Documented by Rachel Youdelman
Summary: What you need to know
- After an extraordinarily lengthy and emotional process, with a public comment period lasting over two hours, the council voted unanimously to “do nothing” about a letter which was to have been sent to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors regarding what some called “community concerns” about the Fresno County Library. But individual council members were free to send letters on their city letterheads, if they wanted to. The letter was the brainchild of Council member Diane Pearce, who objects to children’s books on sexual health and LGBTQ+ subjects in the Clovis branch of the library.
- Nearly 50 members of the public were present at the meeting to comment on Pearce’s provocative attempts to remove or curtail the availability of books from the library, and 53 written comments in opposition were received. Only a handful of commenters who were present supported her. Pearce nevertheless claimed to have “hundreds” of supporters.
- Pearce, on her City Council-branded Facebook page, misrepresented what happened at the Sept. 5 meeting: She posted a letter addressed to Fresno County Board of Supervisors Chair Sal Quintero that she had written herself, and said that the letter drafted by Holt “fell short of what a majority of the council agreed to at our meeting on Aug. 7,” and that she had “voted against it,” when in fact, no one had voted against it.
- The council voted 5-0 to approve amendments to five areas of the municipal code, including marijuana penalties, unlawful garbage dumping, keeping personal property in a public right of way, applications for massage parlors and applications for city water service. At the Aug. 21 meeting, two council members were absent, and though the item had then passed 3-0, the full council vote was necessary.
Council and Staff
Lynne Ashbeck, mayor
Vong Mouanoutoua, mayor pro tem
Drew Bessinger, council member
Matt Basgall, council member
Diane Pearce, council member
John Holt, city manager
Andy Haussler, assistant city manager
Scott Cross, city attorney
Karey Cha, city clerk
The Scene
The Clovis City Council met on Sept. 5, 2023, for its first meeting of the month. Normally meetings are held on Mondays; this change was made because of the Labor Day holiday on Sept. 4. Mayor Ashbeck called the meeting to order at 6 p.m., and invited Council member Pearce to lead the flag salute.
The meeting lasted about three hours and 40 minutes; the council chamber was full of attendees, many of whom had to stand. There were nearly 50 members of the public present to comment and about 30 more observing; 155 people watched via YouTube. More than 50 written comments were received. Members of the public present to comment were so numerous that they formed a line out the door into the lobby.
There are several ways to participate in the council’s meetings: in person, you may comment on specific agenda matters as they are discussed, or on those not on an agenda at the scheduled time. Just show up. Commenters are normally limited to 5 minutes each. Note that laws regarding public meetings preclude council members from making definitive responses about matters which are not on the agenda. You can also call in to a Webex when the meeting is in progress, or you can submit a written comment. Easy instructions are found here.
All council members are elected at large; none represent specific districts of Clovis. To contact any of them with questions or to comment about issues, phone 559-324-2060 (one phone for all) or email:
Lynne Ashbeck lynnea@cityofclovis.com
Vong Mouanoutoua vongm@ci.clovis.ca.us
Matt Basgall mbasgall@cityofclovis.com
Drew Bessinger drewb@cityofclovis.com
Diane Pearce dianep@cityofclovis.com
Members of the public may attend meetings at the Council Chamber, 1033 Fifth St., Clovis, CA 93612, or online via Webex. The next meeting will be on Sept. 11 at 6 p.m. Videos of past meetings and agendas are available here.
Agenda Item 1 Certificates were presented to local students to recognize their participation in the recent American Legion Boys and Girls State program. Representatives of the American Legion, Anthony Aguilar and Gloria Jean Sinopoli were present, as was one of the students, Colby Kirk. Council member Drew Bessinger read the names of other student recipients. Aguilar said he has always taught students in the program these principles: “Encourage others by participating in stewardship; encourage others by extending friendship; encourage others by building partnership; encourage others by developing leadership; and encourage others by building relationships.” Mayor Lynne Ashbeck said, “May we all live by that model.”
Agenda Item 2 The council declared September National Service Dog Month. The proclamation was read by Bessinger, and present were three women, identified as Tracy and Skylar McFagan (mother and daughter); Cindy, a dog trainer; and two service dogs, Farina (Skylar’s service dog) and Lenny, a puppy in training. Tracy cited Canine Companions, a national nonprofit that provides disabled people with highly trained service dogs at no charge to the recipient. Ashbeck asked if council members had any questions, and Bessinger said, addressing the dogs, “Who’s a good boy?” The dog responded on cue with a bark, which drew laughter.
Public Comment This is the segment of the meeting for members of the public to raise any issue that does not appear on the agenda but is within the council’s jurisdiction. Ashbeck noted that 55 written comments had been received, but only two of them were not about an item already on the agenda — item 20, the matter that approximately 50 people present in the chamber came to comment on. There was no one present to comment on any other matters not on the agenda.
Agenda Items 3-17, Consent Calendar The council approved the consent calendar 5-0, excluding item 7, which City Manager John Holt asked to continue to next week because it needed adjustment. The consent calendar is a group of agenda items considered routine; they are decided with a single vote. A council member, staff person, or a member of the public may pull any single item for discussion; otherwise, the vote proceeds without discussion.
Agenda Item 18 The council voted 5-0 to approve amendments to five areas of the municipal code, including marijuana penalties, unlawful garbage dumping, keeping personal property in a public right of way, applications for massage parlors, and applications for city water service. At the Aug. 21 meeting, two council members were absent, and though the item had passed 3-0, the full council vote was necessary: hence this second hearing.
To summarize the amendments to the municipal code, item 14-a will allow for increased fines for growing marijuana over the permitted amount; 14-b will reduce the number of warnings required for people caught dumping trash illegally before a fine of $1,000 can be given; 14-c will allow police to remove “personal property” from a public right of way with a 72-hour warning made to the owner of the property; 14-d provides for an exemption to state law regarding fingerprinting of certified massage therapists, allowing them to be fingerprinted in Clovis; and 14-d permits the city to require applicants for city utilities, such as water service, to provide a government-issued ID for approval of such service.
There was minimal discussion. Council member Matt Basgall said that he had reviewed the staff report and was ready to vote. Bessinger said that he was especially pleased with the amendments regarding trash dumping and collecting identification in advance of contracting with residents for water service.
Ashbeck noted that the code enforcement update would be presented to the council at a future meeting; it had been postponed from the Aug. 21 meeting.
At this point, Ashbeck proposed that agenda items 19 and 20 be switched, because there were so many attendees waiting to comment on item 20; item 19 concerned training and updates on public meeting rules for council members, and Ashbeck suggested that attendees could be spared sitting through that presentation.
Agenda Item 20 After an extraordinarily lengthy and emotional process, with members of the public commenting for over 2 hours, the council voted unanimously to “do nothing” about a proposed letter that was to have been sent to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors to “inform the board of community concerns raised to Council members regarding the Fresno County Library,” per the agenda language. But individual council members were free to send letters on their individual city letterheads if they wanted to.
This item was on the agenda because at the Aug. 7 meeting, Council member Pearce had raised the issue of sending a letter to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors to complain about LGBTQ+ and sex education books for children that are found in the Clovis branch of the county public library. Pearce had voiced objections to the books via her Facebook page, which is branded as her official government-employee account. Her posts proved to be provocative and drew many comments in opposition to her point of view, both online in the form of responses to her Facebook posts and in-person comments at city council meetings.
Pearce, without presenting any details, had said during the “council comments” section of the Aug. 7 council meeting, that she had received complaints similar to her own from “the community” about the library, so she proposed sending the letter. Pearce made these remarks despite the number of comments opposing her point of view far outnumbering those in agreement. Pearce only said that she had received “countless” messages of support sent privately but did not disclose how many or other details.
Despite the matter not being on the agenda, the council took action when Ashbeck remarked that she would not sign her name to such a letter but that if individual council members wanted to send a letter, they could. Holt offered to draft a letter. Besides Pearce, Mouanoutoua and Bessinger said they would sign a letter in the hope that constituents would stop contacting them about the matter, as it was out of the city’s jurisdiction. Basgall said he saw no need for such a letter. The next day, Pearce boasted, again on her council-branded Facebook page, that “a majority” of the council had agreed with her to send the letter complaining about the library books to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, as the library is a county concern.
At Tuesday’s meeting, before discussion on the item began, Holt outlined several possible actions the council could take regarding the proposed letter: send it as written, send an amended letter, send letters individually (whether on city letterhead or not was a matter of confusion), or do nothing. Holt also asked if it was time to “consider protocol for how the council conducts business.”
Ashbeck apologized for having permitted an action to be taken on a nonagendized item and said that “it was a mistake on my part” to have agreed to it under such informal circumstances; she had not seen an issue such as this one caused by Pearce in 22 years with the city; the solution she came up with was not the right one, for which she apologized. “You know what they say about good intentions,” Ashbeck noted, and added that no one is permitted to take action on nonagendized items and that this one should not have happened. She remarked that this was where the “protocol” question came in but that it was not a subject for today’s meeting.
Bessinger said that he preferred to submit a personal letter once he’d had a chance to visit the library and look at some of the books in question. He had no objections to any of the books he saw, except It’s Perfectly Normal, which he thought was too sophisticated for its target age group. He praised the library staff and said he went back twice. Bessinger also noted that Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler is in the library. “Bad people will tell you what they think, if you listen to them,” he said.
Mouanoutoua said he would withhold comment until hearing from the public, but he was worried that now all proposed letters would “come back” for debate. His concerns didn’t exactly align with what was actually happening. Ashbeck responded that “we’ve never found ourselves in this circumstance” and that solving this problem was not on the agenda tonight, and Holt reiterated it.
Pearce repeated that the issue “was not about banning books.” Nevertheless, she was unequivocal that she didn’t support the availability of certain books for children, for example, those that teach about sex. If she didn’t want them to be available, how could they be made unavailable unless they were banned?
Basgall said that he had heard that a member of the Board of Supervisors requested that the council send the board a letter — but why? Basgall found that disturbing. He wasn’t sure if it was true, but “it was the perception that was put forward.”
Ashbeck said the council should never have had this conversation, that it has caused “great harm,” and that it was something the city government can do nothing about. Nevertheless, she welcomed the members of the public who were there to comment; there were so many of them, they lined up out the door into the lobby.
Among nearly 50 commenters, about seven were in support of Pearce to one degree or another, and some of the comments of her supporters were very far afield of library matters; one of them complained about “Marxism” and “globalists.” Another, a local election denier who often appears at various public meetings, had gone to the trouble of preparing 24-by-36-inch enlargements of illustrated pages from It’s Perfectly Normal, the sex education book, and as she spoke, had several of her friends in the audience jump up, unfurl the posters and march around the room with them. Ashbeck told them that “this is not a parade” and asked them to sit down. A local right-wing activist who was video recording the meeting for a website he maintains commented that other members of the council were “ganging up” on Pearce and asked why the children’s books in question “had to be in the children’s section,” adding, “That’s confusing!” If not for Pearce, “nobody would know,” he said, presumably referring to what books are in the library. Ashbeck interjected a caution against generalization. At the end of the meeting, this commenter was seen video recording himself, alone in the dimly lit breezeway outside council chambers.
The other 40-plus speakers often disclosed deeply personal life histories, including many LGBTQ+ local high school students, older members of PFLAG Fresno, retired librarians, a retired social worker who pioneered adoption for gay parents and other parents from the community. Though Pearce has shifted her focus to what she calls “graphic sexual content” in children’s books, she began her crusade with objections to the Pride month display in the local library, angering the LGBTQ+ residents of Clovis. One young woman said that to co-sign the letter was to “co-sign bigotry” and that despite the claim of wanting to “protect children,” many LGBTQ+ youth in Clovis were feeling very unprotected now as a result of Pearce’s crusade.
Tracy Bohren of Clovis said that the proposed letter was not engendered by constituents who demanded it but that it was being considered because Pearce “had a personal issue” with a library book. Bohren and others pointed out that there is already an established process for requesting that a library book be reviewed and that forms are available at any library branch. Jennifer Crow, retired librarian of the Arne Nixon Center for the Study of Children’s Literature at Fresno State, said that the center has the largest collection of LGBTQ+ children’s books in the nation and that they are notable for giving readers “a sense of validity” and depict children in loving families. She said that “censorship is the cornerstone of totalitarianism.”
Another librarian said that attempts at censorship and book-banning is a huge topic among library professionals now and that all those who want to ban books use the same pretext: that its purpose is “to protect children.” Dez Martinez, the plaintiff in the affordable-housing lawsuit that Clovis lost, was among the commenters; she connected housing discrimination with bigotry against the LGBTQ+ community. Peggy Dunkley, owner of A Book Barn in Clovis, a used-book shop, urged the council not to send the letter and called the matter a “censorship issue.”
David Rowell, an attorney and resident of Clovis, said that he was taken aback by some of the stranger comments of the evening, such as the remark that sending the letter would “slow the progress of Marxism.” He agreed with others who advised following the library’s own process for questioning a particular book. Malcolm Gibson of Clovis, a retired journalist, said that the issue was about parenting and that “I’ll bet you don’t want any government to tell you how to parent your children.” He pointed out that Where’s Waldo has been banned in some places; he invoked 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. The second-to-last commenter was breathless, having run to the meeting from work when she learned it was still going on; she asked that the council let her do her own parenting and cautioned against book bans. The last speaker pointed out how “pornography” is defined by the Supreme Court — that it is “utterly without redeeming social value.” A sex education book “kinda has to” talk about sex, she noted, so it has redeeming value. Addressing Pearce, she said, it was fine if “you have a problem, Diane,” but don’t send the letter on city letterhead.
For most of the two-plus hours of comments from the public, Pearce sat unflinching with pursed lips.
Ashbeck thanked everyone for their comments. Discussion among council members followed. Bessinger said that now, having heard from constituents, he preferred to write a letter on his own personal letterhead. Pearce now said she was “not concerned” if they sent one co-signed letter or if they sent individual letters. She said, “The fact that a majority of this council shared concerns from our community about the content of some of these books and would like to see the county Board of Supervisors review that material has already been sent,” but no letter has been sent, so her meaning was unclear. She added that the council can hear from constituents and act, but she did not appear to include all those who just spoke. She seemed to be saying that she wanted to act on behalf of those with whom she agreed.
Mouanoutoua spoke at length, and as usual appeared to be thinking out loud. He did say that he appreciated meeting with members of the LGBTQ+ community and learning about library processes. He said he was against banning books. Basgall said that he appreciated everyone who came to speak, and that though the majority of the council might have voted in favor of this letter at the last meeting, the majority can vote this time against it if they want to.
Ashbeck said that “Clovis is a welcoming community. Our job is to build community. People are welcome here. They need to be safe here.” She said that for all the time and effort of the evening, “we’re not in a better place,” and that the city’s mission was to “do local government better than anybody,” but “this didn’t rise to that.” She again acknowledged her role in the matter. Later Mouanoutoua said that he learned a lot from the personal stories told, so there was value in the meeting. He heard a lot, he said, and it was “very healthy.” He said, “I’m wiser.” Ashbeck agreed that “we have to hear each other” but that “we didn’t solve anything.” Yet she again cautioned against generalizing. She herself could advocate for a letter based on all the constituents who told her, “Leave the books in the library,” she said.
There was some discussion about, if individual letters are sent, would they be on the city letterhead or a personal one. Pearce wanted the city letterhead; Bessinger said a personal one was preferable and that it was moot anyway, since the Board of Supervisors knows who they are. There was a motion made; then, following more discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
City Attorney Scott Cross pointed out that there had actually been no motion made and no vote taken on Aug. 7; the suggestion made by Pearce about something not on the agenda ended with a consensus to have Holt draft a letter upon which they would vote when it was on the agenda. Nevertheless, Pearce touted the idea that the “council majority” was in favor of sending the letter, which had not even been drafted yet, and she announced it on her Facebook page.
Cross affirmed that that was why the draft of the letter was on tonight’s agenda. He said that the council did not have to take any action tonight; they could move to not send the letter, or they could not move to send it — in other words, they could do nothing. Further, if council members sent letters on their own personal letterhead, they would be “removing their authority,” and that was not on the agenda tonight.
Ashbeck confirmed that the action needed was to decide to send or not send the letter as it appeared in the agenda packet. Bessinger then moved “to do nothing.” Ashbeck quickly asked Cross if individual council members could still send their own letters (on city letterhead, “from the desk of”); Cross said yes, under any circumstance, that it is permissible.
Ashbeck said there was a motion and a second “to do nothing,” adding, “That’s government at its best!” Channeling Seinfeld, she said, “Let’s do nothing!”
On Sept. 6, Pearce went back to her City Council-branded Facebook page and misrepresented what happened at the Sept. 5 meeting: She posted a letter she wrote and said that the letter drafted by Holt “fell short of what a majority of the Council agreed to at our meeting on August 7,” and that she had “voted against it.” In fact, no one voted against it. Pearce also said, without proof, that she had heard from “hundreds” of people in support of her views, despite the extremely weak showing of support at the meeting and on her social media accounts.
Ashbeck announced a 5-minute break, after which they would address item 19 on the agenda. However, they decided to table the item until the next meeting on Sept. 11, because it was already after 9 p.m. Item 19 was to have been a presentation by attorney Cross, an update on California’s open governance laws, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act and ethics.
City Manager Comments Holt had none.
Council Comments
Basgall attended a North Kings water meeting.
Pearce had no remarks.
Mouanoutoua attended a meeting at Fresno Pacific University; he met with staff to discuss creating a Clovis youth commission.
Ashbeck met with the Fresno Council of Governments and the Clovis Unified School District to discuss “safe routes to school.” She said that the Fresno County Transportation Authority is recruiting a new executive director. She then mused about “city advocacy” and wondered if the matter could be placed on an upcoming agenda; she wondered if the city should have a lobbyist or join an organization other than the League of Cities. She feared that Clovis was “falling behind” and could use some help. She also spoke with the governor’s local staff and said that she didn’t know that he had staff in the Valley. “We’re not Berkeley,” she said, and wished the state government made allowances for regional differences. “We’re not opposed to anything, not to affordable housing,” she said. Why was she protesting about it? “We’ll do affordable housing, and we’ll do it better than anyone.” She gave no specifics.
Agenda Items 21-22 Closed session. The council adjourned to closed session; there were two items, one regarding the affordable housing case the city lost, lost on appeal, and lost in its request to depublish the decision. The case is Desiree Martinez v. City of Clovis. Desiree “Dez” Martinez herself had spoken just moments before during the public-comment period, but no one acknowledged that they knew who she was.
Cross said that there would be no report from the closed session.
If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at fresnodocs@fresnoland.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.
Comments are closed.