Posts
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to
provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing
body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less."
This proposition has received very little attention, and on the surface seems like a good solution: allowing home-rule cities to decide how to fill vacant elected seats by council appointment without the expense of a special election when there is a year or less remaining in the term.
Saving taxpayer money is almost always a desirable goal. Taxpayers sometimes spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to hold special elections to fill vacated seats, only to pay that money again a few months later when that seat is up for election.
There may be extenuating circumstances, such as a council member's death, where a tax-saving amendment such as this may be appropriate; however, we should also consider the unintended negative consequences that may result from the passage of this type of charter amendment.
First, a charter amendment giving a city council the ability to appoint their own replacements provides a very real potential for a municipal body to act against the will of the voters. Appointing a replacement from among a council's own colleagues increases the potential for corruption and political cronyism. This may even have the undesirable result of preventing a particular minority group from getting on the council.
Second, a city council may be tempted to abuse the charter amendment by indiscriminately using it to fill vacancies in situations other than extenuating circumstances. Council members who choose not to seek reelection when their term
is up may see this as an opportunity to select a replacement who will perpetuate their brand of politics and preserve the status quo,
without regard for the will of the voters they serve. Currently, a vacancy on a council results in an open seat and an
opportunity for a new set of candidates to run for a seat on equal
footing in the election. If this proposition passes, the reality may be that any council member not
intending to run for reelection will choose to vacate his seat early, in order to give a council-appointed candidate time to run for his seat as the
incumbent. A council-appointed incumbent may be more difficult to
challenge in an election, since he will have the council's support that he "is already doing the job." Open seats in city elections could be a
thing of the past.
Third, twelve months is a long time for an appointee to serve without voter approval. While it appears that the proposition's intention is to give councils the ability to fill a short-term vacancy, it would be preferable and more in line with a contingency situation if the appointed term were for 2 or 3 months.
Finally, spending a few thousand dollars on an election today, may save multi-millions of taxpayer dollars tomorrow. Texas has the 2nd highest municipal debt per capita, behind only New York (Source: Your Money and Local Debt, published Sept 2012 by TX Comptroller Susan Combs). Today, many of our city councils are spending money with abandon, using certificates of obligation (which do not need voter approval) and aggressively pushing for bond money to fund their
elaborate pet spending projects, resulting in hundreds of
millions of dollars in long-term public debt. The small amount of money spent on a city election is a drop in the bucket compared with the multi-millions being spent in bond money. Our local leaders need to be held accountable to the public it serves. Spending a few thousand dollars
on an election seems a small price to pay to preserve the democratic process and ensure that voters are selecting their leaders.
There are times when saving taxpayer money is preferable; saving money to avoid an election should not be one of those times.
Elections are worth it.
Vote "No" on Proposition 7.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Euless Family Harassed By Police
July 15, 2013 – In September 2008, the cities of Bedford and Euless enacted a Juvenile Daytime Curfew ordinance. Their stated reason for needing the curfew was to "keep kids in school," citing state law as "cumbersome," and stating that the curfew "allows an opportunity to immediately address a truancy problem as it occurs; specifically on the first incident of truancy." [Source: Bedford Curfew Ordinance FAQ]
Concerned citizens wrote letters and appeared before the councils to express their concerns about the daytime curfew: that daytime curfews circumvent state law, bypass due process, establish a short-cut to "probable cause," violate a parent's rights to direct the activities of their children, stifle individual freedom, criminalize being outside, can potentially be abused by overzealous officials, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.
Despite citizen outcry (the whole story is chronicled within the pages of this blog), the council and police chiefs from both cities responded with assurances that students who were out in public during school hours who were not truant or committing a crime would not be affected by the ordinance.
That was five years ago.
On May 9, 2013, several homeschool children from the same family were walking together in Euless. They were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford, via Pipeline Road; something they did each week when their schoolwork was completed, at their parents' direction.
A little ways into their journey, a Bedford police officer noticed them. The officer crossed to the Euless side of the street, escorted the children to the Bedford side of the street, and asked them where they went to school, as it was a school day. The children explained to the officer that they were home schooled and were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford. The Bedford police officer then contacted the Euless Police Department and transferred the children to them, even though the children were not committing any crime and they were not truant.
Although no further action from the police department was necessary, the Bedford police officer detained the children and did not allow them to continue on their way to their grandmother's house where they had been instructed by their parents to go. Additionally, no effort was made to contact the parents or the grandmother.
When the Euless police officers arrived, they took the children back to the family's apartment in Euless, entered the apartment behind the children, and began looking around, asking questions about how the homeschooling was conducted, and demanding to see their curriculum. At one point, one of the officers threatened action by CPS.
When the father contacted the Euless Police Department immediately after the threat, he was told by a corporal that it was the department's standard practice to contact CPS if something "didn't seem right," although she refused to comment what was meant in regard to the incident except to offer the "advice" "to clean up the apartment."
To this day, CPS has not contacted the family, so it appears that the police officer used that threat to harass the family.
Despite the family's attempt to contact the Euless Police Department about the incident, and after repeated requests by the Texas Home School Coalition to Euless Police Chief Michael Brown to investigate this incident, the police chief has refused to do so.
The Euless police chief has asserted that "there had to be more to the interaction than described," and yet he has done nothing. A simple investigation on his part would seem a no-brainer. Instead, he is now insisting that the family contact him a second time before he can do anything.
When the Euless and Bedford City Council first brought up the daytime curfew issue in September of 2008, I was staunchly opposed, for the very reasons illustrated by this incident: police harrassment of children who are out in public with parent permission and who are not committing any crime.
The fact that police entered the home without adult permission or a warrant, curriculum was demanded to be shown and the homeschooling methods were questioned, and that CPS was threatened and used to intimidate the family goes too far.
Here are some questions for Police Chief Michael Brown, the Euless City Council, and HEB-ISD School Board (if you remember, it was the HEB School Board who initiated the request for the daytime curfew ordinance through each city's police chief):
1. Why has this incident, in which a home school family had their home searched by police, asked by them to see curriculum and told that CPS would be called, not been investigated in spite of numerous requests?
2. Does this incident typify what officials mean when they cite the need for daytime curfews for a "zero tolerance" policy?
3. Why would a police chief refuse to investigate this matter?
This incident highlights some disturbing infringements on this family's constitutional rights.
If you are a Euless resident, I urge you to please contact the Euless Police Department and Euless City Council and let them know that you don't appreciate this infringement on this family's rights.
Contacts:
Euless Mayor Mary Lib Saleh: 817-685-1419
City Hall, 201 N. Ector Dr. - City Hall, Euless, Texas 76039
Euless Police Department 817-685-1500
1102 W. Euless Blvd (Hwy. 10) Euless, Texas 76040
Tim Lambert, president of Texas Home School Coalition, has included the correspondence between the Euless Police Chief and himself on the THSC website.
To read the correspondence between THSC and the Euless Police Chief
Concerned citizens wrote letters and appeared before the councils to express their concerns about the daytime curfew: that daytime curfews circumvent state law, bypass due process, establish a short-cut to "probable cause," violate a parent's rights to direct the activities of their children, stifle individual freedom, criminalize being outside, can potentially be abused by overzealous officials, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.
Despite citizen outcry (the whole story is chronicled within the pages of this blog), the council and police chiefs from both cities responded with assurances that students who were out in public during school hours who were not truant or committing a crime would not be affected by the ordinance.
That was five years ago.
On May 9, 2013, several homeschool children from the same family were walking together in Euless. They were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford, via Pipeline Road; something they did each week when their schoolwork was completed, at their parents' direction.
A little ways into their journey, a Bedford police officer noticed them. The officer crossed to the Euless side of the street, escorted the children to the Bedford side of the street, and asked them where they went to school, as it was a school day. The children explained to the officer that they were home schooled and were on their way to their grandmother's house in Bedford. The Bedford police officer then contacted the Euless Police Department and transferred the children to them, even though the children were not committing any crime and they were not truant.
Although no further action from the police department was necessary, the Bedford police officer detained the children and did not allow them to continue on their way to their grandmother's house where they had been instructed by their parents to go. Additionally, no effort was made to contact the parents or the grandmother.
When the Euless police officers arrived, they took the children back to the family's apartment in Euless, entered the apartment behind the children, and began looking around, asking questions about how the homeschooling was conducted, and demanding to see their curriculum. At one point, one of the officers threatened action by CPS.
When the father contacted the Euless Police Department immediately after the threat, he was told by a corporal that it was the department's standard practice to contact CPS if something "didn't seem right," although she refused to comment what was meant in regard to the incident except to offer the "advice" "to clean up the apartment."
To this day, CPS has not contacted the family, so it appears that the police officer used that threat to harass the family.
Despite the family's attempt to contact the Euless Police Department about the incident, and after repeated requests by the Texas Home School Coalition to Euless Police Chief Michael Brown to investigate this incident, the police chief has refused to do so.
The Euless police chief has asserted that "there had to be more to the interaction than described," and yet he has done nothing. A simple investigation on his part would seem a no-brainer. Instead, he is now insisting that the family contact him a second time before he can do anything.
When the Euless and Bedford City Council first brought up the daytime curfew issue in September of 2008, I was staunchly opposed, for the very reasons illustrated by this incident: police harrassment of children who are out in public with parent permission and who are not committing any crime.
The fact that police entered the home without adult permission or a warrant, curriculum was demanded to be shown and the homeschooling methods were questioned, and that CPS was threatened and used to intimidate the family goes too far.
Here are some questions for Police Chief Michael Brown, the Euless City Council, and HEB-ISD School Board (if you remember, it was the HEB School Board who initiated the request for the daytime curfew ordinance through each city's police chief):
1. Why has this incident, in which a home school family had their home searched by police, asked by them to see curriculum and told that CPS would be called, not been investigated in spite of numerous requests?
2. Does this incident typify what officials mean when they cite the need for daytime curfews for a "zero tolerance" policy?
3. Why would a police chief refuse to investigate this matter?
This incident highlights some disturbing infringements on this family's constitutional rights.
If you are a Euless resident, I urge you to please contact the Euless Police Department and Euless City Council and let them know that you don't appreciate this infringement on this family's rights.
Contacts:
Euless Mayor Mary Lib Saleh: 817-685-1419
City Hall, 201 N. Ector Dr. - City Hall, Euless, Texas 76039
Euless Police Department 817-685-1500
1102 W. Euless Blvd (Hwy. 10) Euless, Texas 76040
Tim Lambert, president of Texas Home School Coalition, has included the correspondence between the Euless Police Chief and himself on the THSC website.
To read the correspondence between THSC and the Euless Police Chief
Sunday, March 29, 2009
We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight
March 23, 2009 -- Approximately 70 adults and students rallied at Bedford City Hall (Bedford, TX) to protest the juvenile daytime curfew ordinance. The day marked the six-month anniversary of the Bedford city council's decision to enact the curfew on September 23, 2008.
At the same time, nearly twenty miles away, another group of protesters rallied at the Dallas City Hall, to express their opposition to an expanded daytime curfew being proposed in Dallas. The rally came two days before the first of two public hearings in Dallas on the issue.
Many of the protesters at both rallies wore "Ditch the Daytime Curfew" shirts, and waved signs that read, "Ditch the Daytime Curfew" and "Fight Crime Not Freedom." Some people even made their own signs with messages like, "Public School Parent Against the Daytime Curfew."
The twin rallies generated media attention from well over a dozen media outlets, and served to thrust the issue into the national news (ex. Wall Street Journal) with the heated controversy over the issue in Dallas.
The rallies were shining examples of what can happen when communities of people come together to make their voices heard. Some might label these demonstrations as "rebelling against government," others, myself included, prefer to use the more accurate term: citizens participating in the democratic process.
As this political battle has escalated over the previous months, it has become more and more evident that reasoned and well-researched arguments are not enough to convince these councils that curfews are neither effective nor wanted by its citizens.
Officials in both Bedford and Dallas have completely disregarded the compelling facts that show that daytime curfews are not only duplicative (state truancy laws and criminal codes already exist) and unnecessary, but curfews do absolutely nothing to solve the juvenile crime problem or underlying issues related to truancy. In fact, curfews have been shown in study after study to actually exacerbate those problems.
Additionally, daytime curfews violate parental rights to direct the activities of their children. Curfews also stifle individual freedom, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.
"We’re against the government intrusion into parental rights to dictate the activities of our own kids and the punishment of a whole community of kids . . . in a misguided attempt to catch a couple of truants," said Anne Gebhart in a Star-Telegram article which came out the day of the rally.
The curfew criminalizes children just for being in public during daytime hours, even if no crime is being committed or suspected.
Bedford Mayor Jim Story told the Star-Telegram that he does not see the ordinance as a violation of civil liberties, and said that it has been effective in keeping students in school.
According to what truancy study and numbers are you referring, Mr. Mayor? And since when does the Constitution mandate that a certain segment of the population be presumed "guilty until proven innocent"? Does our Pledge of Allegiance proclaim "liberty and justice" for only those over the age of 16? The way I see it, a law with nearly a dozen "defenses to prosecution" seems a little weak in its attempt to pose as a fair and just law.
Mayor Story was also quoted in the article as saying, "We do not feel in any way that this ordinance harasses or targets anyone in any way... All indications show this is a very good ordinance."
Feelings are not facts, and "feeling" a certain way about something does not change the facts. The fact is, the potential certainly exists for the ordinance to be used to harass and target people. This has been shown in city after city where police officers, such as those in Houston, have used the ordinance to selectively target minority areas, or waited outside school buildings to issue tickets to kids arriving late to school.
There are many examples of police officers who have overstepped their bounds and abused their discretion to cite students who were outside during curfew hours for very legitimate reasons, even reasons protected by the first amendment. You don't have to look any further than Austin, Texas:
In March 2006, high school students hit the streets in Round Rock as part of a series of nationwide immigration protests. Over 200 kids were arrested for violating the city's daytime curfew. A federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of several parents and about 50 students who claimed the arrests were unlawful.
According to Jim Harrington of Texas Civil Rights Project, "A large number of them were charged for violating the youth curfew, even though the youth curfew has an exemption in it for First Amendment activities, and of course this is a classic First Amendment activity."
Did you get that? Even though there was an exemption in the curfew ordinance for First Amendment activities, that exemption was completely disregarded by police. Here's one of many articles about the story.
Bedford Mayor Jim Story told the Star-Telegram that "being home-schooled or out with parents does not violate the ordinance."
More accurately, those situations are actually considered defenses to prosecution, Mr. Mayor, which simply means that a police officer can use his discretion to issue a citation regardless. An otherwise innocent family would then have to go to court to try to prove their defense.
Never mind that fact that there are many legitimate reasons for a teenager to be out in public during school hours even without their parent, not the least of which may include a scenario where a homeschool child is finished with their school work, or a family decides to take a vacation and the child is outside playing, or a teen drives himself/herself to work. A public school child who is exempt from exams can also be the target of this ordinance. Any minor under 17 who is outside for any reason can be a potential target.
According to the article, "Gebhart said that the way the ordinance is written, police officers have discretion as to whether or not to issue a citation. It would be up to families to fight the issue in court, which could be more of a financial burden than the $500 fine issued with the citation."
Reasoned arguments don't seem to work. Pointing out constitutionality infringments does not seem to sway those in leadership. The message the councils seem to be sending us is: "Don't confuse us with the facts."
The lesson to be learned is this: Voters far outnumber elected officials. Voters should, therefore, use their voting power to inspire their leaders to action.
Campaigns like this are won at the grass-roots level. With numbers comes power. With power comes influence. With influence comes change.
The USA is not about government dictating to the people how it does things. The USA is all about citizens holding their government officials accountable and making sure those leaders observe and protect the rights established in the constitution.
In the historic words of John Paul Jones: We have not yet begun to fight!!
Let's continue to send that message loud and clear to our elected officials while we still have the liberty to do so.
At the same time, nearly twenty miles away, another group of protesters rallied at the Dallas City Hall, to express their opposition to an expanded daytime curfew being proposed in Dallas. The rally came two days before the first of two public hearings in Dallas on the issue.
Many of the protesters at both rallies wore "Ditch the Daytime Curfew" shirts, and waved signs that read, "Ditch the Daytime Curfew" and "Fight Crime Not Freedom." Some people even made their own signs with messages like, "Public School Parent Against the Daytime Curfew."
The twin rallies generated media attention from well over a dozen media outlets, and served to thrust the issue into the national news (ex. Wall Street Journal) with the heated controversy over the issue in Dallas.
The rallies were shining examples of what can happen when communities of people come together to make their voices heard. Some might label these demonstrations as "rebelling against government," others, myself included, prefer to use the more accurate term: citizens participating in the democratic process.
As this political battle has escalated over the previous months, it has become more and more evident that reasoned and well-researched arguments are not enough to convince these councils that curfews are neither effective nor wanted by its citizens.
Officials in both Bedford and Dallas have completely disregarded the compelling facts that show that daytime curfews are not only duplicative (state truancy laws and criminal codes already exist) and unnecessary, but curfews do absolutely nothing to solve the juvenile crime problem or underlying issues related to truancy. In fact, curfews have been shown in study after study to actually exacerbate those problems.
Additionally, daytime curfews violate parental rights to direct the activities of their children. Curfews also stifle individual freedom, and can result in civil rights lawsuits against cities which implement them inappropriately.
"We’re against the government intrusion into parental rights to dictate the activities of our own kids and the punishment of a whole community of kids . . . in a misguided attempt to catch a couple of truants," said Anne Gebhart in a Star-Telegram article which came out the day of the rally.
The curfew criminalizes children just for being in public during daytime hours, even if no crime is being committed or suspected.
Bedford Mayor Jim Story told the Star-Telegram that he does not see the ordinance as a violation of civil liberties, and said that it has been effective in keeping students in school.
According to what truancy study and numbers are you referring, Mr. Mayor? And since when does the Constitution mandate that a certain segment of the population be presumed "guilty until proven innocent"? Does our Pledge of Allegiance proclaim "liberty and justice" for only those over the age of 16? The way I see it, a law with nearly a dozen "defenses to prosecution" seems a little weak in its attempt to pose as a fair and just law.
Mayor Story was also quoted in the article as saying, "We do not feel in any way that this ordinance harasses or targets anyone in any way... All indications show this is a very good ordinance."
Feelings are not facts, and "feeling" a certain way about something does not change the facts. The fact is, the potential certainly exists for the ordinance to be used to harass and target people. This has been shown in city after city where police officers, such as those in Houston, have used the ordinance to selectively target minority areas, or waited outside school buildings to issue tickets to kids arriving late to school.
There are many examples of police officers who have overstepped their bounds and abused their discretion to cite students who were outside during curfew hours for very legitimate reasons, even reasons protected by the first amendment. You don't have to look any further than Austin, Texas:
In March 2006, high school students hit the streets in Round Rock as part of a series of nationwide immigration protests. Over 200 kids were arrested for violating the city's daytime curfew. A federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of several parents and about 50 students who claimed the arrests were unlawful.
According to Jim Harrington of Texas Civil Rights Project, "A large number of them were charged for violating the youth curfew, even though the youth curfew has an exemption in it for First Amendment activities, and of course this is a classic First Amendment activity."
Did you get that? Even though there was an exemption in the curfew ordinance for First Amendment activities, that exemption was completely disregarded by police. Here's one of many articles about the story.
Bedford Mayor Jim Story told the Star-Telegram that "being home-schooled or out with parents does not violate the ordinance."
More accurately, those situations are actually considered defenses to prosecution, Mr. Mayor, which simply means that a police officer can use his discretion to issue a citation regardless. An otherwise innocent family would then have to go to court to try to prove their defense.
Never mind that fact that there are many legitimate reasons for a teenager to be out in public during school hours even without their parent, not the least of which may include a scenario where a homeschool child is finished with their school work, or a family decides to take a vacation and the child is outside playing, or a teen drives himself/herself to work. A public school child who is exempt from exams can also be the target of this ordinance. Any minor under 17 who is outside for any reason can be a potential target.
According to the article, "Gebhart said that the way the ordinance is written, police officers have discretion as to whether or not to issue a citation. It would be up to families to fight the issue in court, which could be more of a financial burden than the $500 fine issued with the citation."
Reasoned arguments don't seem to work. Pointing out constitutionality infringments does not seem to sway those in leadership. The message the councils seem to be sending us is: "Don't confuse us with the facts."
The lesson to be learned is this: Voters far outnumber elected officials. Voters should, therefore, use their voting power to inspire their leaders to action.
Campaigns like this are won at the grass-roots level. With numbers comes power. With power comes influence. With influence comes change.
The USA is not about government dictating to the people how it does things. The USA is all about citizens holding their government officials accountable and making sure those leaders observe and protect the rights established in the constitution.
In the historic words of John Paul Jones: We have not yet begun to fight!!
Let's continue to send that message loud and clear to our elected officials while we still have the liberty to do so.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Watch Them Pull a Rabbit Out of Their Hat
On January 20, 2009, the HEB-ISD announced a decline in unexcused absences from 22,805 to 13,800: a difference of 9,005 fewer unexcused absences then those reported during same time period last year. The district attributed the change in unexcused absences to the juvenile daytime curfew ordinances in place in the cities of Bedford and Euless.
The school district's announcement came just five weeks after a December 16 work session with the Bedford City Council. At that time, the school district reported a decline of 2,600 unexcused absences since September 1, 2008, compared to the previous year. The ordinances in Bedford and Euless didn't get passed in either city until September 23, 2008.
A 40% improvement in just five weeks. Sounds impressive, doesn't it?
I find their figures intriguing as well, and I would be very interested to see the actual data that the district used to compile those figures, as well as the in-depth study that they conducted to specifically determine that the curfew was the reason for the decline in unexcused absences.
One problem I have with the district's figures and explanation of those figures is that school was not in session during two of the five weeks, due to Winter Break and the New Year Holiday which extended from December 22, 2008, through January 2, 2009.
When talking with the news reporter who wrote the article announcing the decline, he stated that the district's numbers were actually calculated through January 13, 2009. This would mean that the improvement happened in a period of just 10 days. For the sake of argument, however, we'll give the district those extra five days.
So, in just 15 school days, the school district reported that 6,405 (9,005 - 2,600) more students attended school during that period compared with the previous year.
Something up their sleeve? Well, the numbers certainly are suspect. And the district does not explain how it derived those figures. Another reason these numbers appear questionable is that all the public school students and parents with whom I, and many others, have spoken have heard nothing at all about the ordinance. I find that very curious, since the district is making claims that the curfew is working as a deterrent to keep kids in school. How can the curfew be working as a deterrent if no one knows the law exists?
Additionally, only two citations have been written since the ordinance went into effect. Only two. One curfew offender was caught in a fight and the other... well, all we know is that he spent 3 days in jail for some reason, and that must have been for something other than a curfew violation since those are considered Class C Misdemeanors and are non-jailable offenses. Seems to me like the criminal statutes already on the books would have sufficed for both of those cases, without the curfew ordinance.
On March 10, 2009, the HEB-ISD was invited to a second work session with the Bedford City Council. When a Bedford council member asked the school district for its truancy numbers, no one from the school district seemed to have those numbers available. The school district representative, an assistant superintendent for the district, stated that she didn't have that data, but indicated that one of the persons scheduled to speak on the council meeting agenda would have those figures.
Come on, now. If you're a school district attempting to prove that you have a truancy problem and trying to plead your case for needing a daytime curfew to handle the purported truancy problem, it seems only reasonable to assume that you're going to get asked the question "What are your truancy numbers?" at least once.
As it turned out, when the school district representative came up to speak as a "persons to be heard" during the council meeting and the council asked for truancy numbers, the speaker stated that he didn't have those numbers available.
What the numbers truly represent is shady at best. If the numbers represent school days and not individual students, then how many actual students are represented by that number? The district has not been forthright in explaining their numbers.
Maybe it's that new math.
It is disturbing that the public servants in our school system, who have the responsibility of educating our youth, can't seem to provide consistent and reliable figures on a matter that they proclaim is of dire importance and urgency.
The school district's desperate attempt to validate the need for the daytime curfew ordinance by directly attributing it to the huge increase in student attendance in such a short time frame is patently absurd. I would expect more from our education professionals.
It sounds like there really is nothing up their sleeve.
The school district's announcement came just five weeks after a December 16 work session with the Bedford City Council. At that time, the school district reported a decline of 2,600 unexcused absences since September 1, 2008, compared to the previous year. The ordinances in Bedford and Euless didn't get passed in either city until September 23, 2008.
A 40% improvement in just five weeks. Sounds impressive, doesn't it?
I find their figures intriguing as well, and I would be very interested to see the actual data that the district used to compile those figures, as well as the in-depth study that they conducted to specifically determine that the curfew was the reason for the decline in unexcused absences.
One problem I have with the district's figures and explanation of those figures is that school was not in session during two of the five weeks, due to Winter Break and the New Year Holiday which extended from December 22, 2008, through January 2, 2009.
When talking with the news reporter who wrote the article announcing the decline, he stated that the district's numbers were actually calculated through January 13, 2009. This would mean that the improvement happened in a period of just 10 days. For the sake of argument, however, we'll give the district those extra five days.
So, in just 15 school days, the school district reported that 6,405 (9,005 - 2,600) more students attended school during that period compared with the previous year.
Something up their sleeve? Well, the numbers certainly are suspect. And the district does not explain how it derived those figures. Another reason these numbers appear questionable is that all the public school students and parents with whom I, and many others, have spoken have heard nothing at all about the ordinance. I find that very curious, since the district is making claims that the curfew is working as a deterrent to keep kids in school. How can the curfew be working as a deterrent if no one knows the law exists?
Additionally, only two citations have been written since the ordinance went into effect. Only two. One curfew offender was caught in a fight and the other... well, all we know is that he spent 3 days in jail for some reason, and that must have been for something other than a curfew violation since those are considered Class C Misdemeanors and are non-jailable offenses. Seems to me like the criminal statutes already on the books would have sufficed for both of those cases, without the curfew ordinance.
On March 10, 2009, the HEB-ISD was invited to a second work session with the Bedford City Council. When a Bedford council member asked the school district for its truancy numbers, no one from the school district seemed to have those numbers available. The school district representative, an assistant superintendent for the district, stated that she didn't have that data, but indicated that one of the persons scheduled to speak on the council meeting agenda would have those figures.
Come on, now. If you're a school district attempting to prove that you have a truancy problem and trying to plead your case for needing a daytime curfew to handle the purported truancy problem, it seems only reasonable to assume that you're going to get asked the question "What are your truancy numbers?" at least once.
As it turned out, when the school district representative came up to speak as a "persons to be heard" during the council meeting and the council asked for truancy numbers, the speaker stated that he didn't have those numbers available.
What the numbers truly represent is shady at best. If the numbers represent school days and not individual students, then how many actual students are represented by that number? The district has not been forthright in explaining their numbers.
Maybe it's that new math.
It is disturbing that the public servants in our school system, who have the responsibility of educating our youth, can't seem to provide consistent and reliable figures on a matter that they proclaim is of dire importance and urgency.
The school district's desperate attempt to validate the need for the daytime curfew ordinance by directly attributing it to the huge increase in student attendance in such a short time frame is patently absurd. I would expect more from our education professionals.
It sounds like there really is nothing up their sleeve.
Friday, March 6, 2009
One of These Crimes is Not Like the Others
February 10, 2009 -- While researching various categories of crime in the Texas Penal Code in preparation for the February 10 Bedford city council meeting, I found myself humming a familiar tune from Sesame Street.
You are probably familiar with it, so feel free to sing along:
One of these crimes is not like the others.
Which one is different?
Do you know?
Can you tell me which crime is not like the others?
And I'll tell you if it is so!
Here are your choices:
• Public Intoxication
• Indecent Exposure
• Shoplifting (petty theft)
• Simple Assault
• Walking in public between 9am and 2:30pm on school days
Did any one of these stick out to you as being very unlike the others?
Did you know that all of these actions are actually the same offense under the law? These are all examples of Class C Misdemeanors. Criminal charges for which arrests can be made.
The juvenile daytime curfew makes being out in public EQUAL to:
public intoxication, indecent exposure, shoplifting/petty theft, simple assault, and a host of other crimes identified as Class C Misdemeanors in the Texas penal code.
Does something not seem quite right about that?
What I find interesting is that when I asked my kids to try to guess which of these crimes was different, even my 6 year old was immediately able to point out that walking in public was not like the other "bad things." In fact, he was puzzled as to how walking in public could be considered "bad" at all.
It doesn't take a college degree, years of academy training, or even professional experience to figure this out. Even the Sesame Street crowd can tell the difference between a real crime and a constitutional freedom.
Big Bird would be proud. So am I.
You are probably familiar with it, so feel free to sing along:
One of these crimes is not like the others.
Which one is different?
Do you know?
Can you tell me which crime is not like the others?
And I'll tell you if it is so!
Here are your choices:
• Public Intoxication
• Indecent Exposure
• Shoplifting (petty theft)
• Simple Assault
• Walking in public between 9am and 2:30pm on school days
Did any one of these stick out to you as being very unlike the others?
Did you know that all of these actions are actually the same offense under the law? These are all examples of Class C Misdemeanors. Criminal charges for which arrests can be made.
The juvenile daytime curfew makes being out in public EQUAL to:
public intoxication, indecent exposure, shoplifting/petty theft, simple assault, and a host of other crimes identified as Class C Misdemeanors in the Texas penal code.
Does something not seem quite right about that?
What I find interesting is that when I asked my kids to try to guess which of these crimes was different, even my 6 year old was immediately able to point out that walking in public was not like the other "bad things." In fact, he was puzzled as to how walking in public could be considered "bad" at all.
It doesn't take a college degree, years of academy training, or even professional experience to figure this out. Even the Sesame Street crowd can tell the difference between a real crime and a constitutional freedom.
Big Bird would be proud. So am I.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Let's Pass a Law . . . Just in Case
So, is there a juvenile crime wave in Bedford that is driving the Council's determination to support a juvenile daytime curfew? That is a legitimate question, and one that might be on your mind about now.
The simple answer is no. The not-so-simple answer is also no.
Even Bedford Police Chief David Flory admitted this: "We don't have a huge problem of running across kids in the afternoon." (Star-Telegram, October 4, 2008.)
Why, then, would he and the Bedford City Council support a restrictive ordinance to handle a non-problem?
During a work session on December 16, 2008, the Bedford police chief stated that law enforcement officers already have the authority to stop anyone they want for any reason, with only reasonable suspicion. This is true, so why do they need the curfew?
Let's have a crash course in Law Enforcement 101.
According to a 1968 Supreme Court ruling (Terry vs. Ohio, 1968), police officers have the authority to stop anyone, including minors, if the officer has "reasonable suspicion"; that is, he reasonably believes, based on the circumstances, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or soon will be committed. Such suspicion is not to be based on a mere hunch.
These "stops" (siezures of persons) are also known as "Terry Stops," Police officers must only establish "reasonable suspicion," to conduct these stops; this is a lesser standard of evidence than "probable cause," which is what is required for an officer to make an arrest.
During a "stop," the officer can either physically lay hands on an individual for the purpose of detaining him, or use a "show of authority" (through his look, demeanor, and display of authority) to cause an individual to submit, or at least acquiesce, to that show of authority; to cause the person to believe that he has been seized; to cause the person to feel compelled to cooperate; or to cause the person to feel unfree to leave.
By contrast, the juvenile daytime curfew ordinance makes the very act of being in public a crime. An officer only has to establish that 1) an individual looks young and 2) he is out in public. That is all the evidence needed for an officer to establish "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. No real crime has to be committed other than the crime of being outside of the house. Probable cause is the higher evidence standard necessary for a police officer to arrest an individual, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest.
The Bedford daytime curfew states that "a minor commits an offense if the minor remains, walks, runs, idles, wanders, strolls, or aimlessly drives or rides about in or about a public place between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday."
However, a police officer already has the justification (without the curfew) to stop someone who exhibits any of the following behaviors:
1. Appears not to fit the time or place.
2. Matches the description on a "Wanted" flier.
3. Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
4. Loitering, or looking for something.
5. Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
6. Present in a crime scene area.
7. Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering)
A minor out in public during school hours might fit the descriptions of 1, 3, 4, 5, or even 6 and 7 if their actions give a police officer reason to suspect that they might be involved in a criminal action.
The curfew, on the other hand, makes the very act of "being in public" suspicious behavior and adds several more broadly-interpreted descriptions that go above and beyond those 7 descriptions referenced above. The curfew gives police officers much more latitude to make a stop, even though there might not be any evidence at all to suggest that a crime is being committed, is about to be committed, or has been committed. Again, the "being in public" is the crime.
Because daytime curfew violators give police officers the ability to make a valid stop without any suspicion of an actual crime (being in public is the crime that validates the stop) an officer can also frisk that individual if any of the following situations exists:
1. Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.
2. Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous.
3. Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used.
4. Officer is alone and backup has not arrived.
5. Number of suspects and their physical size.
6. Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects.
7. Suspect gave evasive answers during the initial stop.
8. Time of day and/or geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify frisk).
To summarize, the daytime curfew is not needed for police to do their job in enforcing criminal statutes already on the books. What the curfew does is create a short-cut to probable cause, by allowing law enforcement officers to stop any young-looking person who is out in public during curfew hours, whether or not there is evidence or suspicion that an actual crime is being, has been, or will be committed.
Let's review.
First, the curfew is a short-cut to probable cause by making "being in public" a crime. The curfew specifies that a minor 17 and under who is out in public is in violation of the ordinance. Minors out in public are committing a crime, according to the curfew; so instead of having "reasonable suspicion" to believe that a crime may have been committed, or about to be committed, police can instead establish the higher level of proof necessary for an arrest: "probable cause that a crime has been committed"; the crime is being outside of the house.
Second, the curfew makes being "young-looking" and "in public" during curfew hours a crime. What does young look like? Can you tell a 17 year old when you see one? Businesses that sell alcohol and cigarettes have a difficult time with this; therefore, many have adopted the policy of asking for identification from anyone who appears "younger than 30." The curfew ordinance could impact those over 17 who have a youthful appearance, causing those individuals to be treated like criminals just for being out in public.
So, why does the Council and police chief support an ordinance which gives police broad powers to potentially harass any young-looking person out in public during curfew hours?
Part of the answer can be found in the last half of the the Bedford Police Chief's quote: "But this [daytime curfew ordinance] gives us a means to deal with kids when they are absent from school." To him, the curfew is "just another tool" to deal with kids out on the street during school hours.
But, wait. They don't need daytime curfews to "deal with kids when they are absent from school." You see, the HEB-ISD already has a way to combat truancy issues, and that is to aggressively enforce the compulsory attendance laws that are already in effect. Texas statutes give school districts everything they need to effectively enforce compulsory attendance laws; and what's more, these statutes incorporate due process so that the rights of all citizens, students and parents included, are protected.
In fact, in 2007, the Texas legislature made it even easier for police to help districts enforce the compulsory attendance statute by amending the Family Code, Section 52.01, Subsection (e) to allow law enforcement officers to return a truant child to his school (HB 2237 and HB 776). This change undermines the argument that daytime curfews are needed to give police the authority to stop children during school hours.
What's more, the HEB-ISD has roll books, and they take attendance each day school is in session. The district knows which kids are present and which are absent. This makes it very easy to specifically target children who are out playing hooky without infringing on the rights of so many other students who have a legitimate reason to be out in public, but who are not enrolled in the HEB-ISD or follow the school district's schedule.
The juvenile daytime curfew ordinance is too broad, does not specifically target children of compulsory attendance age, applies to anyone who looks young regardless of any other suspicious behavior, and criminalizes stepping out of the house.
It's just bad law. Certainly not one we want to have around just in case law enforcement decides it needs another tool.
The simple answer is no. The not-so-simple answer is also no.
Even Bedford Police Chief David Flory admitted this: "We don't have a huge problem of running across kids in the afternoon." (Star-Telegram, October 4, 2008.)
Why, then, would he and the Bedford City Council support a restrictive ordinance to handle a non-problem?
During a work session on December 16, 2008, the Bedford police chief stated that law enforcement officers already have the authority to stop anyone they want for any reason, with only reasonable suspicion. This is true, so why do they need the curfew?
Let's have a crash course in Law Enforcement 101.
According to a 1968 Supreme Court ruling (Terry vs. Ohio, 1968), police officers have the authority to stop anyone, including minors, if the officer has "reasonable suspicion"; that is, he reasonably believes, based on the circumstances, that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or soon will be committed. Such suspicion is not to be based on a mere hunch.
These "stops" (siezures of persons) are also known as "Terry Stops," Police officers must only establish "reasonable suspicion," to conduct these stops; this is a lesser standard of evidence than "probable cause," which is what is required for an officer to make an arrest.
During a "stop," the officer can either physically lay hands on an individual for the purpose of detaining him, or use a "show of authority" (through his look, demeanor, and display of authority) to cause an individual to submit, or at least acquiesce, to that show of authority; to cause the person to believe that he has been seized; to cause the person to feel compelled to cooperate; or to cause the person to feel unfree to leave.
By contrast, the juvenile daytime curfew ordinance makes the very act of being in public a crime. An officer only has to establish that 1) an individual looks young and 2) he is out in public. That is all the evidence needed for an officer to establish "probable cause" that a crime is being committed. No real crime has to be committed other than the crime of being outside of the house. Probable cause is the higher evidence standard necessary for a police officer to arrest an individual, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest.
The Bedford daytime curfew states that "a minor commits an offense if the minor remains, walks, runs, idles, wanders, strolls, or aimlessly drives or rides about in or about a public place between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday."
However, a police officer already has the justification (without the curfew) to stop someone who exhibits any of the following behaviors:
1. Appears not to fit the time or place.
2. Matches the description on a "Wanted" flier.
3. Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
4. Loitering, or looking for something.
5. Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
6. Present in a crime scene area.
7. Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering)
A minor out in public during school hours might fit the descriptions of 1, 3, 4, 5, or even 6 and 7 if their actions give a police officer reason to suspect that they might be involved in a criminal action.
The curfew, on the other hand, makes the very act of "being in public" suspicious behavior and adds several more broadly-interpreted descriptions that go above and beyond those 7 descriptions referenced above. The curfew gives police officers much more latitude to make a stop, even though there might not be any evidence at all to suggest that a crime is being committed, is about to be committed, or has been committed. Again, the "being in public" is the crime.
Because daytime curfew violators give police officers the ability to make a valid stop without any suspicion of an actual crime (being in public is the crime that validates the stop) an officer can also frisk that individual if any of the following situations exists:
1. Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.
2. Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous.
3. Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used.
4. Officer is alone and backup has not arrived.
5. Number of suspects and their physical size.
6. Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects.
7. Suspect gave evasive answers during the initial stop.
8. Time of day and/or geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify frisk).
To summarize, the daytime curfew is not needed for police to do their job in enforcing criminal statutes already on the books. What the curfew does is create a short-cut to probable cause, by allowing law enforcement officers to stop any young-looking person who is out in public during curfew hours, whether or not there is evidence or suspicion that an actual crime is being, has been, or will be committed.
Let's review.
First, the curfew is a short-cut to probable cause by making "being in public" a crime. The curfew specifies that a minor 17 and under who is out in public is in violation of the ordinance. Minors out in public are committing a crime, according to the curfew; so instead of having "reasonable suspicion" to believe that a crime may have been committed, or about to be committed, police can instead establish the higher level of proof necessary for an arrest: "probable cause that a crime has been committed"; the crime is being outside of the house.
Second, the curfew makes being "young-looking" and "in public" during curfew hours a crime. What does young look like? Can you tell a 17 year old when you see one? Businesses that sell alcohol and cigarettes have a difficult time with this; therefore, many have adopted the policy of asking for identification from anyone who appears "younger than 30." The curfew ordinance could impact those over 17 who have a youthful appearance, causing those individuals to be treated like criminals just for being out in public.
So, why does the Council and police chief support an ordinance which gives police broad powers to potentially harass any young-looking person out in public during curfew hours?
Part of the answer can be found in the last half of the the Bedford Police Chief's quote: "But this [daytime curfew ordinance] gives us a means to deal with kids when they are absent from school." To him, the curfew is "just another tool" to deal with kids out on the street during school hours.
But, wait. They don't need daytime curfews to "deal with kids when they are absent from school." You see, the HEB-ISD already has a way to combat truancy issues, and that is to aggressively enforce the compulsory attendance laws that are already in effect. Texas statutes give school districts everything they need to effectively enforce compulsory attendance laws; and what's more, these statutes incorporate due process so that the rights of all citizens, students and parents included, are protected.
In fact, in 2007, the Texas legislature made it even easier for police to help districts enforce the compulsory attendance statute by amending the Family Code, Section 52.01, Subsection (e) to allow law enforcement officers to return a truant child to his school (HB 2237 and HB 776). This change undermines the argument that daytime curfews are needed to give police the authority to stop children during school hours.
What's more, the HEB-ISD has roll books, and they take attendance each day school is in session. The district knows which kids are present and which are absent. This makes it very easy to specifically target children who are out playing hooky without infringing on the rights of so many other students who have a legitimate reason to be out in public, but who are not enrolled in the HEB-ISD or follow the school district's schedule.
The juvenile daytime curfew ordinance is too broad, does not specifically target children of compulsory attendance age, applies to anyone who looks young regardless of any other suspicious behavior, and criminalizes stepping out of the house.
It's just bad law. Certainly not one we want to have around just in case law enforcement decides it needs another tool.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Be Quiet and Go Away
January 27, 2009 -- The mercury dropped below freezing as the "worst ice storm in nearly 6 years" headed toward the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex on January 27, 2009. The storm threatened to deposit up to 1/4 inch of freezing rain on North Texas roads throughout the evening. The weather service issued travel advisories, warning people to stay off the roads.
Yet, the Bedford City Council meeting went on as scheduled, forcing many citizens to brave the elements to attend the meeting. The juvenile daytime curfew issue was on the agenda that night, and the citizens of Bedford packed the council chamber, determined to make their voices heard.
Councilman Jeff Cason, who placed the juvenile daytime curfew item on the agenda, very humbly admitted that he did not do his due diligence before voting on the issue initially. He stated that he simply could not connect the dots, even after hearing the arguments made by the police chief and school district at the work session on December 16, 2008.
Cason made the point during the meeting that 60% of property taxes go to the school district, while only 15% go to the city, and that from a taxpayer standpoint if the school district was receiving that much money they should do their job and not place an added burden on the city's police resources.
Cason went on to say that what really brought this issue to light for him was his concern as a parent. He said that as a teenager he was in a work-study program, and he would drive his '57 Chevy to work. He realized that if his son were in that circumstance today, as a parent he would be concerned that his son might be stopped by a police officer during the day on his way to work and possibly given a citation for being in public. He admitted that he made a big mistake by voting for this ordinance and was seeking its repeal.
Most of the rest of the council members were not in agreement with the idea of a repeal, and the council chambers grew heated as a couple of the council members argued the issue.
One council member, Chris Brown, expressed his desire that this would become a "dead issue" and that the citizens could "put this behind them" because the council had other more pressing issues to decide. Click here to watch the video.
A second council member, Lori Nail, wondered why this issue was only coming up in Bedford. She stated that she was "puzzled" as to why the city of Euless had only one person come before them to speak about the issue, while the city of Bedford has had continuous "visitors" on the issue.
She stated that if the citizens were "truly passionate about their liberties," they would be discussing this issue with the Euless City Council as well. She did not feel that this curfew would impact anyone's liberties, and went on to say that the government gave home schoolers their right to home school and the government wasn't taking that away. Click here to watch the video.
Council member Nail mentioned that the school district approached the city asking for the curfew ordinance. She stated that if Cason couldn't connect the dots he should have sought additional information from the school district.
Cason argued that the school district did not make a compelling case to justify the need for or the effectiveness of the daytime curfew. He felt that the curfew was not the best solution to the problem, particularly since there were so many citizens concerned about their right to move about freely in society without being suspected or questioned without cause.
Council member Nail stated that "it's very dangerous when people start throwing arrows and saying we're taking away freedoms" and that citizens are "not being fair in how they're defending their beliefs."
Nail also mentioned that while there are three school entities: public school, private school, and home schoolers, the council had only heard from home schoolers. She felt that if there were a real concern, they would have heard from representatives from those other entities as well. Click here to watch the video.
What the council did not know was that there were families from all sides of the issue in attendance at the meeting that night: home schoolers, private school students, a public school parent and veteran police officer, a public school parent who is now a home schooler, a former public school teacher who is now a grandmother of home schooled children . . . all speaking in opposition to the daytime curfew.
You can imagine the comments that came from the public during the Open Forum. The overall tone of the council was very condescending, and many people objected to the council telling its citizens, whom they supposedly serve, to shut up about this issue and go to another city to voice their concerns.
The icy weather outside did not put a chill on the fiery indignation of the citizens. A wide range of opinions were presented as home schoolers, private schoolers, public schoolers, and other concerned citizens let the council know that they were not going to be silenced, nor were they going away.
Yet, the Bedford City Council meeting went on as scheduled, forcing many citizens to brave the elements to attend the meeting. The juvenile daytime curfew issue was on the agenda that night, and the citizens of Bedford packed the council chamber, determined to make their voices heard.
Councilman Jeff Cason, who placed the juvenile daytime curfew item on the agenda, very humbly admitted that he did not do his due diligence before voting on the issue initially. He stated that he simply could not connect the dots, even after hearing the arguments made by the police chief and school district at the work session on December 16, 2008.
Cason made the point during the meeting that 60% of property taxes go to the school district, while only 15% go to the city, and that from a taxpayer standpoint if the school district was receiving that much money they should do their job and not place an added burden on the city's police resources.
Cason went on to say that what really brought this issue to light for him was his concern as a parent. He said that as a teenager he was in a work-study program, and he would drive his '57 Chevy to work. He realized that if his son were in that circumstance today, as a parent he would be concerned that his son might be stopped by a police officer during the day on his way to work and possibly given a citation for being in public. He admitted that he made a big mistake by voting for this ordinance and was seeking its repeal.
Most of the rest of the council members were not in agreement with the idea of a repeal, and the council chambers grew heated as a couple of the council members argued the issue.
One council member, Chris Brown, expressed his desire that this would become a "dead issue" and that the citizens could "put this behind them" because the council had other more pressing issues to decide. Click here to watch the video.
A second council member, Lori Nail, wondered why this issue was only coming up in Bedford. She stated that she was "puzzled" as to why the city of Euless had only one person come before them to speak about the issue, while the city of Bedford has had continuous "visitors" on the issue.
She stated that if the citizens were "truly passionate about their liberties," they would be discussing this issue with the Euless City Council as well. She did not feel that this curfew would impact anyone's liberties, and went on to say that the government gave home schoolers their right to home school and the government wasn't taking that away. Click here to watch the video.
Council member Nail mentioned that the school district approached the city asking for the curfew ordinance. She stated that if Cason couldn't connect the dots he should have sought additional information from the school district.
Cason argued that the school district did not make a compelling case to justify the need for or the effectiveness of the daytime curfew. He felt that the curfew was not the best solution to the problem, particularly since there were so many citizens concerned about their right to move about freely in society without being suspected or questioned without cause.
Council member Nail stated that "it's very dangerous when people start throwing arrows and saying we're taking away freedoms" and that citizens are "not being fair in how they're defending their beliefs."
Nail also mentioned that while there are three school entities: public school, private school, and home schoolers, the council had only heard from home schoolers. She felt that if there were a real concern, they would have heard from representatives from those other entities as well. Click here to watch the video.
What the council did not know was that there were families from all sides of the issue in attendance at the meeting that night: home schoolers, private school students, a public school parent and veteran police officer, a public school parent who is now a home schooler, a former public school teacher who is now a grandmother of home schooled children . . . all speaking in opposition to the daytime curfew.
You can imagine the comments that came from the public during the Open Forum. The overall tone of the council was very condescending, and many people objected to the council telling its citizens, whom they supposedly serve, to shut up about this issue and go to another city to voice their concerns.
The icy weather outside did not put a chill on the fiery indignation of the citizens. A wide range of opinions were presented as home schoolers, private schoolers, public schoolers, and other concerned citizens let the council know that they were not going to be silenced, nor were they going away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)