Porterville — The City Council on Dec. 2 heard hours of public comment before moving to advance an ordinance that the staff described as a municipal statement of principles on "individual liberty," medical freedom and parental rights.

Mayor Meister read the proposed ordinance into the record, saying the measure affirms “the principles of individual liberty and bodily integrity” and recognizes residents’ rights “to make their own medical and or parental choices free from coercion, discrimination, or undue interference.” The text also authorizes the council to establish a legal defense assistance program in the future “at such time that funding is expressly determined by City Council.”

Supporters told the council the ordinance would protect residents from what they described as overreaching executive mandates during emergencies. Vice Mayor McCurvey said the ordinance is a local reaffirmation of constitutional protections and argued it would guard residents against unlawful mandates: “This is about not going against the individual liberty, and making that statement that this city will stand on that,” he said.

Opponents warned of legal overreach and costly litigation. Multiple speakers and one local attorney cited constitutional and case‑law limits on municipal authority over schools and curriculum, and urged the council not to create an impression it could override state and federal law. Brock Neely told the council that broad parental‑rights language “is null and void by statute and by case law” and predicted a federal lawsuit if the city attempts to use the ordinance to regulate schools.

City Attorney answered that the ordinance repeatedly limits itself “to the fullest extent permitted by law” and that the implementing details of any legal assistance program would be set later by resolution if and when the council allocates funds. The attorney said the declaratory nature of the ordinance reduces the risk of a successful facial constitutional challenge, but cautioned that implementation decisions could raise litigation depending on how they are written and applied.

Councilmembers expressed differing views. Councilman Beltran said much of the language repeats federal and state protections already on the books and called parts of the draft “more of a statement than an actionable ordinance.” Councilman Rivas and others said they worry about exposing the city to expensive legal conflicts and asked for stronger limits on when the city would provide any funded legal assistance.

Mayor Meister moved to proceed with the ordinance as written and a motion and second were recorded; the transcript does not include a final roll‑call tally for adoption in that segment of the record. If adopted after required further readings, the measure would require the council at a later date to define eligibility, funding and procedural safeguards before any legal assistance could be distributed.

The council directed staff to bring the item back for the required second reading and further consideration of implementation details, including how any legal defense program would be limited to city residents and city‑related matters.

What happens next: The ordinance was introduced and will return to a future agenda for second reading, a 30‑day waiting period and possible further action; any legal defense assistance program would need a separate resolution and budget appropriation before it could operate.