Good Intentions; Bad Execution

Before I continue, let me first say that I'm not suggesting that the Bedford City Council purposefully intended to keep the public in the dark about the juvenile daytime curfew ordinance. In fact, I believe that the Council never considered the issue of a curfew to be of much consequence. The school district came to them asking for help in the form of a juvenile daytime curfew, and the Council reached out to help them by enacting it immediately.

I don't believe there was any malice or ill will intended toward the citizens of Bedford.

While the Council may have intended to offer the school district expedient help by voting quickly on the issue, their good intentions were lost on many citizens who felt that the decision was too hasty; the Council did not consider their particular viewpoints beforehand, and did not ask for substantiation from the school district to justify the need for a daytime curfew ordinance.

The beauty of public debate is that it brings together people from all sides of an issue so that input is received from every angle. A public hearing is a valuable tool that public officials can use to help them approach an issue from various viewpoints. It facilitates good decision-making, and lets the citizens know that their opinions matter.

The Council failed to ask for public input, and, therefore, had no idea that there might have been citizens who were strongly opposed to the idea of a daytime curfew ordinance.

Though the council's intentions to help the school district were good, their execution of those intentions by not getting all the facts was seriously flawed.

The Council did not expect the outcry that followed; nor was it prepared.

Under the Rug

On September 23, 2008, the Bedford and Euless City Councils each passed juvenile daytime curfew ordinances with just one reading of the ordinance, and with no prior public hearing. In fact, there was no prior anything: no consideration of any statistics; no deliberation of any potential consequences or impacts; no due diligence of any kind.

The Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District initiated the request through each city's police chief, and the Councils dutifully and hastily complied. The taxpayers were given no opportunity to voice their concerns prior to the vote.

The reference on Bedford's agenda (September 23, 2008), under New Business, was nebulous at best: 11. First and final reading of an ordinance amending Article IV Chapter 82, "Offenses and Miscellaneous Law Enforcement Regulations," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Bedford, relating to curfews; making this ordinance cumulative; providing for penalties; providing a severability clause, providing for publication and naming an effective date.

Euless' agenda simply stated: Consider first and final reading of Ordinance No. 1831 Amending Chapter 50, "Offenses," Section 50-27, "Curfew Hours for Minors," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Euless.

Both cities already had a nighttime curfew, and the agenda items made no specific mention of a new daytime curfew. The agendas only indicated that the current curfews were being amended.

The ordinances made it illegal for any minor under 17 years of age to be in public during the school hours observed by the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District.

The verbiage for the Bedford daytime curfew ordinance can be found here.
Euless' daytime curfew ordinance is similarly worded.

Let me say this again: No public input. No due diligence. Passed on the first reading.

The Councils acted quickly to pass the ordinance - but the Bedford City Council appeared surprised by what happened next.