Conroe council declines appointed charter-review commission, adopts new ethics and financial-disclosure ordinance

CONROE, Texas — The Conroe City Council on Thursday voted against creating a council‑appointed charter review commission and approved an ordinance that establishes a code of ethics and new financial‑disclosure rules for elected officials, municipal judges and certain board appointees.

The council voted 4–1 to adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the city code; Mayor Pro Tem Wood voted no unless the city administration (city manager and executive staff) were added to the disclosure requirement. The proposed charter review commission — a five‑member panel with each council member selecting one appointee — failed for lack of a second when moved on the floor.

The ordinance requires broader disclosure by city council members, municipal judges, members of the Conroe Industrial Development Corporation and Conroe Local Government Corporation appointees and their spouses. City administration positions — the city administrator, deputy and department directors — were not included in the ordinance as adopted; the city attorney said the ordinance can be amended later to expand coverage.

Residents pressed the council on how charter changes and disclosure rules would be handled. Sandra Burke, a Conroe resident, urged more citizen participation in charter review and raised concerns about the application of Chapter 2 to line employees and potential conflicts of interest involving officials who hold outside positions. “I have a big concern about the scope of control around the ordinance, chapter 2,” Burke said during the public‑comment period. She asked whether the city administrator would have to declare outside roles and expressed worry that the rule could chill recruitment for some jobs.

John Sellers, another resident, urged the council to appoint a charter review commission rather than relying on a city‑hired attorney to run public engagement. “A charter review commission doesn’t exclude the public. It includes them,” Sellers said, arguing an appointed commission would provide structure and accountability.

City Attorney Mark Garner (identified in the meeting transcript as Mr. Garner) answered detailed questions about how the city and state reporting requirements differ. Garner said state law requires disclosure of sources of occupational income and that certain state statutes require the reporting of a filer’s spouse and dependent children where the filer has control of those assets; the city’s ordinance narrows some public thresholds for city filings. Under the city ordinance as explained in the meeting, the city will require reporting of income sources that exceed 10% of adjusted gross income or $5,000. Garner also said penalties for violations under state law can be criminal and that filings are public records subject to chapter 145 and the financial‑disclosure provisions he cited.

Mayor Pro Tem Wood raised a procedural objection on the ordinance’s coverage: he said he would vote no unless the ordinance included city administration. Council members who voted for adoption said the text before them applied to elected officials and certain appointees; they noted the council could amend the ordinance later to add additional positions if it wished.

The vote followed a lengthy staff presentation comparing state and city reporting rules and clarifying that the city secretary and city attorney do not provide individualized legal advice on completing disclosure forms. Garner said that because his client is the city, disclosures brought to his attention that appear to violate the law must be referred for enforcement.

The motion to create a council‑appointed charter review commission — which would have named five citizen members with each council member selecting one appointee — failed for lack of a second.

The ordinance as adopted will be added to the city code as an amendment to Chapter 2 and becomes part of Conroe’s administrative rules; the city attorney said the council can instruct staff to draft amendments in the future to expand who must file disclosures.

Ending: With the ordinance adopted and the commission proposal defeated, council members and residents indicated debate could continue at future meetings if the council decides to expand disclosure requirements or revisit how charter review is conducted.