Tomball council reviews wholesale rewrite of code of ethics, debates censure thresholds and public‑comment limits

Tomball — The City Council spent the bulk of its April 21 workshop reviewing a proposed repeal‑and‑replace of the city’s 1993 code of ethics and related rules of order, debating how to handle attendance, public‑comment enforcement, censure thresholds and conflicts of interest.

The draft before council would replace the 1993 policy. City staff described highlighted changes in the packet and said the draft incorporates selected provisions of the older policy while aligning language with current state law. Councilmembers discussed several specific sections, asked for clarifications and asked staff to revise the draft for return to another workshop.

Key issues discussed included attendance rules (Section 5), clarifications on excused versus unexcused absences, additions pulled from the 1993 policy (Section 7), and how to apply the policy to boards and commissions. Council members emphasized that the policy should be clear about when the presiding officer (the mayor) may enforce meeting order during public comment and how warnings and removal would be handled.

On public‑comment enforcement, councilmembers debated language limiting remarks to “city business or policy” and prohibiting “profane, vulgar, abusive language, or personal attacks.” A staff speaker read that public comment was limited to three minutes and said “no 1 is allowed to speak on any other matters, personal matters or matters under litigation,” though several councilmembers noted those restrictions are subject to state law and existing practice.

Multiple speakers recommended referencing Texas law in the draft. One attendee advised council to consider Texas Penal Code § 42.01 (disorderly conduct), which the transcript identifies by number; council discussion and a law‑enforcement speaker noted that threatening language meets the statutory threshold for removal and that context matters in assessing disorderly conduct. Council members asked the city attorney to advise where state statutes should be cited in the city policy.

Councilmembers debated procedures related to abstentions and conflicts. The draft would record an unexcused abstention as a “nay” vote and clarifies that a member who abstains should leave the room during discussion; councilmembers asked for that language to be explicit. Councilmembers also discussed conflicts and gift rules and asked staff to make clear that state law governs gifts and conflicts (members referenced an informal $50 threshold from state guidance), and to add cross‑references to applicable state statutes where appropriate.

A significant procedural debate focused on the threshold to place an ethics censure on a future agenda. The draft returned to a provision that would allow two councilmembers (or the mayor) to request placement; several councilmembers said a higher threshold — three councilmembers or mayor plus two members — would be more appropriate for censure matters and should be considered because censure is a higher‑stakes action.

Councilmembers also asked staff to show, when the draft returns, which sections of the 1993 policy the new language would replace. Staff agreed to make the requested edits, highlight replaced text for comparison, and return a revised draft to a future workshop for additional discussion; no censure, ordinance or other formal action was taken during the April 21 workshop.

The council adjourned the workshop and scheduled follow‑up review; staff will circulate a revised draft for a subsequent workshop and consider training for boards and commissions on the new policy once it is finalized.