2,520 in the City Services budget
• $14,195 in the Parks budget
• $3,165 in the Streets budget
• $4,119 in the “Gas Tax-Maintenance” budget
• $10,766 in the Water budget
• $17,863 in the Sewer budget
• $1,859 in the Refuse budget

Guzman also claimed in his lawsuit that he had discovered in September 2023 that Amezcua and da Silva had allegedly put personal charges on their city credit cards, with spending that he said seemed unusual – approximately $2,000 per month.

He said that Tanner authorized him to write a letter to Amezcua and da Silva reminding them that only work-related charges should be put on the cards, and that documentation for each purchase was required.

What’s next for the lawsuits?

A settlement conference is scheduled in Guzman’s case for May 15, 2025. If no settlement is found, Guzman’s case will see a jury trial on June 9.

Carrillo’s settlement conference is scheduled for May 30, 2025. If no settlement is reached, a jury trial will begin on July 7.

Know more

Read the full lawsuits below, or click here to view the full docket as of publication time for VCU306195, Richard Carrillo vs. City of Lindsay, or click here to view the full docket as of publication time for VCU307086, Salvador Guzman vs. City of Lindsay.

The post Former key officials sue City of Lindsay, claiming corruption appeared first on Valley Voice.