Bredefeld Uses BOS as a Soapbox

Bredefeld Uses BOS as a Soapbox
District 2 Supervisor Garry Bredefeld alleges these “objectionable” materials were distributed at Fresno’s recent Pride Parade. Screenshot from livestream of Fresno County Board of Supervisors’ meeting

Pride Month Sparks Outburst from Bredefeld

June is Pride Month in the United States, officially recognized since President Bill Clinton’s Proclamation 7203 in 1999. Yet at the June 10 meeting of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors (BOS), what should have been a routine round of supervisor updates turned into a hostile anti-gay diatribe by District 2 Supervisor Garry Bredefeld.

During the segment typically reserved for non-agendized reports about committee participation and district events, Bredefeld launched into a tirade denouncing the County’s participation in Pride Month.

He railed against Pride displays at public libraries and County departments’ presence at Fresno’s Pride Parade—particularly the Departments of Public Health and Social Services, which he accused of spending $5,000 on giveaways such as condoms in rainbow-colored wrappers bearing the County’s name. 

He framed these actions as “crossing into advocacy,” though he never specified what, exactly, he believed was being advocated. His subtext was unmistakably anti-LGBTQ+.

Bredefeld claimed these expenditures were made “without oversight, accountability or transparency.” He asserted that he would be directing the county administrative officer (CAO) to require Board approval for all such departmental spending going forward.

How a unilateral directive could take effect without Board consensus or proper agendizing was not addressed until later in the meeting, when Bredefeld’s provocations were met by his colleagues with relative restraint. Nor were any representatives from the cited departments present to offer clarification, and no one otherwise presented information about what existing rules governed such expenditures. Facts seemed to take a backseat to fervor.

Hypocrisy on Spending Oversight

The irony of Bredefeld’s stance was not lost on observers. Just months earlier, at the Feb. 11 meeting, he had vocally opposed Administrative Policy 75—a rule requiring legal review and Board approval of expenditures from individual supervisors’ discretionary funds.

At that time, he complained about needing “daddy counsel” to approve spending and demanded greater autonomy. Yet now, he appeared unwilling to extend that same trust to departmental leaders.

In March, the Board had voted to revise Administrative Policy 75 to require review only for expenditures exceeding $1,500.

Bredefeld’s shift from championing spending independence to demanding control over departmental spending exposes the inconsistency—and political opportunism—of his positions.

Escalation into Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric

Bredefeld’s outburst didn’t stop with Pride Month. Referring to a peaceful protest against ICE held in downtown Fresno the previous day, he made a display of declaring his support for the right to protest before pivoting to an inflammatory screed.

He accused President Biden of having allowed “20 million illegal third-world immigrants, many of them criminals” into the country and loudly endorsed Donald Trump’s call to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles.

His tone became increasingly agitated, marked by hyperbole. He contrasted Fresno with Los Angeles, condemning the latter as a “sanctuary” for lawlessness and vilifying Governor Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

District 3 Supervisor Luis Chavez speaking during the June 10 meeting. Screenshot from livestream of Fresno County Board of Supervisors’ meeting

Other Supervisors Weigh In—Sort Of

District 3 Supervisor Luis Chavez’s comments stood in contrast to Bredefeld’s. Calm and measured, he acknowledged the ICE protest and implicitly warned against selective outrage, noting that Jan. 6 had involved “raving lunatics.” He mentioned two Fresno anti-Trump protests scheduled for June 14.

 District 5 Supervisor Nathan Magsig, referencing Bredefeld’s remarks, expressed interest in exploring an administrative order regarding departmental expenditures. Notably, he observed—without irony—that June is also Men’s Mental Health Month.

He supported Bredefeld’s demand to look into whether Board approval should be required for departmental donations to public events, though Chair Buddy Mendes (District 4) interrupted to point out that there was no consensus yet.

Bredefeld jumped back in, pressing to know if a formal list of Board-sanctioned events existed. He asked if events not included on such a list—such as Pride—could be disqualified from receiving occasional departmental funding.

“I have a lot of problems with gay pride promoted at the library,” he proclaimed.

He then cited the Target department store’s recent retreat from Pride displays as a moral north star to follow, declaring, “These libraries can’t be a place where we promote an agenda! It’s not a good agenda!

“If it’s not on our list of approved events, it’s my expectation that there will not be gay pride all over the place!”

Mendes did little to rein in the disruptive commentary, merely stating that he agreed County departments should obtain Board approval for discretionary spending.

Regarding the idea of creating a sanctioned events list, Mendes called it “complicated” and suggested that it be discussed in closed session—without explaining why the topic, which does not appear to involve legal issues, would warrant such treatment. His cryptic remark that “we might have to massage it a little” implied an intent to obscure or manipulate the process behind closed doors.

Mendes then veered into unrelated rambling, joking about summer heat and boasting that he had “a lot of nerdy friends,” especially weather people, who had shared with him that it’s going to be hot this summer in Fresno County. Who knew?

He quipped that “weatherman” was the one position in which you could be wrong all the time and still keep your job but quickly pivoted to a jab at the state government, offering a retort to his own remark: “We have a lot of those in Sacramento!”

District 1 Supervisor Brian Pacheco observed that while managing the financial side of discretionary spending was relatively simple, deciding which events should be Board-approved was a “long, complex issue.” He noted they were, in fact, two separate matters.

What’s at Stake?

CAO Paul Nerland acknowledged that “he heard consensus” on setting spending thresholds but warned that the issue of which events and causes departments could support would require more deliberation. The matter is expected to return at the July 8 meeting.

What exactly is at stake? Bredefeld’s attack isn’t just about condoms or County logos—it’s about equity, representation and democratic integrity. Bredefeld’s actions seek to impose a narrow worldview on a diverse public, undermining legal equality and civic inclusion.

His selective outrage, double standards and eagerness to wield power unilaterally reveal a troubling approach to governance—one in which personal ideology overrides public service.

New Catalytic Converter Theft Ordinance

At the May 20 meeting, the BOS unanimously agreed to advance a new ordinance brought by Bredefeld and Pacheco, which complements the recent copper wire ordinance, this time a regulation to address the theft of catalytic converters, a problem particularly felt in unincorporated areas of Fresno County.

There are layers of current state law regarding catalytic converter theft, which has seen a huge increase just since the pandemic years.

The proposed ordinance makes unlawful possession of a catalytic converter a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. Possession of more than one catalytic converter without proof of ownership would be a separate violation.

Bredefeld read the ordinance aloud, making a display of thanking everybody who had anything to do with it, including Pacheco, who acknowledged that Bredefeld did most of the work. Pacheco, using a favorite Bredefeld metaphor, said that this new ordinance “has teeth” and will “update” laws currently on the books.

Bredefeld seized the opportunity to grandstand about his distaste for the Democratic-led state government, complaining in florid terms about a current law that he said requires a thief to have possession of nine catalytic converters before a crime can be charged. He condemned the state legislature, speaking as though he had to endure intense victimization: “We have to deal with the insanity of Sacramento!”

In fact, AB 641, passed in late 2023 and effective as of Jan. 1, 2024, stipulates possession of nine converters because it targets large theft rings that are likely to have large numbers of the converters, and it was authored by Vincent Fong, then a member of the State Assembly, now a member of Congress (CD20) and, like Bredefeld, a fellow MAGA Republican.

Fong’s bill allows law enforcement to specifically charge thieves with unlicensed automobile dismantling when they are caught with at least nine stolen catalytic converters. Not mentioned by anyone were three more laws addressing catalytic-converter theft that took effect from 2023 to 2025:

  • AB 1653: Effective Jan. 1, 2023. Authored by Jim Patterson (R–Fresno). Makes prosecution of individuals involved in catalytic converter thefts easier; helps local law enforcement agencies by allowing counties to seek the support of the California Highway Patrol.
  • SB 1087: Effective Jan. 1, 2023. Authored by Lena Gonzalez (D–Long Beach). Limits who can legally purchase a detached catalytic converter and who can sell a catalytic converter to scrap-metal recyclers; closes loopholes in existing law regarding the sale of detached catalytic converters. Fines start at $1,000 and increase for repeat violations.
  •  AB 2536: Effective Jan. 1, 2025. Authored by Josh Hoover (R–Folsom). Defines vehicle-theft crimes to include theft of vehicle parts or components.

Another bill, SB 986 (2022, sponsored by three Democrats and one Republican), would have prohibited a car dealer from selling a car unless the catalytic converter had been permanently marked with a vehicle identification number but failed to pass after objections from the California New Car Dealers Association, which didn’t want to bear the expense of etching the numbers on the car parts.

A member of the public, Daryl Terrell, was present to speak in favor of the proposed amendment. Terrell has already made a name for himself as a supporter of similar ordinances in Riverside County, where he is a resident.

He claimed that a “loophole” in current law permits thieves to steal eight catalytic converters before they can be charged with a crime, and he therefore repeated the phrase “one and done,” which he promoted as a summary of the ordinance. “Make crime illegal again,” he quipped.

Bredefeld persisted in blaming Democrats in the state government for this particular ill, appearing to be ignorant of its legislative history and appending a few nonsensical, hyperbolic remarks for good measure: “Up in Sacramento, they believe in bowing down before criminals!”

The ordinance was formally adopted by unanimous vote at the June 10 meeting and will be effective 30 days after that date.

Author

  • Rachel Youdelman

    Rachel Youdelman is a former photography editor and lives in Clovis. She attended UC Berkeley, CalArts and Harvard University. Contact her at rachel27@berkeley.edu.

    View all posts
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x