Anyone remember the old “Schoolhouse Rock” television bits that taught us all kinds of valuable lessons? Most memorable for me as a child was the “I’m Just a Bill” one. Now that I am an adult and have become more aware of how our state handles the creation of bills, my mind is blown. This is not what I imagined.

In simple terms, one would think a bill is drafted as an idea. It is sent to committees to evaluate the bill with regards to constitutionality and benefit to the community. One would think that the committee maintains the focus of that bill as stated, submits it to be voted on, then sends to the other side of legislature for the same process. Eventually, that vote for the bill occurs on both sides of the House and the Senate and it passes or fails. Wow – that sounds simple. But let’s talk this out in terms of what actually happens. Let’s use a very simple example that perhaps will help you see how bizarre and at times, quite unfair this entire process can be. How can the content of a bill change completely during its journey? Follow me on this –

1. Representative “Bob” comes up with the idea to allow Food Trucks to be available in school parking lots during lunch hour, since large schools don’t have enough cafeteria space for all the students. This will help reduce students leaving campus for lunch and will balance out the crowding problem. (Okay, there’s a purpose and benefit stated. Cool. Let’s call this “HB123: Food Truck Bill.”)

2. “HB123” goes into judicial committees for review. Representative “Sally” wants to change the wording and recommends that the bill include healthy options, such as fruits and vegetables become available for sale as well.

3. The bill gets added to the docket to be voted on TOMORROW and it is listed on the state website, but schools haven’t been notified of this recommendation. They are impacted, but they haven’t had time to weigh in on the impacts to budgets, government funding, parking lot crowding, or any other impacts to their schools. They want the ability to determine on a school-by-school basis if this will be allowed. Some parents call their representatives and try to voice their opinions, but they can’t get their representative to listen to them. The first question you are asked is, “What organization are you with?” Oh, no organization? You’re just a citizen. Hmmm. (In other words, you don’t have enough backing for us to really listen.)

4. So now a school board member (a person with a little more clout than a parent) shows up to a committee meeting and is granted their 2-3 minutes to speak against the bill, but they themselves get interrogated as to their qualifications to represent the school on food choices. Perhaps this speaker is overweight and doesn’t appear to exercise, so the lawmakers don’t consider this speaker a worthy, healthy person to represent the “children.” Basically, they are discredited to add valuable input.

5. You now have a bill that passed through committees quickly, without good feedback from those who will be impacted by the bill. The House votes this bill to pass.

6. The next big step – HB123 moves to the Senate side for vote.

7. Senate committees don’t like the wording of the bill, so they edit it. They really don’t like the food truck idea, but they like the idea of fruits and vegetables. The bill is rewritten to plant a vegetable garden and fruit trees on school campuses. The language about food trucks, the idea of reducing crowding in cafeterias, and reducing students leaving campuses for lunch are completely removed. (Wait, what? Our lawmakers just completely gutted this bill, even after it was voted on as originally written by the House?)

8. “HB123: Food Truck Bill” moves to the Senate floor for vote. Remember, this bill is no longer about food trucks at all. It’s about planting gardens. Completely different yet with the same title and reference number. (Mind blown….they didn’t talk about this in Schoolhouse Rock!)

9. The Senate passes the bill with the new wording.

10. The bill goes back to the House for vote – and remember, they’ve already voted on this once. Who knows, remembers, or cares that this bill is now completely different? They vote again. Bill passes. Guess you better find some dirt space on campuses for someone to plant gardens and maintain them now.

This is a simplified example, but this is exactly what happens time and time again. NCRSOL has seen this so many times. This is why this organization is so critical to the lawmaking process. They send advocates to these committees to try to correct the problematic language. They have legal experts weigh in. They work with non-profits who fight for fairness. So please, continue renewing your NCRSOL memberships. Continue your support of this organization. And spread the word.

And if there’s one last piece of advice I can give you, get to know who your Representatives and Senators are. Let them continually hear from you. Send emails frequently. Start reading up on the bills pertaining to SOs. Follow NCRSOL articles and updates.

What’s frustrating to ME as a taxpayer is knowing that we have given feedback to lawmakers that bills they are passing are NOT constitutional. We work with them to change the wording so that it is fair and makes sense. Yet, they pass them anyway. Ultimately, these elected officials are costing our state money because by passing bad laws, they are opening the state up for litigation. It is critical that we as individuals learn more about our elected officials, how they vote, and if they are really looking for fair and just laws that make sense.

I commend those in elected positions who are trying so diligently to do what’s right. Several have been open to listening to organizations like NCRSOL and educate themselves on other viewpoints. They use us to learn about things they didn’t previously know and to see how we can move forward together. We commend them for that and wish there were more like them. We need to be bold and be vocal to educate lawmakers on how these senseless laws are negatively impacting us.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. Be a Change Agent.

– Phoebe

This was written as a rebuttal to an editorial in the Longview, WA Daily News:

In response to your March 13 editorial, “Laws help keep children safe,” I would first like to thank you for your condemnation of vigilante activity. Fully agreeing with the title of your op-ed, I too want laws that help keep children safe, and there is nothing about vengeance-motivated activity that works toward that goal.

The organization you criticize, WAR, or Women Against Registry, is one of several organizations that advocate for laws that do just that — keep children safe. Another is SOSEN, Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network. And yet another is RSOL, Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. These organizations agree with what research studies show: laws that keep children — and indeed everyone — safe must, in order to do that, be based on facts and empirical evidence.

The public registry system is not based on empirical evidence, and, in your defense of it, you say that the murder of Adam Walsh is “not uncommon.” Actually, it is very rare. Whether or not Adam’s kidnapping and subsequent murder were sexually motivated will never be known, but it was a heinous crime as was the murder of Megan Kanka and another handful of horrific child murders at the hands of murderers.

Your statement that WAR grew out of murders such as these is untrue. WAR, SOSEN, and RSOL grew out of a realization, based on research, that public registration of those who had previously committed a sexual offense — not murdered, not decapitated, but committed an offense ranging from the trivial to the serious — actually was not deterring sexual crimes against children at all. It was in some cases increasing the risk for re-offense, and it was and is creating conditions that seriously interfere with mandated rehabilitative efforts.

It was and does negatively impact the lives of family members, especially the children of registrants. This is well documented through research studies.

According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, “[t]hese policies have led to multiple collateral consequences, creating an ominous environment that inhibits successful reintegration and may contribute to an increasing risk for recidivism. In fact, evidence on the effectiveness of these laws suggests that they may not prevent recidivism or sexual violence and result in more harm than good.”

Reform organizations do not defend the actions that have triggered registration, and we recognize appropriate punishment as desirable and necessary, but it is difficult to claim that, in all cases, the children suffer through the actions of the registrant family member rather than the effects of public registration. Many situations exist where the offense was committed when the registrant was a child or juvenile himself. A number of cases involve premarital sex where the offender and “victim” later married and had a family, yet the offender remains on a public registry, often for life, and his children suffer greatly due to it. This continuation of punishment long after a sentence has been completed is but another form of vengeance and amounts to legalized, governmental vigilante action, exacting punishment far beyond what the courts assessed.

The impotency of the public registry to deter re-offense and to protect children is well documented also. Dr. Bill O’Leary is a forensic psychologist and longtime critic of public notification and tracking. He notes, “95 percent of sexual abuse occurs between a victim and a known acquaintance, not a stranger living down the street. One of the most unethical pieces of the situation has been saying that we need to do this to prevent sexual abuse when we know statistically that this has nothing to do with preventing sexual abuse.”

According to the United States Department of Justice, from 1992 to 2010 there was a steep decline in all major crime. There is no evidence that a decrease in sexual crime is due to our current policies, and that theory is actually negated by research.

Many people and organizations advocate every day for policies that will keep children safe, but we know that until the focus is put on the victims and the actual facts about child sexual abuse, that is highly unlikely to occur.

Source at Daily News, Longview, Washington.