County Commissioner Alisa Simmons described the new policy as \u201can overreach that undermines transparency\u201d by restricting the public\u2019s right to be informed about the county jail. She noted that existing laws already protect the \u201cintegrity of investigations and litigation.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s call this what it is: a blatant violation of our constituents\u2019 First Amendment rights,\u201d Simmons said in a statement to the Fort Worth Report. \u201cThese are calculated tactics to stifle and silence the voices of taxpayers, our constituents, those who elected us AND pay us $220K annual salaries to listen to their concerns, not stonewall them.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The policy is intended to \u201creduce procedural ambiguity, mitigate legal risk, ensure consistent expectations across departments and elected officials, and improve operational efficiency,\u201d according to meeting documents.\u00a0<\/p>\n
During their Feb. 10 meeting, commissioners also will consider updating the court\u2019s rules of decorum, which would include capping residents\u2019 speaking time and limiting how long during a meeting commissioners spend listening to the public.\u00a0<\/p>\n
County Judge Tim O\u2019Hare approved both policy considerations\u2019 placement on the commissioners\u2019 meeting agenda. Leah Nesbitt, a spokesperson for his office, did not return a request for comment.\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/COUNTY_COMMISSIONERS-5-1024x683.jpg\")
Tarrant County Commissioner Alisa Simmons speaks during a commissioners court meeting June 4, 2024, at the county\u2019s administration building. (Alberto Silva Fernandez | Fort Worth Report)\u00a0<\/p>\n
In September, Sheriff Bill Waybourn, the county\u2019s top elected law enforcement official, said he would not participate<\/a> in any more briefings about deaths in jail custody requested by Simmons. At the time, Waybourn accused Simmons of \u201crepeated lack of civility\u201d toward him and his staff.\u00a0<\/p>\n Simmons, a Democrat, has called for Waybourn\u2019s resignation<\/a> and often publicly criticizes his management of the jail, which has documented more than 70 in-custody deaths since the sheriff took office in 2017.\u00a0<\/p>\n Waybourn, a Republican, has honored some<\/a> of Simmons\u2019 requests for briefings but skipped others<\/a>, such as a requested briefing on the jail\u2019s operating procedures. He did not return a request for comment on the proposed meeting changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Simmons is seeking the Democratic nomination in the March primaries to challenge O\u2019Hare for the county judge seat<\/a> in the November election. She said Friday she believes the policy proposal is a \u201cdirect response\u201d to her scrutiny of Waybourn and the jail.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cRather than addressing the underlying problems, this policy attempts to limit discussion, prevent public exposure and reduce accountability, particularly when that scrutiny is happening in an open, public forum where constituents are paying attention,\u201d Simmons\u2019 statement read.\u00a0<\/p>\n In a court filing Monday, the county\u2019s attorneys argued that the county is not responsible<\/a> for Johnson\u2019s death. Last month, commissioners approved an additional $60,000<\/a> to retain attorneys for two detention officers named in the suit.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under the proposed agenda policy, commissioners can request briefings on any other topic. County Administrator Chandler Merritt will determine which county staff, if any, will provide the briefing, according to the policy. It does not list criteria for how he will make such decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile, proposed amendments to the court\u2019s rules of decorum would cap residents\u2019 speaking time at three minutes, regardless of how many items they signed up to speak on.\u00a0<\/p>\n Residents may sign up to speak on any agenda item. Under the current rules, registered speakers get three minutes to address the court before commissioners vote on an item. Speakers who registered for more than one item get three minutes for each one.\u00a0<\/p>\n The amendments would enable O\u2019Hare to reduce speakers\u2019 comment time \u201cfor the purpose of efficiency\u201d based on the number of people signed up to speak, according to the proposal. Speaking time would drop to two minutes each if 30-49 people register to speak, and it would lower to one minute if there are 50 or more speakers.\u00a0<\/p>\n Commissioners may legally cap speaking time but can\u2019t limit how many items a resident can sign up to speak on, said Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel for public advocacy for the nonpartisan civil liberties group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.<\/p>\n \u201cIf someone just has a lot to say, the First Amendment doesn\u2019t entitle that person to extra time,\u201d VanderVeen said.<\/p>\n The county\u2019s proposed rules are similar to those adopted and later reversed by Fort Worth City Council members last year.\u00a0<\/p>\n In September, they voted 7-4 to reduce the number of opportunities<\/a> for residents to speak and gave Mayor Mattie Parker the authority to extend or reduce speakers\u2019 time limits, particularly if the number of registered speakers would result in more than one hour of comment time.<\/p>\n Last month, council members voted unanimously to increase the number of meetings<\/a> residents may speak at and barred the mayor from changing speakers\u2019 time limits unless by a majority vote. The vote came after months of outcry<\/a> from residents and progressive activists who alleged council members were seeking to stifle public engagement.\u00a0<\/p>\n Limiting opportunities for the public to speak at government meetings is legal but not best practice, three open government and free speech experts previously told the Fort Worth Report and KERA News<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The proposed policy changes before commissioners come about four months after they voted along party lines to meet only once a month<\/a> instead of the previous twice-monthly schedule. Last year saw multiple heated commissioners meetings with some attendees getting removed, arrested or criminally charged<\/a> for clapping, swearing or shouting.\u00a0<\/p>\n \nhttps:\/\/fortworthreport.org\/2025\/11\/23\/tarrant-residents-get-fewer-chances-to-speak-at-local-government-meetings-what-does-that-mean\/\n<\/p>\n In January, a U.S. district judge dismissed a federal lawsuit<\/a> from a Fort Worth pastor suing the county and O\u2019Hare for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights when he was removed from a public meeting. The lawsuit was dismissed because the pastor\u2019s attorney lived in a different district than the suit was filed in.\u00a0<\/p>\n The amended rules of decorum would prohibit speakers from behavior such as personal attacks and \u201cimpertinent, profane obscene or slanderous remarks\u201d; disruptive remarks or actions from the audience, such as clapping or feet stomping; or wearing or displaying signs, flags, banners, props, placards or \u201csimilar items larger than 8 \u00bd by 11 inches.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe intent of this policy is to ensure the safety of the public, the staff and members of the Commissioners Court, and to maximize citizen participation, efficiently receive public input, and maintain respectful decorum during each meeting,\u201d the documents state.\u00a0<\/p>\n Commissioners are within their jurisdiction to implement most of the decorum amendments, VanderVeen said, but policing certain language gave him pause.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cBanning personal attacks, impertinent remarks, profanity \u2014 all of those are not categories of speech that the government has the authority to regulate, so all of that\u2019s going to be a First Amendment violation,\u201d VanderVeen said, adding that terms like \u201cobscenity\u201d need a clear definition in the policy to ensure fair enforcement.\u00a0<\/p>\n Failure to comply with the decorum rules could result in removal from the commissioners court; temporary banning from speaking in-person during commissioners meetings; the cancellation of a speaker\u2019s comment time; or criminal charges, according to the proposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n Willful contempt of the court would be punishable by a fine of up to $25 or jail confinement up to 24 hours. <\/p>\n VanderVeen noted that government bodies have the authority to impose rules to ensure decorum and prevent disruptions but added that he has never seen a county government impose fines with such rules, although it is allowed by law. <\/p>\n Cecilia Lenzen is a government accountability reporter for the Fort Worth Report. Contact her at cecilia.lenzen@fortworthreport.org<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n