Some members of the Fresno City Council said they plan to introduce legislation to block registered sex offenders from serving on the council in an effort to disqualify a candidate in the crowded race for the District 7 seat. The City Council primary race gained national attention this month after The Bee reported on Rene Campos, a registered sex offender who plans to run for the council seat representing Old Fig Garden and other neighborhoods.
In 2021, Campos pleaded no contest to a 2018 charge of possession of child pornography and served two years of formal probation.
Registration for a sexual offense does not generally disqualify a person from running for office, but it does come with restrictions, including prohibitions on entering schools and unsupervised contact with minors under California’s Megan’s Law.
“While I respect anybody’s ability to serve our community, I find this quite disturbing that we could possibly have somebody of this nature within our government buildings,” Councilmember Annalisa Perea said at a Thursday meeting. “I think if you want…
Disheartening. It is a beautiful, sunny day (finally) here in Chicago and I open my computer to this sh!t:
“While I respect anybody’s ability to serve our community, I find this quite disturbing that we could possibly have somebody of this nature within our government buildings,” Councilmember Annalisa Perea said
Get over yourself and your pearl clutching, self righteous ways. His crime was possession of cp eight years ago and he is punished for life with the stigma, restrictions, and the list. Dearest Annalisa, if you do not think members of your immediate family and friends, let alone “within our government buildings” (LOL, I am thinking the White House) have not at one time viewed or possessed similar materials, then you have your head up your self-righteous butt.
They’re a bunch of wimps and this is an admission of fear. They’re clearly afraid of the possibility that he could actually win.
Are they really so unpopular that they are worried the people might elect a PFR to replace them?
How enlightening to block someone who has paid their debt to society and has taken responsibility for his actions? Tell again why the registry isn’t punishment?
But the registry is not punitive, how can he be disqualified? … Oh…um we want him disqualified because of the offense..not because he’s registered. But that would be punitive and violate ex post facto law. Oh..um it’s because he is registered and they can’t visit schools. But you just said registry isn’t punishment yet you propose the government disqualifies employment for those people. On and on…
Oh, look. Someone is “offended.”
“I find this quite disturbing that we could possibly have somebody of this nature within our government buildings”
I guess she’s perfectly fine with our current leader slithering about in “our buildings,” but dirty photos is a bridge too far for her..
This is actually the perfect thing to happen if he was actually elected to the position.
1) Those are his city govt buildings too as he lives and breathes there and pays for them as much as others do to access, build, and maintain them as well as the service therein. Unless, they decide all convicted persons are banned from them, banning him as a PFR is unconstitutional regardless if there are minors in the area.
2) Banning someone from being elected to and serving in a public office position who has a specific conviction is unconstitutional. Unless, they decide all convicted persons are banned from being elected, banning him as a PFR is unconstitutional.
3) Just because he may be banned from educational facilities because of the nature of his conviction’s continuing punishment on the registry, does not mean he should be when it comes to fulfilling the duties of the position as required. Again, fear mongering at its best by thinking he will scoop up a minor and run for the hills with them. I’d merely inform the council there are PFRs in waiting on the school grounds already (whether a parent, school resource officer, or school system employee) who have yet to be caught by their actions, whether with a person or an image. If the ban is so stringent to where the school grounds is banned 24/7, even when it is not in use for educational purposes or being used otherwise, then it is overbroad and needs to be stricken.
They are giving @ACSOL, et al the perfect set of conditions to publicly challenge their thinking against this gent and show everyone the craziness of the paradigm today when it comes to paying debt to society and being able to move on. I hope every Californian will take this opp and let’em know at their next open forum section of the council mtg, in the media, etc. If anything, the city general counsel (GC) should be involved in advising them of the errors they are thinking of making. Make the GC aware and help them do their job publicly.
” Any given Thursday we could have kids here in the room. We have families, and the last thing I want to be concerned about is if there is a registrant in the room.”
Do they think he’ll commit a sex crime just by having kids in the room being surrounded by others?