|Sex Offender Defender Janice Belluci|
Libraries, playgrounds and schools are usually sensitive issues in these kinds if cases, as you can well imagine.
Here is a portion of that Pasadena Star News article, which is called "Pair seeks repeal of sex-offender laws in California." It is an eye-opening and at times shocking report about the legal battles currently being fought in California over the issue of restricting the ability of convicted sex offenders to get their funky bad selves out and about town. You can link to the entire article by clicking here.
A crusading civil rights attorney and a registered sex offender have partnered in a legal battle that has prompted dozens of California cities to repeal or revise what the pair believe are unconstitutional ordinances restricting the activities of sex offenders.
Since March, Santa Maria attorney Janice Bellucci and Frank Lindsay, a 62-year-old water-treatment specialist from Grover Beach and registered sex offender for 35 years, have filed 18 lawsuits in federal court challenging ordinances in cities from Stockton down to National City.
To date, Bellucci has settled 15 of the lawsuits, while 38 other cities have avoided litigation by agreeing to repeal their ordinances. Six other cities have voluntarily suspended enforcement of their ordinances, while ordinances in another 18 cities are still under review.
“The way I look at it is that I’m protecting the Constitution of the United States as well as the state of California,” said Bellucci, president of California Reform Sex Offender Laws, a nonprofit she launched three years ago as an affiliate to the national Reform Sex Offender Laws organization.
While Bellucci believes she’s fighting for the rights of oppressed sex offenders, others say she’s endangering the state’s youth.
“As an elected official and as a mother, I’m concerned about the health and safety of our young people who don’t have a voice,” said Carson Councilwoman Lulu Davis-Holmes. Carson is one city sued by Bellucci that plans to fight the lawsuit.
“Our kids did not make the choice to be molested,” Davis-Holmes said. “I personally think we need to do more to protect those who cannot protect themselves.”
"Crusading civil rights attorney" Janice Belluci and her team of legal beagles run a website that is called, rather obviously, California Reform Sex Offender Laws. And if you go there you will eventually stumble across an article identifying Sierra Madre as one of those cities that somewhat cravenly knuckled under to the legal machinations of Ms. Belluci. Here is a screen shot of that article (link).
Now I follow the affairs of the City of Sierra Madre fairly closely, as do most readers of The Tattler. We're really into this stuff, believe it or not. And correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall this action of the City Council ever being talked about by any of our town officials. Nor did it come up at that December 10, 2013 City Council meeting, or at least as far as I can remember. And I have a fairly decent memory.
Here is the City Council Agenda for the meeting in question. You may view this in its native habitat by clicking here.
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION/INSPIRATION
REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
PRESENTATION ACTION ITEMS
a) ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION No. 13-83 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE APPROVING CERTAIN DEMANDS
b) SECOND READING – ORDINANCE No. 1348 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.22 OF THE SIERRA MADRE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SECOND UNITS
c) RENEWED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR VIDEO PRODUCTION AND CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS SERVICES
d) NOTICE OF COMPLETION, FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mayor Walsh, Mayor Pro Tem Harabedian, Council Members Capoccia, Koerber, and Moran
Council Member Chris Koerber
City Attorney report from the closed session.
Majority vote of the Council to proceed with City business.
Approval of Minutes from the Regular City Council meeting of November 26, 2013.
Reports of individual Council Member activities relating to City business occurring since the last City Council meeting.
Regarding items not on the Agenda.
Introduction of Sierra Madre Rose Float Princesses
Water Conservation Update
Recommendation that the City Council approve Resolution No. 13-83 for approval of payment of City Warrants in aggregate amount of $75,872.22; Sierra Madre Library warrants in the aggregate amount of $9,213.71 and Payroll Transfer in the aggregate amount of $316,467.51 for the fiscal year ending June 2014.
Recommendation that the City Council waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1348.
Recommendation that the City Council approve the Renewed Professional Services Agreement for Video Production and Cable Television Access Services with Community Media of the Foothills.
Recommendation that the City Council accept the completed project, direct staff to file a Notice of Completion with the Count Clerk/Recorder, and direct staff to carry over unused Measure R funds in the amount of $144,606 for use in the 2014-2015 fiscal year street improvement project.
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼2. DISCUSSION –
NO. 13-82 REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
NO. 13-85 CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING AND MODIFYING THE CITY’S UTILITY USERS TAX (UUT) AND ORDINANCE NO. 1349 AMENDING THE CITY’S UTILITY USERS TAX
NO. 13-86 AUTHORIZING CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SUBMIT ARGUMENTS REGARDING A MEASURE TO AMEND THE EXISTING UTILITY USERS’ TAX ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE, SUBJECT TO NEW SUNSET DATES, WHICH WILL BE ON THE BALLOT FOR THE APRIL 8, 2014, MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY NO. 13-87 PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Recommendation that the City Council revise if desired, and adopt Resolution No. 13-82 requesting the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors provide services for the April 8, 2014 Municipal election; No. 13-85 calling for and giving notice of the holding of a General Municipal election to be held on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 and Ordinance No. 1349 Amending the City’s Utility Users Tax; No. 13-86 authorizing certain Council Members to submit arguments regarding the UUT measure and directing the City Attorney to prepare the impartial analysis of the measure; No. 13- 87 providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments for City measures; and No. 13-88 adopting regulations for candidates’ statements submitted to the voters.
SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014
ADOPTING FOR STATEMENTS
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼3. DISCUSSION – Recommendation that the City Council provide staff with CONSIDERATION OF ALLOCATION OF direction. GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Nothing there about putting Sierra Madre's Sex Offender Ordinance into mothballs that I can see.
Now there was a closed session with the City Attorney. A strictly hush-hush get together with the greatest legal mind we've ever known plus our elected City Council officials. A couple of whom were often only marginally sentient while in office. Here's a screen shot of that rhythm.
I have what I think are some relevant questions. Sierra Madre's Sex Offender Ordinance was passed with great fanfare by the City Council in open session a few years back. Under state law there is just no other way that it could have been done. To do otherwise would be a violation of the Brown Act.
So wouldn't putting such an ordinance on legal hold also have to be done in a properly agendized and quite public City Council meeting? That would certainly be my contention.
Perhaps this was done in secret because no City Council member would ever dare to do such a thing in full sight of God and man? Especially when you consider that there was an election coming up very soon?
That could have been it.