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
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
Serious question here. Is this woman mentally ill?
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.
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?
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.
The definition in Insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
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/
Has this incompetent woman fallen and hit her head? Is she on drugs and, therefore, unable to think with any intelligence?
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???)
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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
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.
There must be something in the water in the Antelope Valley. Unbelievable!!!
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.
Since Runners name is now on SB 448, I think Chris Kelly is funding this one too.
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.
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.
So does this only apply to SOs that are on parole? Or is it a blanket restriction across all SOs.
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.
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.
http://sharonrunner.com/la-county-republican-party-endorses-sharon-runner-for-senate/