Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews draft ethics and rules-of-procedure, leans toward repealing and replacing existing ordinance
Summary
Council reviewed a draft code of ethics modeled on Pearland’s policy, discussed options to repeal-and-replace current Ordinance 2.2 (1993), and asked staff to refine a draft focusing on excused/unexcused absences, public-speaking rules and executive-session language.
Tomball City Council on March 3 reviewed a draft code of ethics and rules of procedure and signaled a preference to repeal and replace the city’s existing ordinance rather than attempt piecemeal amendments.
City staff presented a draft modeled on the City of Pearland’s policy and contrasted it with the current ordinance on the books since 1993. Staff and council members said the Pearland-based draft contains additional, more-defined sections — including clearer language on executive sessions, attendance and joint meetings — that do not appear in the current ordinance.
Discussion topics included whether to amend the existing 1993 ordinance or repeal it and adopt a new code; how the draft should handle excused and unexcused absences for elected officials; the scope of executive session descriptions; public-speaking limits and exceptions; and how the proposed ordinance would align with state law on ethics and conflicts. A staff attorney reminded the council that some provisions are governed by state law and cautioned against local provisions that could conflict with statutory requirements.
Several council members recommended a section-by-section review in one or more dedicated workshops. Councilmember Ford and other members asked staff to define the consequences, if any, for unexcused absences and to clarify attendance rules without conflicting with constitutional protections for elected officials. Staff advised that enforcement mechanisms for elected officials are limited and that punitive measures such as removing an elected official for absences raise constitutional questions; possible remedies discussed were nonbinding sanctions such as public notice or censure language rather than automatic removal.
Council directed staff and the city attorney to confer with Lauren (city staff) to produce a refined draft focused on the council’s priority items and to return for further workshops. No ordinance was adopted at the workshop; council did not vote on repeal or replacement at this meeting.
