ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


SB 26 Added to Suspense File

The Senate Appropriations Committee added Senate Bill 26 (SB 26) to its Suspense File during its hearing on May 15.  The Committee is expected to decide whether to keep SB 26 in that file during its final hearing on May 25.  If the bill is not removed from the Suspense File on that date, SB 26 can not move forward.

        So far, SB 26 has been amended four times — on March 20, April 5, April 18 and May 20 — by its author Senator Connie Leyva.  As currently written, some registrants who are parents would be allowed to visit school campuses but only if they are supervised by a school employee.  Registrants convicted of 10 offenses, including one misdemeanor, would be prohibited from visiting a school campus for any reason.

        “This bill would harm children by denying them the support of their parents,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.  

        Sen. Leyva introduced SB 26 after the Fontana Unified School District, which is part of the senate district she represents, adopted a policy in September 2016 that prohibits registrants from visiting the district’s 46 school campuses for any reason.  A lawsuit challenging that policy was filed a month later.  A hearing regarding the merits of the  lawsuit will be held on May 23 in San Bernardino Superior Court. 

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Remarkable & Inter Esting developments to say the least.

I speak a True song

As Yehovah Lives, so should we

So, is this good news?

Short of it having passed the first round in the first place, this is very good news.

geez why not just say anyone unfit to walk the streets, or someone anyone would agree to be a scary person. What’s the purpose in trying to refine sex-offender bills to the nth degree, especially when it becomes a matter of anyone who shouldn’t be allowed on a school campus:
” Registrants convicted of 10 offenses, including one misdemeanor, would be prohibited from visiting a school campus for any reason.”

Great news. I wasn’t aware of the lawsuit. I’m guessing this bill will be shelved pending the outcome of the lawsuit. If the challenge wins, I can’t imagine this bill would then stand should it pass.

The last amendment to this bill adds this part in respect to those 10 convictions:

[B) A Unless the principal or authorized administrator finds that it is in the best interest of the child for the person to attend a specific event and authorizes the attendance at the event, a person may not enter into a school building or upon school grounds pursuant to this paragraph if he or she is required to register for a conviction in a court in this state or a federal or military court of a violation of Section 243.4, 261, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, or 289, Section 209 with the intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 236.1, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, a felony violation of Section 288.2, or a violation of subdivision (c) of Section 653f.]

Hasn’t the “ban for any reason” been taken out of the bill? Sounds like registrant parents who were convicted of one of those 10 offenses must get a new permission from the school admin. each time they need to attend to their child or attend an event .

And the Administrator can deny any one of those parents at a whim.
Still an imperious bill and belongs in the trash.

The way it reads to me, with the addition of this new sentence “(B) A Unless the principal or authorized administrator finds that it is in the best interest of the child for the person to attend a specific event and authorizes the attendance at the event,” that this bill has been watered down so much that it basically is the same as current rules. We are already banned from school grounds but can get permission from the administrator. As the current law reads now, we are excluded from voting on school grounds. SB 26 would allow for us to vote on school grounds. So I’m not sure why the Legislator has any need for SB 26. The only thing this Bill actually does is (1) require permission for each specific event instead of the more blanket permission a parent can now have and (2) it allows us to vote on school property. Am I reading this right? It looks to me this Bill is strictly to fool the author’s constituents into believing they are tough on sex offenders.

No, it’s still very different. The above allows for an outright ban. If they do get a permission, per the rest of the bill that person will still require an escort at all times. So basically permission is pointless as I can’t imagine any parent feeling comfortable enough to have such a blatant red flag around them. Imagine the insane amount of harassment the child will get once the parent is outed like this.

Yes, I forgot about being supervised. But I imagine that under current law, a registered citizen was never out of sight of some school official. As paranoid as school officials would be today, I can’t imagine they would let any registered citizen to roam freely without a watchful eye. So I guess the term “supervised” will get many different interpretations. So I guess all this law will do is add an official supervisor? I may be wrong as I don’t have kids, but I don’t think it would look so unusual if some parent is hanging around a school official or teacher. I remember when I was a student, some teachers and administrators normally had parents they were friends with that they would hang out with. I would be more concerned with people finding out you were on Megan’s List or in a newspaper story since so much is listed somewhere on the internet. But don’t get me wrong, I am against any law that furthers punishment against us. I just basically think this Bill is so watered down that it no longer has the effect the author intended and I believe this Bill will now quietly die. Also the Bill does not use the word “escort” it uses “supervise”.

The person shall be supervised by a school employee while in the school buildings or upon school grounds.

I think “supervised” is a more loose term than escort. You can supervise someone without standing next to them. In fact you can supervise someone from across a room. The word supervise is really a vague term.

For the purpose of this subdivision, “supervised” means that the registered sex offender is in view of the school employee. So no one has to even know you are being supervised since you only need to be in view of the designated person or persons. For those of you that are parents that go to their kids school, do you now get to roam around the school without someone watching you at least from a distance?

A teacher in a room full of kids are actually under supervision by the principal in his/her office several hundred feet from the classroom. Supervision do not require eye contact. Heck, when I was working I worked in California and my supervisor was in New Mexico.

Under current law parents can and have been banned by some school administrators. And people keep using that word “escort”. The word escort is no where in this Bill. The word they use is “supervise”. Supervised means that the registered sex offender is in view of a school employee. I’m not sure that having a school employee within view is such a bad idea. It protects a registered citizen from false accusations. Even many, if not most male teachers are not willing to be alone with a student anymore. If you were not supervised while on campus and a kid made a false accusation against a registered citizen, no one, including a jury would believe you were innocent. And really, as a parent, would you want any non employee being around your kid unsupervised? And I don’t see why having a school employee within view of you would automatically “out” anyone as a sex offender. I can’t remember one time when I was a student that a parent was alone with any student that was not their own. When you are in a classroom, auditorium, lunchroom, playground or sports field, there is always a school employee within view. Many (if not most) schools already require that any parent be signed in and escorted while on campus, except maybe during sport events or theatre.

You have never worked with public emoloyees by the sounds of it. A sex offender on campus would be a hot topic for gossip at the lunch break. The supervising employee would not hesitate to share the information and it would spread.

@Lake County:
Maybe they have to meet some kind of quota and author a certain amount of bills per session or they get bonuses for having a bill pass under their name. She is definitely on a fools errand with this one.
For the wordsmiths out there, can anyone even make sense of this next paragraph –
[(3) (A) A person who is subject to subdivision (a) and who has the right to make educational decisions for a pupil who attends the school may enter a school building or upon school grounds for any lawful purpose not related to his or her right to make educational decisions for the pupil, unless he or she is required to register for a conviction listed in subparagraph (B). The person shall be supervised by a school employee while in the school building or upon school grounds.]

” Not related to his or her right to make educational decisions”? Huh? It’s almost ( if it wasn’t so serious a topic) laughable. I think I’m done analyzing this bill.

Yes, I noticed that sentence also. I think it is to allow parents access to non-educational events like sports or plays. The whole bill could have been written better. But unfortunately, politicians aren’t required to have an education in reading, writing or arithmetic. In fact, they are not required to have any education at all.

This Bill is so unnecessary and ridiculous. Registered Citizens are already banned from school campuses unless they receive school administrator permission to be there.

Yes, but this bill will now either outright ban the parent, or require a constant escort if they are given permission. The current rules basically just require you to “register” with the school and no one but the principle and may be a few upper staff will know.

No, under the current law you must have permission to be on campus, not just register. And as I said above, you do not need to be escorted, just in view of any school employee. And where do you see that current law states no one but the principle and may be a few upper staff will know?

What I meant by register is get permission. It probably various district by district, but I know several SO’s with kids in school who have had one conversation with the principle to got okay’d and now have blanket permission to come and go as any parent would. So he’s not required to come in and check-in with every visit.

You may be right about what the proposed bill could mean by “supervision”, but there is no such clause currently which is what makes me think they’d actually need to give you a handler.

But I have a feeling this will remain shelved, and I’m happy about that.

The more I read this law the more I like it. Currently, registered citizens can’t go onto school property to vote or go onto any school property unless they have a child that attends that school and also has permission.

1) The new law will allow us to vote on school property without permission,
2) The new law will allow parents who have children attending that school to enter without permission as long as they are supervised by an employee and have not committed one of the excluded crimes, if you have committed the excluded crimes, you just need administration’s permission as you already need now,
3) The new law will also let many of us to enter school property to conduct “business” when children are not present without permission (unless the offender is in the excluded group); like after hours, weekends or summer closures. I would imagine business would include the school being used as a public forum when our politicians speak in town or to receive emergency services after a disaster. I currently could not get disaster relief assistance during the two major fires we had the past two years in Lake County since assistance and information was conducted on a High School campus. But with this law, I could.

So in my opinion, if you are not on the list of excluded crimes, this law will give us more rights. Since so many of us are here for CP cases, we would not be excluded and would not need prior permission, just stay within sight of an employee (It could even just be the janitor, lol). If you are on the excluded list, you will need administration’s permission just like you do now. But with the added requirement that you stay within an employee’s sight.

I know many of you are very negative about how laws are interpreted, but schools struggle to get parents involved with their child’s education. I believe that most (maybe not all) schools will try not to deny a parent from being involved in “important” school functions. If a school has not denied your access to the school under the current laws, I doubt this new law will change anything since nothing about this new law requires them to do any more than keep an eye on you while on campus.

Please let me know, with “quotes” from the laws where I am wrong with my interpretation.

“[R]egistered citizens can’t go onto school property to vote…unless they have…permission.”

This is a blatant violation of voting laws, if not the Constitution. It would be one (still objectionable) thing if you merely have to notify you will be there, but “permission” means someone has authority to deny your presence and disenfranchise you.

I’m surprised it’s never been challenged, though perhaps it’s just not been worth the time and $$$.


Fighting voting disenfranchisement isn’t worth the effort. Sad.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x