OTHELLO — A spirited debate on a proposed “failure to supervise a minor” ordinance ended with a 6-1 Othello City Council vote to approve the measure, but with some revisions.  

Council member John Lallas voted no.  

The ordinance will allow parents or legal guardians to be cited with a misdemeanor in cases where a lack of supervision contributes to the child violating the law. 

A citation could not be issued until after parents or guardians had received a written or verbal warning. With that warning, they will receive information about services available to them and places they can go for assistance in keeping the child’s behavior from worsening.  

The new ordinance will go into effect Sept. 23. Othello Police Chief Dave Rehaume said training Othello Police Department officers on issuing – and not issuing – warnings and citations will be an important part of implementation.  

Council members discussed the proposal, submitted by Rehaume, and asked for revisions. The original proposal didn’t include a written or verbal warning prior to issuing a citation.  

In a later interview Rehaume said the goal is to make sure parents and guardians know what resources they have available – and make it clear that there’s a situation that could get worse. 

“This is a lower level, tap on the shoulder, ‘you have a problem.’ Let’s deal with this right now,” Rehaume said. “It has a built-in clause for an avenue of assistance.” 

The ordinance prompted impassioned objections from Lallas and council member Cory Everett, who said it might end up unfairly targeting parents or guardians who are trying but struggling. 

Everett said he appreciated the revisions made to the original draft, but that he wasn’t sure how it would work. 

“I still don’t like the fact that you want to go out and prosecute parents for their 16-year-old doing something, when there’s no way – there's no possible way – that you can supervise a 16-year-old 24 hours a day,” Everett said.  

Rehaume responded that the challenges extend beyond teenagers. He said city officials have encountered 10-year-olds, and that options for dealing with younger children are more limited. 

Everett said age makes a difference, but that he objected to the concept behind the proposal. 

“I don’t like the fact that you want to go after parents for their kids. I don’t,” Everett said. 

Council member Darryl Barnes said parents ultimately are responsible. 

“I think we still need to do something to hold the responsible parties – the parents – responsible for their juvenile’s actions,” Barnes said.  

Everet said that times have changed, and parents have less control than they used to. Lallas agreed with that.  

“I don’t think 30 years ago, this would even have been considered,” Lallas said. “This is idiotic.” 

Lallas said he thought the ordinance was too broad.  He cited a theoretical instance where a parent cut contact with a child who wasn’t following the family rules.  

“What do you do? You’re done, you have had it, you cannot control them, they’re ganged up, they’re doing vicious things,” Lallas said. “So what do you do?” 

Rehaume said there are avenues for parents in that situation, and the ordinance would not be intended for those families. 

“If they are taking steps and trying, that’s not the parent we’re going to be citing,” Rehaume said. 

He referenced an incident where a boy in his early teens was found carrying a pistol, a boy whose older brother was convicted of homicide in an incident in the same neighborhood.  

“I see what is trying to be accomplished with this ordinance, making the parents responsible for not being a bad influence on the kid’s growth,” Lallas said. “But I also see it being used differently, to put a good family, a good parent, in a bind. 

“I’m opposed unless there’s some exclusion or exception if the family and the parents are doing the right thing,” Lallas added.  

Rehuame said written warnings would include a list of resources for parents, and parents could be asked if they would accept contact from social service agencies.