ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Senator Runner Introduces New Residency Restrictions Bill [updated with PSC Hearing Date]

April 19, 2016 at 9:30 am – Public Safety Committee Hearing [PSC Agenda] Senator Sharon Runner (Republican, Lancaster) introduced a new bill (S. 1021) on February 11 that would prohibit registrants on parole from living within 2,000 feet of public or private schools or parks where children regularly gather. The deadline for introducing new legislation was February 11.

“The California Supreme Court ruled in March 2015 that similar restrictions violated the Constitution,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “Consideration of this bill by the state legislature will waste limited legislative resources.”

The new bill would require a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the Senate in order to be passed. If passed and signed by the Governor, the bill would take effect immediately.

Senator Runner introduced a similar bill in January 2015 that was referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. The bill failed to pass the Committee during a hearing on June 30, 2015, and was declared “dead” on February 1, 2016.

Also see

http://runner.cssrc.us/content/sharon-runner-introduces-legislation-requiring-department-corrections-obey-jessicas-law

SB 1021

Sample Letter

[note note_color=”#ededed” radius=”2″]

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 2031
Sacramento, CA  95814

Dear Chairman Hancock:

I am writing in strong opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1021 which has been referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee.  The bill, as currently written, would prohibit registered citizens (also known as “sex offenders”) on parole from living within 2,000 feet of a public or private school or park where children regularly gather.

If SB 1021 is passed by the state legislature, there will be a significant reduction in public safety because the number of homeless registered citizens will dramatically increase.  That increase would be in addition to an increase of more than 300 percent following passage of Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law.

According to the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB), created by the state legislature as the state’s experts in sex offender policies, the promulgation of conditions which create homelessness and transience among the registered sex offenders is counterproductive and continues to be the single most problematic aspect of sex offender management policy in California.  Therefore, CASOMB “continues to recommend the elimination of one-size-fits-all restriction on where registered sex offenders may live.”

In addition, Senate Bill 1021 is inconsistent with the recent decision of the California Supreme Court in the case In re Taylor, S 206143.  The Court determined in that case that the blanket application of residency restrictions to registrants on parole violated the liberty and privacy rights of those individuals and bear no rational relationship to advancing the state’s goal of protecting children from sexual predators.

Following that Court ruling, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) determined that it would apply residency restrictions only to registrants who posed a current danger to public safety.  Senate Bill 1021 seeks to overturn CDCR’s determination by requiring registrants on parole to seek a costly judicial review in courts that are already straining under limited resources.

Further, the provisions of Senate Bill 1021 are similar to the provisions of another bill introduced by the same author, Senator Sharon Runner last year.  The Senate Public Safety Committee wisely denied passage of that bill, SB 54, during a hearing on June 30, 2015.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.  For the reasons stated above we request that you and the members Senate Public Safety Committee vote “no” on SB 1021.

Sincerely,[/note]

Contact Info

California Senate Public Safety Committee Home Page

CA Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol, Room 2031
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4118
Email: SCOPS@sen.ca.gov
Main Page: http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/

Non-elected staff can be contacted at above. See main page for details

MEMBERS

Senator Loni Hancock (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Online Contact Form: http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/contact

Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.651.4038
Online Contact Form: http://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=SD38

Senator Steven M. Glazer
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Online Contact Form: http://sd07.senate.ca.gov/contact/email

Senator Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4011
Online Contact Form: http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact

Senator Carol Liu
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4025
Online Contact Form: http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/contact

Senator Bill Monning
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Online Contact Form: http://sd17.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail

Senator Jeff Stone
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Online Contact Form: http://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=SD28

Join the discussion

  1. The Anon

    Serious question here. Is this woman mentally ill?

    • Q

      She is insane, as I have suspected for a long time now. Insanity has been described to me as “doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.” This lines right up with Runner; nobody can deny that.

      I think the dictionary definition also is in keeping with her actions.

      NOUN (1)
      (Law) Such a mental condition, as, either from the
      existence of delusions, or from incapacity to distinguish
      between right and wrong, with regard to any matter under
      action, does away with individual responsibility.

      Describes her to a T.

      • Robert Curtis

        Senator Runner is not running for re-election. The whole Sex Offender issue and laws placed against these citizens have been the primary focus of her and her staff. This is a last ditched effort to bring meaning to her time in office…being a cancer survivor she will try to get this passed on a sympathy vote.

    • John

      What do we need to do to stop this one? Who do we need to email, call, and write letters to? I want to get my opposed stance in front of the ones that need to know ASAP.

      (Update: See Eric Knight’s post below in the thread and get your voices heard!)

  2. NPS

    That woman just does not give up. Is she up for re-election in her district? Is there a formidable opponent running against her that she has to continuously reintroduce the same bill over and over again? Is that not the very definition of insanity? I hope her constituents finally wise up and vote her out office because clearly she isn’t doing very much for her district if this is the only issue she continues to tackle.

    • David H

      it’s a women and husband team in Lancaster; I wish they’d both go quail hunting

    • Q

      Are the people in her district paying for this?

      • David

        On a humorous note, the last time she argued for a similar restriction, she mentioned that there are numerous places in her district where RSOs could reside and still be in compliance with the restrictions. (This is because her district is relatively rural.) But are her constituents aware that she is promoting their district as a good place for registered citizens to live?? They might not be too happy with her if they knew this!

  3. someone who cares

    What???? I just don’t get it. They are trying to introduce the same thing over and over again. How can it be unconstitutional one day, and then they are thinking it might not be unconstitutional the next day? This is becoming so absurd and almost comical. What a waste of time, again! What is different about this bill? Anyone?

    • Timmr

      I am sure she is thinking she will wear us down. She is borrowing that technique from the US Congressional Republicans fighting Obama. Stupid as it sounds, do it long enough and it does do damage to your opponent. Done long enough and you would think it would do damage to the doer. She’ll do it as long as her constituents think it is a noble cause. The risk is, she will look ineffective. But look, with RC legislation, you can write the most ineffective laws there has ever been and everyone thinks you’re a hero. The moles will keep popping up until we break the machine.

  4. EnemyWithin

    Maybe she is trying again because she is emboldened by the ultimate success of the IML. Political genius, she can always have the tagline “fought my whole career to combat sex offenders” or some other violent speech.

  5. noname

    The definition in Insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

  6. C

    Sharon Runner is a typically worthless government employee who has nothing to show for her years in office. Her fruitless efforts have cost tax payers untold amounts (millions?) that would have been better spent on road inprovements, prevention programs and the like. Instead she seeks to define crazy all over again by repeating the same exercise in futility.
    She is worse than the EPA barnacle that clung to the public teat for years until exposure.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/16/revealed-epas-highest-paid-employee-did-no-work-for-years-told-colleagues-he-was-secret-agent-for-the-cia-instead/

  7. Paul

    Has this incompetent woman fallen and hit her head? Is she on drugs and, therefore, unable to think with any intelligence?

  8. David H

    while the CA Supreme court ruled on this a judge in Los Angeles who sits on the SOMB has also ruled against this in Los Angeles county ( Espinoza???)

  9. J.B.

    I’m not from California, I’m from Florida, but I have read about this Runner woman in some of the California articles. This woman needs some Psychiatric therapy. Not “psychological” but Psychiatric because she is going to be needing a lot of Psychotropic drugs on a regular basis. There is something seriously wrong with her. I can picture her all night at home in her computer looking for sex offenders instead of attending to her house hold family and being a mom, wife and a normal person. That to me is pretty darn scary, more so scarier than the mythological sexual predator hiding behind a bush. She is like Glen Close in fatal attraction but only towards registered citizens. That is pretty scary.

    • curiouser

      She probably has her own Valerie Pankhurst shrine in a corner of her bedroom.

    • Mq

      Hey jb I’m going to a family reunion in July and gunna be there for 10 days and my offense was in 1989 for sex with a minor and haven’t been in trouble since. What should I expect

      • Steve

        I would highly recommend not going. You are going to have to register in Florida and your listed online there and it stays forever. Or, you can just go and not tell anyone.

      • J.B.

        You would have to register in the county that you are visiting your family in Florida. In Florida it is after 48 hours. But if you do register it will be on there forever. Even after death, unless one day hopefully in the future, registration gets destroyed.

        Best thing to do. Is drive there with someone else’s car and you are not driving. Sit in the back seat and keep a low profile. But if you fly they will know. It will get back to you. Ive driven with friends to many counties and near by States for 3 to 4 days and back. Always quiet and not calling attention to myself. Just enjoying the trip like a normal person.

      • Harry

        If, the location is near the Florida border, stay in the neighboring state and do day trips. You may want to find out whom else are attending, like LE or public official family members.

  10. JohnDoeUtah

    Ya know, eventually she will wear us down. All this does is pull resources and donations off other important projects. Maybe we need to dedicate a full-time Runner containment team.

  11. curiouser

    At this point, she’s just embarrassing herself. But I guess it takes a certain amount of courage to continually go before a panel of your colleagues and be told over and over again that you’re wrong, misguided, and ill-informed. She’s even been asked by the Public Safety Committee to meet with the CASOMB and I somehow doubt she’s taken that step. If she did, she might even put down her pitchfork and become enlightened. Nah.

  12. New Person

    “The California Supreme Court ruled in March 2015 that similar restrictions violated the Constitution,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “Consideration of this bill by the state legislature will waste limited legislative resources.”

    I’m curious, but when does Runner’s constant barrage on registrant go from her first amendment rights to hate speech? I don’t see DUI people forbidden from being around a steering wheel for 2,000 feet or any place that sells alcohol. Isolating one group over and over again while not employing the same restrictions for all convicts seems very peculiar, especially when violates the Constitution.

  13. PR

    Seriously what is wrong with her? What does she not comprehend? Aside from the fact that previously the residency requirements have been voted down and they have been asked to come up with a tier system for consideration any Registrant that is on Parole is wearing a GPS monitor, which last time I checked the very purpose was/is to track their every movement to the tune of our taxpayer dollars.

  14. Eric Knight

    OK. I have all the same emails from before, the same email addresses from before, the same contact information for each Senate Safety Commission board member from before. And I don’t even have to change the wording in many of them, as Runner was involved as well.

    It seems the only reason Runner keeps doing this is to get to be able to go on John and Ken over and over again, and frankly, the only way she feels she can stay relevant. Really a sad sack if you ask me.

    OUT OF CURIOSITY, and I’m GLAD for it, but I’m still wondering: Why does this bill need a 2/3 majority and not a simple majority like any other non-tax bill?

    • David H

      I;m not certain but I would believe if they need a higher majority it means they are over riding someone or something–maybe the Supreme court in this case

      • Timmr

        Maybe it was found to be a significant budget issue, which requires 2/3 vote? I recall I brought that up to Assemblyman Quirk, regarding the suspension of the rules last Fall. You can’t suspend the Brown Act either (remember the thing was rushed through without 72 hours notice) if there is financial burden on the citizens or something like that. I think there was something that stated that there can’t be a suspension of the rules if there is a significant cost to the legislation. Sorry to be so vague, but I would need to look up my comments and the rules again. The bill was moving very fast at the time.

    • Janice Bellucci

      The requirement for a 2/3 vote is because the bill has been labeled as “Urgent” and will take effect the day after the Governor signs it…..if and only if the legislature passes it.

      • Molly

        Plus –
        From Original 2006 Jessica’s Law:
        SEC. 33. Amendment Clause – The provisions of this act shall not be amended by the Legislature except by a statute passed in each house by roll-call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters. However, the Legislature may amend the provisions of this act to expand the scope of their application or to increase the punishments or penalties provided herein by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.

        Believe it or not but in 2005 our legislature actually did reject as unconstitutional and costly similar Sharon Runner bills, AB 231 and SB 588. Both dealt with residency restrictions, GPS monitoring and longer sentences. Because she could not get the legislature to pass either bill Sharon and George put Jessica’s Law on the ballot as an initiative in 2006. Requiring 2/3 majority to change Jessica’s Law was supposed to make it really hard for the legislature to water it down. Of course they were happy to let the legislature increase the punishments and penalties with a simple majority vote.

        • David H

          Interesting she refers to it as punishment but punishment is what they’ve been avoiding for ex-post facto purposes

        • Timmr

          I saw people gathering signatures in front of the store the other day. Don’t know what it was for, but was wondering if any SO related propositions are in the works. If there are any, wouldn’t it be a good to address them early on?

        • Friend of RSOL

          Yes, indeed, if there are any.

          I found this:
          https://ballotpedia.org/California_2016_ballot_propositions

          Is this the complete list, or can more be added?

        • Timmr

          California Childhood Sexual Abuse Initiative (2016) “The measure would eliminate the statute of limitations for civil actions and felony prosecutions for sexual crimes against children.”
          Still getting signatures, but pretty sure it will make it to the ballot.
          Another one is the Three Strikes Initiative, which would make it so felonies that occurred before the three strikes law would not be included as strikes. Good list. Thank you.

      • Timmr

        It is still labeled “urgent”. That seems to be the operative word for all this SO legislation. What is the standard for labeling a bill urgent and who decides?

      • David H

        haha urgent! and now why suddenly is this bill urgent!!

  15. Eric Knight

    Here is the contact information for all the Senate Public Safety Board members:

    CA Senate Public Safety Committee
    State Capitol, Room 2031
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4118
    Email: SCOPS@sen.ca.gov
    Main Page: http://spsf.senate.ca.gov/

    Non-elected staff can be contacted at above. See main page for details

    MEMBERS

    Senator Loni Hancock (Chair)
    State Capitol, Room 2082
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4009
    Online Contact Form: http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/contact

    Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
    State Capitol, Room 5052
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: 916.651.4038
    Online Contact Form: http://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=SD38

    Senator Steven M. Glazer
    State Capitol, Room 4082
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Online Contact Form: http://sd07.senate.ca.gov/contact/email

    Senator Mark Leno
    State Capitol, Room 5100
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4011
    Online Contact Form: http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/contact

    Senator Carol Liu
    State Capitol, Room 5097
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4025
    Online Contact Form: http://sd25.senate.ca.gov/contact

    Senator Bill Monning
    State Capitol, Room 313
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4017
    Online Contact Form: http://sd17.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail

    Senator Jeff Stone
    State Capitol, Room 4062
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: (916) 651-4028
    Online Contact Form: http://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=SD28

    • John

      What contents should we include in our letters and emails? Can someone provide a template we can use as a guide?

      • Eric Knight

        I would go to the trouble of writing your own version of the letter. If you need some talking points perahps some can be included in the comments below mine here, but to be blunt, form letters don’t have the impact of letters that has been created by one source and sent from several accounts.

        Now, you CAN create the one letter and send the same copy of that letter to all the senators. But a standard form letter template that everyone sends just doesn’t have the impact.

    • Cool CA RC

      So those members are the same member from last year except for
      Senator Mike McGuire? Correct?

      I think those members are also getting tired of hearing this being brought up over and over.

      We had couple close call but we need to keep writing.

  16. Harry

    One problem Ms. Runner has is egg on her face, for having kids in her Christian school molested by a vetted teacher that they hired. She is trying wash it off with this bill.

    • Harry

      P.S. and question. At this point can Ms. Runner be sued for harassment under 290?

    • cool rc California

      so this is common just like Ron Book when his daughter got molested by a nanny.

  17. G4Change

    There must be something in the water in the Antelope Valley. Unbelievable!!!

  18. Kevin

    If you read the bill it states that in order to petition to be relieved from the restrictions you must show that there are a significant amount of other registrants that also cannot find housing. So, if you are one of the first to petition how do you show that other registrants cannot find housing too? It sounds to me like Runner’s petitioning clause is not feasable. It is simply there to fool legislators into voting for it.

    • Eric Knight

      What is the definition of “significant?” Subjective terminology can never be as valid as objective metrics. This one should be easy to deflect if for some reason the bill reaches the Legal Committee, though it may be able to be addressed in the Safety Committee.

  19. LK

    Since Runners name is now on SB 448, I think Chris Kelly is funding this one too.

  20. USA

    I do have to ask/sincerely. If someone is released on Parole today, doesn’t the Parole Officer of Judge set these stipulations? For example, I was released on Summary Probation and required to stay away from massage parlors? Just curious.

  21. David

    USA, see paragraph 5 of the sample letter above. The CDCR does indeed have the authority to impose such restrictions on parolees on a case by case basis (not as blanket restrictions applying to everyone). So their ability to impose such restrictions already exists. Runners’ stupid law is completely unnecessary.

  22. W

    So does this only apply to SOs that are on parole? Or is it a blanket restriction across all SOs.

    • David H

      ” Senator Sharon Runner (Republican, Lancaster) introduced a new bill (S. 1021) on February 11 that would prohibit registrants on parole from living within 2,000 feet of public or private schools or parks where children regularly gather.”

      • New Person

        Wouldn’t this be akin to the San Diego case, Taylor, that defeated residency restriction for parolees?

        Also, is Janice and team still pursuing to make it clear that Taylor should be applied to all 290s on paper, not just those on Parole or b/c Parole says they’re just not doing it and the practice is still constitutional?

    • Janice Bellucci

      As currently written, SB 1021 only applies to registrants on parole.

  23. jason

    This is realy simple, Runner has been humiliated and wisely rejected over her mentaly ill delusions about SO’s… at this point she knows she is wrong yet she is going to show us all that no matter how wrong she is she’s not going to quit until she seeks a psychiatrist for these unhealty delusions. In the way she keeps persisting after the Supreme courts rulings, I would honestly have to call her a repeat offender/predator.

  24. Lake County

    I just finished writing and printing my letters to the 7 committee members. I really hope this is the last time she tries this. I consider this harassment. I wish I had the finances to travel to the public hearings on this.

    • James

      This is so distressing! Thanks for the link, Paul…I don’t know what I can do about her running for the CA Senate….She is up in Lancaster….but maybe make some phone calls…not that this will do any good.

      But at least I know now that I need to think about find a way to attack her and her candidacy.

      Thanks again,

      Best Wishes, James

  25. Mr. G

    From all these bills being proposed, what is it costing the tax payers? If the figures are high enough and nothing is being accomplished, would it not be wise to let the public know how their dollars are being wasted? “It’s all fun and games tell someone” has to pay for it.

  26. Nicholas Maietta

    WARNING: This website is NOT an official government website. This website is owned by a private individual. Your visits to the website could be monitored by individuals with a dirty agenda.

    I just want to throw that out there. For those of you who’ve missed it, previously Runners used the California Secretary of State website as a personal tool to promote the Jessica Law agenda, which could be considered a criminal offense.

    Use of non-governmental websites for official business may be a grey area or worse as well.

  27. Concerned Citizen

    I just sent e-mails off to the entire list. I will call them all tomorrow. They need to be bombarded with e-mails and calls. This woman Runner needs to be stopped.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.