Our monthly meeting will be held Thursda
August 20, 2026 at 6 p.m. at the
Seven Cafe and Grill
25 Shaw Avenue, Clovis
Program Speaker: Amy Hines-Shaikh
The chaos of the tRump administration continues. The line, “Everything tRump touches turns to chaos,” is not a joke. The image of tRump cowering in a catering truck to escape Turkey may come to symbolize these times. Everything has become expensive, the war with Iran continues without an end in sight, ICE terrorizes our immigrant communities, and the Justice Department is going after anyone tRump dislikes. A decade ago, it would have been hard to anticipate this much disruption. Unfortunately, significant opportunities to replace the president won’t occur for the next two years. In the meantime, we need to look at what is going on locally to find places to put our energy. There are many things going on locally that need attention. With the election coming up on Nov. 3, many campaigns need help, whether it be with fundraising, phone banking, canvassing or post carding. I have included a flyer for the CD22 race where Randy Villegas has a good chance to overturn Republican David Valadao in his congressional race. There are also opportunities to help out at the Democratic HQ. In sddition, Clovis Fest is coming in September with volunteers needed to staff our club booth.
There is also a need to just show up at our local government meetings. You can do it in person or online. A new state law requires that all meetings should be accessible online for both viewing and participating. Being there in person, though, is the best way if you want to comment on agenda items. Recently dozens of residents showed up at a Clovis City Council meeting regarding infill of affordable housing. They were able to have input and make changes in what was planned. Some good ideas were provided but the attorneys in the case will now decide if they are going to take further action against the city.
The Fresno Board of Supervisors has also been taking negative steps as they have blocked needed financing for transportation and roads in Fresno County. The state intervened to get the item on the ballot so that residents can vote on it but the City of Fresno placed a competing measure on the ballot and the Board of Supervisors is suing everyone.
Staying aware and up to date on political actions that are going to influence us and our communities is vital to maintain our democracy. This month we are going to focus on issues that affect us locally. Our first speaker, who has educated us about another proposition scheduled for the November ballot, will present on Proposition 3, the CA Children’s Education Protection Act, which will extend the high-income earners tax to benefit K-12 education. We will also hear about the potential privatization of the County Library. Finally, reports on the Clovis City Council and Fresno County Board of Supervisors meetings will be heard. Being educated voters will make us more effective in the elections.
“The top 1% put the American Dream behind a paywall.”
— James Talarico, candidate for Senate in Texas
Clovis City Council, August 3, 2026
Notes by Rachel Youdelman, rachel27@berkeley.edu
Highlights
• An unusually emotional discussion regarding the reprehensible behavior of Diane Pearce occurred near the end of the meeting, surprising because the subject was introduced by her MAGA colleague Drew Bessinger. Vong Mouanoutoua, Pearce’s opponent in a potential vacancy on the board of supervisors and the object of her public vitriolic name-calling, acquitted himself as the virtuous and earnest public servant, by contrast leaving a guilty but shameless Pearce in the dust.
• A consultant will assess the city’s signage policy, particularly regarding billboards and electronic signs.
• The Council approved reports regarding water supply reliability, water-shortage contingency plans, and water service/drought risk assessment. All required measurements are in compliance with state law. Mayor Vong Mouanoutoua opened the meeting at 6 p.m.; Council Member Matt Basgall led the flag salute. Vong reviewed the procedure for public commenters via Webex—there were none for the entire meeting, however.
Proclamation
The Council recognized the 50th anniversary of McCaffrey Homes, a local business. Council Member Lynne Ashbeck read the proclamation with relish and praised the McCaffrey family members who were present to accept the acknowledgement. Clovis Bingo fans scored when she uttered the phrase “you are why Clovis is unique.” A quick Google search shows McCaffrey-brand houses to be McMansions, and nothing was said of the city’s urgent requirement to build affordable housing. Ashbeck did remark that McCaffrey building plans entail planning for “connected walkable communities.” Vong praised the family as well, and as he spoke, Council Member Diane Pearce simpered and nodded, prematurely sliding her chair back and getting ready to stand up for the obligatory group photo, but Vong keptmtalking, so she had to wait.
New Dispatch Center
The Council approved a site plan review and design for a new dispatch center to be built at 2288 Encino Ave. A police officer clarified that the center will be an “alternative” facility to be used when emergencies preclude the use of the main center. Ashbeck noted that the facility was 23 years in the planning and asked what design elements were incorporated “for the team’s mental health.” A staff engineer noted that “dispatchers love light,” so there are lots of windows. Vong called the building design “beautiful.” There were no other comments.
Water Management & Water
Shortage: Updated Plans Adopted
After some discussion about counting recycled water in total amounts of water used, the Council approved the updated reports on water supply reliability, watershortage contingency plans, and water service/drought risk assessment, presented by Assistant Manager of Public Utilities Kevin Tuttle. The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) are required by the state water code. The updated UWMP report is state-mandated and must be submitted to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. Tuttle explained that the city has met or surpassed all objectives for conservation and supply.
Discussion among council members included questions from Vong about “environmentals” v. “all of us” in terms of who was required by state law to reduce water consumption. Council Member Drew Bessinger asked if commercial water users were required to conserve water—they must adhere to the same standards, said Tuttle. Ashbeck wanted to know if water used to fight fires was accounted for; Tuttle said that falls under an unaccounted-for category called “other,” to the surprise of Ashbeck. She also raised the issue of increased population density and its implications for access to water and fire risk and was again surprised to learn that there was no specific plan for that. Pearce asked about “conservation pricing,” a term Tuttle called a “misnomer.” Vong “wanted residents to know” that drought surcharges were state-mandated. Both Vong and Pearce repeated the solecism “in regards to” multiple times.
Members of the public commenting on the matter were Brian Wilson, who asked a technical question, and Steve Trevino, who mentioned the potential construction in Clovis of a golf course, which would consume enormous amounts of water, but no one reacted.
Consultant to Assess City’s Signage Code
The Council approved a $48,000 consultant contract to review and assess the city’s policies regarding signage. Part of the charm of Clovis may be its lack of billboards, which are currently prohibited per city code. But last year, after discussing electronic signage and how many such signs should be permissible, the Council directed staff to research and propose amendments to the city’s signage code.
Per George Gonzalez of the planning department, a consultant was solicited to perform the desired comprehensive review of the city’s signage policy. Some council members didn’t want a “comprehensive” review, preferring to concentrate on billboards and electronic signs. Ashbeck pointed out that the subject has been discussed “for a decade.” She wanted a “deeper look” at the billboards—could they be a revenue source? She also had some more conceptual musings—all signs add up collectively to create a visual culture; digital signs let us imagine a new way to communicate, and so on. Basgall was brief—concentrate on digital signs, he advised. Vong understood the issue to be about digital signs and freeway signage—but he wanted to retain “what keeps us Clovis.” Bessinger wanted to avoid re-hashing terms for smaller signs, imagining scenarios involving neighboring shopkeepers squabbling over violations. Pearce repeated what others said and then suggested that “we don’t want to miss” a chance for a comprehensive review and proposed that along with a “focus” on billboards. Later she spoke again about “what other cities are doing in regards [sic] to signage”, appearing to be trying to raise a new issue but not saying anything substantive. Bessinger did not want to see “CBD” signs with pictures of “weed,” which would “make him crazy,” he said—why did he invoke this specific subject?
Public comment: Steve Trevino said that when flying into the Fresno airport, a Budweiser billboard is visible from the air.
Council Agrees to Sign Letter in Support of “Tort Reform”
The Council voted unanimously to sign a California Association of Joint Powers Authorities letter advocating for legislation to limit “public entity liability claims,” or in other words, to limit monetary compensation to anyone who wins a lawsuit against the city of Clovis. Pearce boldly asked if such legislation were successful, would that “make it more feasible to defend ourselves [sic]?” Staff analyst Charles Johnson’s answer was “no,” it would only establish a cap on payouts.
City Manager Comments
City Manager Andy Haussler mentioned the schedule for “movie night in the park,” remaining dates for which are August 8 at Bicentennial Park and August 22 at Pasa Tiempo Park. Movies start at sundown. He also mentioned a successful recent pet microchipping event at Miss Winkles Pet Adoption Center.
Council Comments
Basgall attended a Kings Groundwater meeting and reported that so far, it’s been a “wet water year,” but possible effects from El Niño may be a concern.
Bessinger made some remarkable, newsworthy statements—he began by saying he had something “uncomfortable” to talk about. It was now “normal,” he said, to castigate one’s political opponents, to call them names and attack their character. He alluded to the fact that both Vong and Pearce were vying for the anticipated vacancy on the county board of supervisors, that they were both colleagues and opponents. Directly addressing Pearce, he said, “Diane, we need to back off from calling people ‘woke,’ ‘weak,’ and ‘RINOs’.” He alluded to Pearce’s recent social-media post about a rally of supporters of the Measure C replacement measure “Better Roads, Safe Streets.” In that post, Pearce used those terms to describe Vong, a supporter of the measure and her opponent in the race to fill the county supervisorial seat to be vacated by Nathan Magsig, for which a special election will be held in spring 2027. “If you dial back the rhetoric, citizens will appreciate it,” he said, telling Pearce that “people send me letters asking me to silence you—we can’t set that tone.”
Ashbeck agreed with Bessinger. She said she had written something similar but decided not to read it. She agreed that verbal abuse and demeaning a person’s character might be “normal” now, but it’s “not who Clovis is.” She said that terms such as “sick wacko” and the like were “social media performance” words and that “our city and our staff deserve better.” To Pearce she said, “As a council member, you reflect all of us,” adding that “people don’t talk like that because they want to be civic leaders.”
Pearce’s defense was a brief but big, smelly red herring: that at the aforementioned rally, “people had signs that said ’86 47’—that’s sick.” Now she was talking not about the subject at hand—her behavior—but about the rally for the transportation measure. However, she concluded with a perfunctory “I’ll call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
Vong, as mayor, spoke last. He began by listing as he typically does all the civic events he’s attended as a representative of the city: he met with a local Parkinson’s Disease support group, a dinner for visiting Australian dignitaries, some retirement celebrations, and COG and FCTA meetings. The latter led him to Measure C. He then spoke for nearly 30 minutes in a strikingly emotional and heartfelt way, discussing the potential effects of cuts to local transportation budgets, in terms of how disabled residents who depend on the paratransit program or students commuting to school would be affected, going over the Measure C negotiating process and describing in painstaking detail how compromises and collaboration worked among the various participating groups. At times his voice appeared to break as he talked about “falsehoods” regarding the measure were circulated—“I was in those meetings,” he said, “Don’t be scared, Clovis,” of a measure which explicitly accounts for feasibility determined by municipal staff of all its terms, countering rumors such as that bridges would have to demolished to be rebuilt with bike lanes. It was clear that he agonized over the blocking of the measure, led by MAGA Republican Supervisor Garry Bredefeld, because he considers it vital to the well-being of county residents. Bredefled supports and mentors Pearce, who emulates him in her name-calling and unhinged reactionism. Vong pointed to the “In God We Trust” sign above the dais, calling it his “way of life,” not just a “motto.” In this he indirectly one-upped Pearce, whose idea it was to install the sign. Vong talked Bible, went on a bit of a heartfelt religious rant (“Christ never yelled at anyone!”), told Pearce that “I see you as a sister in Christ” and asked rhetorically how he could love those who disagreed with him. His syntax is often twisted, but his unaffected sincerity was plainly evident. Ashbeck then remarked that she “wanted to go on record” as having pointed out that the person who was hired to do the “feasibility study” of the “Better Roads, Safe Streets” measure (a spurious move by the Republican county supervisors, designed to table it indefinitely) was an outspoken opponent of the proposal and that the $170,000 tab for the “study” was shameful. Pearce asked if she could respond, recalling a joke whose punchline is “he didn’t ask,” because Vong’s response, to his great credit, was “No. You have till next week to write a soliloquy.”
The meeting adjourned to closed session at 9:04 p.m. The next meeting is August 11.
Clovis City Council, August 10, 2026
Notes by Rachel Youdelman, rachel27@berkeley.edu
Highlights
• The Council approved 15 of 20 parcels selected for the Infill Rezone Program, required per terms of the 2024 Fresno County Superior Court judgment in Martinez v. City of Clovis. Because five parcels were omitted, the city may be determined to be out of compliance with the court order.
• Following last week’s critique of her public behavior, Pearce read a dramatic prepared statement in an attempt to vindicate herself. The matter highlighted the fact that since joining the council, rather than focus on the city’s business and progress, Pearce has consistently managed to make herself the object of attention. Mayor Vong Mouanoutoua called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.; Council
Member Drew Bessinger led the flag salute. Vong reviewed the rules for live Webex participation.
General Public Comment
Several people were present to comment on various subjects. Retiree and right-wing reactionary Bill Scott defended Council Member Diane Pearce’s vulgar and demeaning remarks about her colleague and rival, Vong. Both will compete for the vacancy to be left by County Supervisor Nathan Magsig, who is likely to win a state legislative office in November. Scott repeated some of Pearce’s mentor County Supervisor Garry Bredefeld’s hostile remarks about the “Better Roads, Safe Streets” transportation-tax measure, such as that it will “get me out of my car and into a bus,” then complained about “government” which, to him, was a “giant maw” taking his money. “You are trying to get more money!” he accused the council, while he “doesn’t get any benefit.” Then he zeroed in on the last council meeting’s discussion of Pearce’s use of uncouth language to attack her political opponents. “You went after Diane!” he wailed. He pointed out that Bessinger “jumped on Diane” for her use of the terms “woke,” “RINO,” and the like, but that “they” called him “Nazi” and “fascist.” Those who have no substantive argument tend to win debates nevertheless with the use of red herrings such as this one. Scott summed up by swearing to “be right there with Diane, whatever she does.”
Dez Martinez, the plaintiff in the affordable-housing lawsuit which Clovis lost, accused the city of “sitting on” the $1.8 million affordable-housing trust fund. She was concerned, she said, that the city was “lying” to the state government about the number of housing units required to be built. Shouting was heard from the audience, and Dez said, “Shut her up, please,” identifying the person who shouted as Kristina Mansfield, but it was unclear what they disagreed about.
Stetler Brown, a young, local LGBTQ+ advocate, said that when council members appear in public, they “represent Clovis” even if they don’t use their titles. Rather than call colleagues “woke” or “RINO,” council members should be “positive role models” for city youth. “Taking constructive criticism” is leadership, he said.
An elderly woman who identified herself only as “Cindy” described herself as “poor,” on a fixed income, but worthy of housing choice. Being poor was not a reason to hate someone, she said, implying that Clovis has resisted facilitating the building of affordable housing because of a pervasive stigmatization of poor people.
The first online attendee to participate in a meeting via Webex since the new state law mandating it was Michael Masuda, a candidate for Congressional District 5, who made a campaign pitch. He invited everyone to an August 26 town hall, 6 p.m. at Dry Creek Park in Clovis.
Infill Rezone Program The Council approved 15 of the 20 parcels selected by staff for the Infill Rezone Program, per the terms of the judgment of the Fresno County Superior Court in the Martinez v. City of Clovis case on March 19, 2024. (Sites 72, 115, 157, 197, and 590 were not approved.) The vote was 4- 1, with Pearce the “no” vote. The city is required to complete the Infill Rezone Program to rezone 20 sites (a total of 54 acres) throughout the city to accommodate 1,284 additional housing units to bring the city’s housing element into compliance with state law. The rezoning involves changing from current zoning to “multi-family high density” or “multi-family very high density.” The proposed group of 20 sites was approved by the planning commission, with one “no” vote from Joe Hebert. City Planner McKencie Perez, along with colleague George Gonzalez and a consultant, reviewed the history of the matter and answered council members’ questions.
Discussion among council members featured some defensive statements;
Vong asserted that the city had been in compliance with state law, implying that the finding of non-compliance had come later and whimsically. There were many suggestions for choosing different sites, swapping selected sites for others, and self-justifying statements such as Bessinger’s “we can’t make anyone build, we just provide the means for building to happen.” While it is true that the rezoning is for planning and not for specific developments, city staff such as the former city manager, Luke Serpa, and then-assistant city manager Andy Haussler, have been observed laughing at the notion that the city is not obligated to actually oversee, solicit, encourage, or’ facilitate the actual creation of affordablehousing, or any sort of housing other than the luxury developments it prefers.
“Cindy,” the lady who commented earlier, put her finger on it when she implied that the city of Clovis suffers from status anxiety, identifying affordable housing with neediness, unworthiness, poverty, and social inferiority, while its luxury developments represent success and power. One of the remarks made by Pearce illustrates this point: she repeated several times that Clovis residents who live in its upscale developments “worked hard” (are worthy) to get themselves there and should not be “punished” by having residents of affordable housing (unworthy people) living near them.
Council members, predictably seeking ways to subvert the law to which they are bound, asked City Attorney Scott Cross if the city would be out of legal compliance if they didn’t approve all selected sites. Cross explained that the judgment was in place for Clovis’s compliance, that if all 20 sites were not approved, the city would be out of compliance, and the plaintiffs “may require relief,” but of what sort he didn’t know.
Council Member Matt Basgall expressed anxiety about possible punishments for failing to follow the law—maybe council members or staff would be “held in contempt.” Could the city, he asked, merely “appear” to follow the judgment? “Anything is possible,” was Cross’s joking reply.
Council Member Lynne Ashbeck said that the city’s goal was not to “squish more people into Clovis,” but that it must be done “right.” Suddenly she, and others, were worried that the selected sites were in “food deserts,” and what if none of the 300 residents of an affordable apartment building had cars? What if they couldn’t get to a doctor or get a bus to a hospital? Is this how luxury developments in the same neighborhoods are planned? Did
Ashbeck presume that people who live in affordable housing will not have cars? Is car ownership a presumption of city planning? What about the alleged walkable developments touted at the last city council meeting? What about council’s support of “Better Roads, Safe Streets”— why not also plan for improved bus routes and bike lanes to go along with future developments?
This was not the time to argue substance; staff had worked to determine which sites were feasible, based on criteria established by the court judgment, yet council members were making suggestions for site selection after the fact. Pearce went so far as to declare that she “opposes” this program, despite it being court mandated. She wanted to “loosen the parameters” for choosing sites for rezoning and development—an impossibility, but saying it made her look like a crusading populist. Cross pointed out that deviation from the housing law would require court approval and reminded the council that this program is one which makes up for deficits from other programs. He explained the limits of choosing properties, but Pearce, undaunted, persisted in calling for “creative” choices. A “lawsuit and a judge” had dumped this on “our community,” she reasoned. She ingratiated herself with staff, flattering them by telling them they did a wonderful job but that they only came up with the solutions because of a “judgment.”
Bessinger wanted to convert vacant shopping malls to housing and repeatedly used the phrase “re-shuffle the deck.” Haussler reminded everyone that staff had already found the feasible sites for this program and that they had spent years doing it. No one took the hint. Council seemed to not understand their duty of the moment, and each of them took performative positions true to their characters. None of them expressed contrition about having violated housing law or indicated that they understood the critical need for increasing housing inventory. Instead, they sought ways around the law and talked about their victimization by the state.
Public comment was a firehose of nimbyism. Complaints were predictably about increased numbers of people and traffic. Thirteen people spoke, most in opposition. One man had sent a letter about distance from grocery stores, causing Ashbeck to light up and thank him, because she read his letter and disclosed that she had never thought about that before, proving that “food deserts” were never a concern in planning real-estate developments until now.
Another man cautioned that in one site, state- and federally protected red-tailed hawks nested in the trees. One woman said that a couple of the sites should be developed, because they were “eyesores” and attracted unsupervised children who were nuisances.
Dez Martinez spoke again and reminded the council that Clovis had failed to meet its housing element obligations, and now the ball was in the city’s court. Housing needs to be built, not just talked about, she said. California has a housing crisis, and she was “tired of hearing the public blame the person who brought the lawsuit.”
The council then resumed discussion and voted. When Dez Martinez spoke out of turn from the audience, Ashbeck said in a disgusted tone, “We are done with you shouting from the back row!” Then she suggested converting movie theaters and churches into housing, something the city staff had likely already considered and rejected for failing to meet the required criteria. Cross clarified that the rejected sites may be brought back in the future.
City Manager Comments
Haussler noted a few public events over the remainder of the summer; see city website for details.
Council Comments
Pearce: Vong allowed Pearce to speak first, owing to her tender hurt feelings over the last meeting’s cruel pile-up on her, when, led by her fellow MAGA Republican Bessinger, she was criticized for crude and disparaging social-media posts about her own council colleagues. Pearce was ready for her close-up. She read from a prepared statement, affecting a tone of barely repressed fury. She spoke slowly, in low tones, over-enunciated, and used emotionally gripping fallacious logic. “Last week,” she intoned, “the mayor used his power to silence me.” She took down each colleague who had dared to question her disturbing behavior—“I felt humiliated,” she said. She was “disappointed” in Bessinger, but “nothing Ashbeck does surprises me.” Ashbeck always “comes after me” and dares to “lecture me on Measure C.” She droned on, a woman cruelly wronged. When she finished, Vong merely thanked her, said it was “healthy” to have a discussion without name-calling. There was no more discussion about her carefully crafted speech. It was, alas, a desert flower born to blush unseen. Ashbeck said she wanted a workshop on California Senate Bill 9 (SB9), which allows for lot-splitting and the construction of two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on each lot. She complained about a particular block with “six houses on two lots.” It was “a neighborhood of ADUs,” she said, and called it “shocking.” Vong thanked Director of Economic Development, Housing, and Communications Chad McCollum for managing an event at DiCicco’s Pizza, but he omitted context or other information. Pearce’s husband, an Elvis impersonator named Jeremy “Elvis” Pearce, often performs at DiCicco’s, but it was unclear if the event featured him.
The meeting adjourned to closed session at 9:28 p.m. The next meeting is August 17.
Fresno County Board of Supervisors, July 14, 2026
Notes by Rachel Youdelman, rachel27@berkeley.edu
Highlights
• The Board killed the transportation tax proposal known as “Better Roads, Safe Streets,” despite qualification for the Nov. 3 ballot.
• The Board overturned its unanimous June 30 approval of a two-year Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) pilot program.
• Remote meeting participation was officially enabled, but there were no participants.
Chair Garry Bredefeld opened the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
In a twist, District 3 Supervisor Luis Chavez introduced the person giving the invocation—and it was not a white male evangelical. It was a Sikh woman wearing a purple shawl over her head and speaking in her native language as well as English. Sandeep Kaur from the Sikh Institute, Fresno, spoke about “one universal god,” and suggested that everyone “remember all the gurus” who inspired or taught us. She concluded with a chant. This time, neither Bredefeld nor Supervisor Nathan Magsig (District 5), made any attempt to cover over the heathen prayer with a quickie appeal to Jesus, as they have in the past.
Retirements, Proclamations
Two retirements were honored, one after 25 years with the sheriff’s department and one after 27 years with the probation department.
Chavez brought a “Breastfeeding Awareness Month” proclamation. July 19-25 was declared Pretrial, Probation, and Parole Supervision Week, per a proclamation brought by District 4
Supervisor Buddy Mendes. Chief Probation Officer Kirk Haynes, surrounded by many of his staff, spoke about the department’s recent move to a county-owned property in Clovis. When it was time for the large group to pose for a group photo, Bredefeld was heard to say “better get a wide lens,” and when no one responded to his joke, he was heard to repeat it a second time in a louder voice.
Concealed Guns
The Board unanimously approved the formal adoption of an ordinance to increase the number of county staff permitted to carry concealed guns. A member of the public, Brianna Walker, asked to pull this item from the consent agenda for discussion. It was intended for formal approval without discussion, following its introduction at the previous meeting. Walker talked about the dangers of increasing the numbers of deadly weapons in the workplace—more guns increase the chance of injuries or fatalities and cause confusion for law enforcement, she said. Before authorizing members of the workforce to arm themselves, consider instituting de-escalation programs and the like, she suggested. Walker cited the Jennifer Ortega case, a pending matter involving a complaint against a Bredefeld staff person who allegedly harassed Ortega—Ortega was fired last fall when she complained to Bredefeld about the harassment; Wallker implied that had these employees been armed, the potential for danger would have increased. There were no remarks from the Board, and the unanimous vote followed.
MEHKO Program Killed
The Board overturned its unanimous June 30 approval of a two-year Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MEHKO) pilot program, for which a maximum of 66 permits would have been issued. The program was to have begun in January 2027 and would have allowed operation of retail food-preparation facilities from private kitchens. The item was on the consent agenda for its final adoption into the ordinance code but was pulled for discussion by Magsig. Director of Public Health Joe Prado was present to answer questions, and members of the public, both for (four people) and against the measure (five people) spoke. Supervisors Magsig and Mendes rehashed the issues already discussed on June 30, such as the number of health-department inspections and sales tax. As Magsig spoke, he propped his elbow on the dais and waggled his fingers and hand vigorously, jabbing and pointing. Among members of the public who opposed the item were fear-mongering NIMBY types, who raised the specter of parking, noise, traffic, porta potties, and restaurant workers quitting en masse to open their own home kitchens. One wizened elderly lady appeared to have come from central casting—she declared, “I’m yer common-sense neighbor!” and bellowed bitterly about “restaurants on residential streets.” Has “common sense” become code for “pigheaded”?
Prado reminded everyone that the number of permits was limited to 66 across the county; Chavez said that all concerns raised had been addressed in the previous meeting. Nevertheless, Bredefeld was again complaining afresh about what he considered an inadequate number of health department inspections. When a question about alcohol consumption on- site came up, County Counsel Doug Sloan said he could “look into it,” and Chavez suggested continuing the item to wait for an answer to that question, but Mendes groaned that he was “tired of it.” The vote followed and the item was defeated 3-2, with the Board’s MAGA reactionaries in the majority. A hushed pall hung over the room momentarily after the vote.
June 2 Primary Election: Certified
Results
The Board received a report from County Clerk/Registrar of Voters James Kus on the final results of the June 2 primary election. Kus gave details on voter turnout (35% of registered voters—seems low, but it was the highest in a gubernatorial primary since 1998, per Kus), and answered a question from Magsig, a diehard 2020 election denier, about voting-machine error rate (0 machine errors, 1 human error). Bredefeld congratulated Magsig and Supervisor Brian Pacheco (District 2) for advancing in their races. No further discussion, no public comments.
Board Shuts Down Popular Citizens’ Transportation Initiative
The Board killed the transportation tax proposal known as “Better Roads, Safe Streets,” a citizen-led initiative proposing a 30-year half-cent sales tax extension to replace Measure C, despite its successful qualification for the November ballot, opting to send it to a county agency for a fiscal-impact analysis, which will likely delay its appearance on the ballot until spring of 2027.
County Clerk/Registrar of Voters James Kus reviewed the process and status of the signature-gathering for the citizens’ initiative petition and presented a certification of sufficiency for ballot qualification. Kus told the Board they could either submit the measure to the voters in November or order the analysis of the proposal. By a 3-2 vote and after a two-hour discussion, one hour of which consisted exclusively of patently bad-faith questions from Magsig, the Board chose the latter.
Bredefeld opened public comment on the matter in advance of the Board’s discussion. Attendees, mostly supporters, filled the room; six people spoke in favor, four against. Among those in favor were Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer, Clovis Mayor Vong Mouanoutoua, Mendota Mayor Victor Martinez, and League of Women Voters Co-President and Education Director Kay Bertken. Bertken called the citizens’ initiative an “object lesson in participatory democracy” and noted that the proposal will support 68,000 new jobs. Mouanoutoua, who spoke without identifying himself, asked the Board to agree to “let county voters decide the merits” of the measure. Martinez, speaking on behalf of the majority of county mayors, noted their support. Supporters implored the Board not to deny voters the chance to vote on it in November, seeming to anticipate that the Board’s right-wing majority would keep it off the November ballot. Given Bredefeld’s consistent displays of unhinged hostility toward the measure, not to speak of his many vows to “make sure it fails,” their fears were well founded.
Opponents used language designed to stimulate fear, such as warning that, per this plan, roads would be so inadequately paved that escape from fire zones would be impossible.
Opponents included Clovis City Council Member Diane Pearce, who appeared to have stayed up late coming up with what she believed was a clever rhetorical remark: the road to hell is paved with good intentions, she said, but if this measure passes, “not even the road to hell will be paved.”
Other opponents present to speak against the measure were a city council member from Kingsburg, the mayor of Reedley, and Alex Tavlian. Tavlian is a shady right- wing activist who publishes the San Joaquin Valley Sun, runs a dark-money PAC (per a report in Fresnoland), says he represents the San Joaquin Valley Taxpayers Association (which endorses right-wing political candidates, including Magsig in his bid for state senate), and was responsible for the county’s redistricting fiasco in 2021. Reportedly, Tavlian is conspiring with Bredefeld to put a competing measure on a spring 2027 ballot, something Bredefeld has publicly said he would do, despite the failure of his recent “Fix Our Roads Fresno” initiative.
Among the supervisors, the opinions and performances were predictable—Chavez talked reasonably but in lukewarm tones about having heard from constituents from “all walks of life” who want road repair, reliable public transportation, and safe transit to school. A lack of a Measure C replacement will mean scores of layoffs, he said, pointing out the measure’s support by county mayors and the two biggest cities in the county, Fresno and Clovis. The Board’s role, he said, was to facilitate democracy, and preventing a vote on this measure was the worst form of government “overreach.” Mendes complained about the Measure C renewal process, in which he had participated, and rambled incoherently. The measure needs to be “studied,” he said, citing Mark Twain and making non sequitur remarks about statistics, Jimmy Carter, and who he voted for after Carter. The measure was written by “activists,” he griped, and a study on its “what-ifs” was needed. Pacheco spoke, as usual sparingly and to the point, and then stayed mum. It was “pretty simple,” he said—the Board’s vote should be to ratify the county clerk’s work so the measure could appear on the ballot. He praised Kus, called him “unbiased,” and said that he “doesn’t worry about what we hear about the rest of the country because of you, Mr. Kus.” He added that most county mayors want the measure and that now was the time not to debate but to approve it for the November ballot, as all legal requirements have been met. Pacheco concluded that since Magsig would be the deciding vote, he should be given the last word, so Bredefeld spoke next, reading from a long prepared statement. Like Pearce earlier, he gave the impression that he had stayed up late the night before writing furiously under the covers with a flashlight. His prepared statement was proof that he planned to dismiss outright anything discussed today. He made his usual wild claims, such as that the signatories to the petition were “paid by out-of-town elites,” and that the county’s mayors “caved [sic] to a group funded by rich, out-of-town radicals.” These remarks drew spontaneous laughter from the audience, infuriating Bredefeld, who threatened to throw people out if they laughed at him. The measure was a “tax scam” which will “screw taxpayers for30 years,” he said, though the tax is the same as the current Measure C tax. Then he went in for the kill, his bugaboo, public transportation, about which he reiterated his oft-mentioned detestation. The measure was nothing more than a diabolical plot to “get people out of their cars” and force them to ride emasculating buses and scooters to work. Bike lanes had “destroyed the Tower District!” he said. Picking up steam, he said that the measure was “complete environmental wacko insanity!” The measure should be voted down “for its stupidity alone,” he bellowed. Putting it on the ballot meant “accepting the radicals’ point of view!” Sending the measure for the fiscal-impact analysis—that was “democracy, too,” he said, in a gasping attempt to sound reasonable. Tellingly, if delayed now by the request for a fiscal-impact study of the measure, it will nevertheless appear on a ballot in March 2027, providing time for “a campaign,” Bredefeld said, implying he would revive his threat to initiate a competing general-tax measure with the goal of using the revenue without restrictions, allowing him to use it strictly for paving and widening roads for cars, and thus avoid the obligation to fund public transportation. Was this what he planned to do with the help of Tavlian? When Pacheco offered to let Magsig have the last word, he likely didn’t anticipate an entire hour’s worth of bad-faith, nit-picking questioning. Magsig disingenuously said he would “make a decision” after his questions were answered, and if he “got no relief” he would vote to refer the measure for analysis. Judging by his past behavior, Magsig was performing fairness while already having made a decision. He was unmoved by any answer to his questions, resisted facts, repeatedly asked the same questions, raised over and over the specter of potential litigation against the county, and when it was all over, reiterated his original objections despite their having been clarified over the course of an hour. Among the people patiently answering Magsig’s questions were Fresno Council of Governments (COG) Executive Director Robert Phipps, Co-Executive Director of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability Veronica Garibay, Fresno
When Magsig feigned a deep concern that bridges would have to be demolished and rebuilt to accommodate a presumed requirement to add bike lanes, Garibay paused a beat and simply pointed out that such matters were consistently described in the measure as “where feasible.” In any case, the particulars reflected in Magsig’s questions would typically be addressed in a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), as per any other regional or localized funding and infrastructure measure in the county, something that was pointed out to Magsig repeatedly, but which he ignored. Before Bredefeld made the motion to refer the measure to the Public Works department for a fiscal-impact study,
Chavez asked if the measure might be submitted simultaneously for inclusion on the November ballot, but Bredefeld objected. There was no further discussion. The vote was 3-2, with Chavez and Pacheo in the minority. As the room emptied, an attendee made an unintelligible remark, and Bredefeld erupted, yelling, “Just get out! Goodbye!”
Supervisor Reports and Comments
Magsig, a member of the National Association of Counties (NACo), reported without irony that the group “resolved to call on Congress to delay the implementation of HR1” for two years.
Mendes mentioned a Caltrans/Fresno County Transportation Authority (FCTA) groundbreaking ceremony on August 14, but such an event could not be confirmed.
General Public Comments
Gloria Hernandez of Mothers Helping Mothers asked several questions: what was the county doing about affordable housing? Why is the county suing its own assessor/recorder? Why is there money for lawsuits but not for roads?
A second person, a young woman who has often appeared before the Board but never gives her name and speaks incoherently, mentioned the Brown Act and a Zoom call but made little sense.
The meeting adjourned to closed session at 1:14 p.m. The next meeting, after a summer break, is August 11.