Tarrant County adopts new decorum policy after hours of public comment; critics say it gives judge too much discretion

The Tarrant County Commissioners Court on Jan. 28 voted 3–2 to adopt a new countywide decorum policy that sets registration deadlines, speaker time limits and enforcement rules for attendees at court meetings.

The vote follows roughly two hours of debate among court members and more than a dozen public speakers who urged the court to delay or rewrite the policy. Opponents said elements of the policy — including time limits set “at the discretion of the judge” and the presiding officer’s authority to remove attendees — would suppress speech and create uneven enforcement.

The new policy, supporters said, codifies the presiding officer’s existing authorities and gives the public a single written set of expectations. County Judge Tim O’Hare, the presiding officer, told the court he has statutory powers and that the policy largely memorializes those existing authorities.

Why it matters: The rules govern who may speak at Commissioners Court, how long they may speak and how the presiding officer will keep order. Opponents said the policy will make it harder for working residents to participate and could be used to prioritize or exclude speakers without clear, objective checks.

The court voted on the policy after multiple commissioners and dozens of residents spoke. Commissioner Alyssa Simmons (Commissioner, Precinct 2) argued the policy “places way too much discretion on, to 1 person,” and said requiring speakers to register the day before is an undue barrier for people who cannot sign up online. She said in part, “This allows the suppression of voices under the guise of order.”

County Judge Tim O’Hare defended the policy, saying he has “never taken a single person out of order” except in narrow circumstances and that the rules mirror procedures used in other legislative bodies. “Free speech is not the ability to disrupt a meeting anytime you want to disrupt a meeting,” he said, adding that similar rules exist in the U.S. House and Senate and in other local governments.

Public speakers included residents, legal practitioners and clergy. Joe Palmer, a frequent court speaker, said, “Three minutes really is the bare minimum amount of time necessary to put together an argument and to present it in a convincing manner to my elected representatives.” Robert Buecher opened public comment by reading the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

Court members debated whether the policy went too far or merely clarified existing authority. Some commissioners said the policy could be amended to address specific concerns — such as a daytime registration cutoff for in-person sign-ups or a clearer appeals process for sanctions — but supported having a written policy for consistency.

Votes at a glance - Adopt decorum policy: approved, 3–2. - Reconsideration and approvals on consent/purchasing items (see separate entries): multiple unanimous votes (see court minutes). The court also approved several routine consent items and appointments during the meeting.

What’s next: Opponents urged the court to delay final adoption and make targeted revisions — including a 9 a.m. day‑of sign-up option for people without internet access and clearer limits on removal or criminal trespass sanctions. Commissioners and staff said they will accept feedback and that the policy can be amended in future meetings.

Ending: The policy took effect after the vote; residents who testified asked the court to revisit specific provisions and to publish a clear appeals process for any sanctions.