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.
Remarkable & Inter Esting developments to say the least.
I speak a True song
As Yehovah Lives, so should we
So, is this 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.
This Bill is so unnecessary and ridiculous. Registered Citizens are already banned from school campuses unless they receive school administrator permission to be there.
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.