The $1.2 Million Question

The first real news of the juvenile daytime curfew ordinances in Euless and Bedford came through the media. An October 4, 2008, Star-Telegram article stated that the reason the district had asked for the curfew was "to curb truancy." Debbie Tribble from the HEB-ISD stated in the article that the school district "lost $1.2 million because of truancy last year."

Wait a minute. Aren't there already truancy laws on the books? Why, then, was the HEB school district asking the cities to enact a juvenile daytime curfew?

That question was also on the minds of many citizens, who wrote letters to their respective City Council representatives letting them know that they were not pleased with the juvenile daytime curfew ordinances passed in Euless and Bedford. Since the curfew had not been placed on Hurst's agenda, citizens of Hurst wrote their councilmembers to let them know that they would be opposed to such an ordinance.

In Bedford, citizens also voiced their opinions at the city council meetings. Many who protested the ordinance were home school parents, who argued that there was a multitude of legitimate reasons for their children to be out in public during the "school hours" set by the school district: a teenager driving himself to a class or to work, or running an errand for a parent; a child walking the dog around the block or riding his bike for PE; a child playing in his front yard or at the park after completing his schoolwork for the day; children outside on their school break or on their family vacation.

Although Bedford's juvenile daytime curfew ordinance includes home schoolers in the list of "defenses to prosecution," it is up to an individual officer's discretion to decide if they will write a citation, putting a family in the situation of having to go to court to defend themselves. Guilty until proven innocent.

So, the $1.2 million question is: Can a school district ask a city to enact a law that is purely in the district's own special interest?

Sure it can. But, the city does not have to comply with that request, particularly without the input of the taxpayers it represents.