Three Issues Dominate
Three culture war issues dominated the August and September meetings of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, all fueled by MAGA Republican Supervisor Garry Bredefeld (District 2): cancellation of a needle exchange program, installation of a religious sign in the Board chambers, and imposition of onerous rules for County staff participation in community events, the latter targeting the LGBTQ+ community.
Needles and Condoms and Gay Pride and DEI, Oh My!
Spearheaded by an utterly hostile Bredefeld, the County’s pilot needle exchange program was torpedoed at the Aug. 19 meeting. Despite data supporting the success of the program, the Board voted 3–2 not to renew the program. The “no” votes were Luis Chavez (District 3) and Brian Pacheco (District 1). Hence, the pilot will be terminated, and the clinic must vacate the health department building.
First approved as a two-year pilot in September 2023, the Whole Person Harm Reduction Program returned to the Board with strong results and a request for a five-year extension.
Since 1994, the San Joaquin Valley Free Medical Clinic and Needle Exchange has provided free harm-reduction services, including collecting used needles for disposal in exchange for clean needles, medical care and referrals. Since January 2024, the Needle Exchange has been operating within the Department of Public Health building, under the terms of the Whole Person Harm Reduction Program.
Interim Public Health Director Joe Prado and volunteer medical director Dr. Marc Lasher reported strong outcomes: The Saturday program serves about 130 people weekly—half homeless—more than 300 have entered drug treatment, and the County saved an estimated $6 million in ER costs last year. Operating expenses, about $90,000, were offset with grant funding, while program funding came from Purdue Pharma settlement money.
Dr. Lasher emphasized that the program makes access easy, with no red tape for people who want to enter it. Placement in the health department building has made a big difference in ease of access, he said.
When Chair Buddy Mendes (District 4) opened public comment, seven members of the public, including Dallas Blanchard, director of the Needle Exchange, and Elliot Balch, CEO of the Downtown Partnership, spoke in favor of retaining the program. Only Sheriff John Zanoni spoke in opposition—tax dollars should not be used for needles, he said, though it was repeatedly noted that no funding comes from tax dollars.
District 5 Supervisor Nathan Magsig, couching his disapproval of the program in polite expressions of thanks to Dr. Lasher, said he was “hard-pressed” to understand the “fine line” between assistance and enabling. To Magsig, providing clean needles was enabling addiction; he did not seem to grasp the concept of “harm reduction,” which Dr. Lasher had explained.
Chavez thanked Dr. Lasher for providing addicted people a chance for change. He said he understood the “optics” of providing needles but underscored the necessity for weaning people off powerful drugs. He wanted the public to understand the realities and supported continuing the program.
Pacheco noted that before the Board approved the program two years ago, Dr. Lasher and his volunteers ran the program from the street. Pacheco said that he’d had a negative view of the program until he visited it with a volunteer friend, when he saw the program’s value.
He pointed out the “misstatement” made by Zanoni about the use of public money and that keeping people out of the ER was a great savings.
To Dr. Lasher, Pacheco said he did not believe the vote would go his way—he seemed to anticipate Bredefeld’s fury in driving the negative vote outcome, because he then addressed Bredefeld, expressing hope that, when his turn to speak came, he would “remember patience, peace and kindness.”
Yes, he’d remember “patience, peace and kindness,” Bredefeld said, but promptly descended into a grotesque display of intolerance, contempt, bias and ideological intransigence. As he barraged Prado and Dr. Lasher with questions, he contemptuously cast aspersions on all answers and openly doubted the doctor’s veracity.
“I don’t believe it,” was Bredefeld’s blunt reply to Dr. Lasher’s statement that the needle exchange program drew people seeking long-term treatment.
Repeatedly referring to “taxpayer money” as the source for funding the program, despite being told that none was used, Bredefeld bellowed to Dr. Lasher that “the program offers nothing but more drug use! You facilitate deadly addiction!”
Now he had really run out of “patience, peace and kindness,” and he went so far as to show a pre-prepared slideshow including moody, staged stock photos of dark-skinned arms being injected with needles and the like.
Bredefeld laid it on thick: “No, we don’t need more housing! Put drug addicts in houses, and they’ll burn them down!”
Reading from a prepared statement, now Bredefeld trotted out all his bugaboos with a furious relish: “Radical politicians in Sacramento encourage and subsidize drug use! You are funding addicts, criminals and the homeless! It’s a destructive program with no accountability! The $6 million savings is made up!”
Still reading, he threw in his greatest hits: “Radical ideology! DEI language! Gay rainbow condoms! Indoctrination into gay ideology!”
This last bit caused Chavez to note with a rueful chuckle that “Garry was good at mixing up all those issues together.”
Bredefeld had targeted the program since January, when ending “needles for addicts” topped his list of grievances—evidence for the program’s success was of no consequence.
As he often has, Bredefeld mentioned during his harangue that for 35 years he worked as a psychologist with the VA. A former colleague of his has said of him, “There were many good psychologists. Then there was Garry.”
What’s Your Sign?
On Aug. 19, the Board agreed to display in the meeting chamber a sign bearing the national motto, “In God We Trust.” Pacheco was the sole “no” vote.
The proposal was yet another Bredefeld-instigated ideological drama. Reading from his prepared statement, Bredefeld recited the motto’s history, but omitted that it was a Cold War addition of 1956, pushed by religious lobbyists to contrast with “godless communism,” replacing the unofficial “E Pluribus Unum.”
Bredefeld’s reasons for displaying the sign were defensive: “it’s not illegal,” “others have done it,” “it’s the national motto.”
Bredefeld argued that the religious signage was not about a single religion but would reflect the county’s “diversity”—a word that normally triggers him. Those with no religion? They could “simply disregard it.”
He invoked JFK, Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson and others to frame the proposal as implicitly endorsed by iconic figures of American history, thereby precluding counterargument.
He cited the invocations that precede every Board meeting and falsely claimed they were made by representatives of “different religions”—in the past seven years, there have been only three instances of non-evangelical pastors, only two of those were non-Christian, and none have been non-denominational—they all invoke specific deities.
Chavez said that he’d supported a similar proposal when he was a Fresno City Council member. He was a Catholic, he said, but he didn’t “push his religion on others,” yet he hoped the religious sign would “unite the community.” His god “accepted everybody.”
Six members of the public spoke against the proposal and one in favor. Brandi Nuse-Villegas noted the illogic of calling an exclusive religious sign “inclusive.”
Pastor Simon Biasell-Moshrefi of the Big Red Church said the motto should be practiced, not displayed, and quipped that the sign’s proposed placement would leave supervisors with “their backs to god.”
Magsig, who often flaunts his fundamentalist religious views, asserted that he “strives to live according to” the motto. “We are fighting against each other now,” he said, adding without justification that everyone needs to “unite behind the motto.”
Pacheco said he supported the national motto but that it was not necessary to display it in the boardroom. “I don’t need a sign,” he said.
Finally, Mendes said he agreed with Pacheco but would vote “yes” reluctantly.
Celebrate Good Times
At its Sept. 9 meeting, the Board approved the details of another Bredefeld brainchild, now known as “Policy 81,” which will require County departments to seek prior approval six to 12 months in advance from the Board before they publicly acknowledge holidays. Chavez and Pacheco voted “no.”
CAO Paul Nerland introduced the particulars of this new administrative rule, agreed to in principle a month ago (also a 3-2 vote, with Chavez and Pacheco dissenting). County departments will be permitted to “officially and publicly celebrate or recognize [only] those holidays, themes, events, days, weeks, or months approved prior to their occurrence by a majority of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.”
Policy 81 pairs with Policy 80, requiring Board permission for any staff spending on community events. Both originated with Bredefeld’s fury over County participation in the Pride Parade and library Pride Month displays. Though framed as fiscal oversight, the policies plainly target LGBTQ+ recognition.
Bredefeld pressed to amend one policy section on “employee holiday festivities,” questioning whether staff could celebrate something he opposed during lunch breaks. CAO Nerland said it depended on whether services to the public were affected.
Chavez objected to censoring free time, while Pacheco clarified that lunch was private and outside Board control, reiterating his opposition to the policy. Magsig argued that lunch breaks preclude public interaction and pointed to the County’s “value statements” as support.
Six members of the public opposed the policy, calling it discriminatory, censorious and “alarming.” One likened Bredefeld to a “discount version” of Trump, while another challenged how the County’s “values,” alluded to by Magsig, supported the measure.
On a County webpage, the “values” described there make frequent mention of “diversity”—can we expect a Bredefeld-led purge of the County values statement?
Magsig (who, coincidentally, has asserted that trees cause air pollution) claimed only “inclusive” events should be recognized, though what he described fit the definition of “exclusive.” Bredefeld insisted he was elected to represent his own beliefs, unlike County staff, who “hadn’t received a single vote,” implying staff were subject to his authority.
Collateral Damage
August and September meetings revealed a Board increasingly shaped by Bredefeld-engineered ideological conflict. Evidence-based programs such as “harm reduction” were discarded in favor of faux moralistic fervor. A religious motto will be installed in Board chambers, and County professional staff will be forced to grovel before the Board before they can decide in which community events they will participate or spend County funds on.
These debates, dominated by Bredefeld’s cheap culture war framing, show how local governance is being redirected from practical problem-solving toward symbolic battles—leaving public health, community inclusion and the morale of County employees as collateral damage.
