The Clark County School District (CCSD) held a special board meeting on Monday, July 1, to adopt the final budget.
The meeting opened in a patriotic fashion as Vice Chair Brenda Zamora asked Trustee Stevens to lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance, a tradition that still holds meaning for many Americans.
But as the meeting continued, it wasn’t just what was said that caught attention; it was what was seen, or more accurately, what was not seen.
The Meeting Begins with Vice Chair Brenda Zamora, wearing glasses, her dark hair pulled back, and a rainbow LGBTQ pin on her chest, took the lead early on. The camera followed her clearly and respectfully. In fact, throughout most of the meeting, the camera seemed to be doing its job well, zooming in on each speaker as they spoke.
Joe Caruso, the board liaison, presented the first item: renewing the district’s membership with the Nevada Association of School Boards. He wore a brown suit and blue dress shirt. The camera showed him clearly and directly. The vote passed unanimously, 5–0.
As the meeting moved forward, the camera kept pace, respectfully spotlighting each person as they took their turn.
Whether it was Superintendent Jhone Ebert thanking Zamora and introducing Legislative Bill 330, or the presenters and trustees who followed, one thing stayed the same: the camera focused on each speaker.
People noticed the care taken to show board members in a clear and professional way. Trustees like Linda Cavazos, Lydia Dominguez, Ramona Esparza-Stoffregan, Adams Johnson, and Emily Stevens, were all given proper attention.
You could see their expressions. Their words matched their faces. You could even see the details: green jackets, floral dresses, glasses, manicured nails, and beaded necklaces.
This might seem like a small thing. But in public meetings, how people are shown on camera matters.
One Trustee Left Out
That’s why what happened with Trustee Lorena Biassotti raised eyebrows.
While others were shown in close-up when speaking, Biassotti was not.
She wore a large red, white, and blue scarf draped over her shoulders and a matching headband, a clear nod to the upcoming Independence Day. Yet when she spoke, the camera didn’t zoom in. It stayed wide. Her voice came through, but viewers couldn’t tell where it was coming from.
No face. No name tag. No clear shot.
Was it an accident? A tech glitch?
Maybe.
But it happened more than once. And only to her.
Noticeable? No question.
Is Patriotism Unwelcome?
You begin to wonder if Biassotti’s visible patriotism had something to do with it.
After all, it was July 1 – just days before the Fourth of July. Wearing the colors of the American flag SHOULD be seen as respectful. But was it too much red, white, and blue for the “camera guy”?
We don’t know who controls the camera during CCSD board meetings. But whoever it was, they seemed to keep up just fine with everyone else.
So why the issue when Trustee Biassotti spoke?
A Pattern or a Problem?
Critics of the CCSD board have long voiced concerns over fairness and transparency. Some feel there’s a culture within the board that picks favorites. Others see a lean toward progressive politics, especially with the presence of pride pins worn by Vice Chair Zamora and other board members’ outspoken positions.
Some might say the meeting being public should be enough.
But that’s not the point.
The meeting was public, yes, and anyone can go back and watch it for themselves. That’s good. But public visibility doesn’t mean fairness if the camera doesn’t show everyone equally.
Is it possible to show support for traditional American values – like patriotism – and still be treated equally at the table?
Or is there quiet bias at play?
Why It Matters
Board meetings are meant to be public and fair. When technology works for some but not others, trust is lost. No one should be hidden, especially not an elected official speaking on behalf of the people.
We expect our cameras to be neutral. Just like we expect our schools to be.
This might seem like a small thing. But if we ignore the small things, they grow. If a camera can overlook someone for wearing red, white, and blue, what else might it miss?
For now, the question stands: was it a coincidence, or something more?
Freedom of speech and visibility in government should apply to everyone. No matter what colors they wear.
You be the judge.
