Navasota City Council reviews draft ethics and correspondence policy; clarifies constituent-meeting and records rules

Navasota City Council convened a work session to review a draft ethics and correspondence policy and to discuss practical rules for council–constituent communications. Staff circulated two draft documents and an AI-generated bulleted summary before the meeting; staff said they will refine the policy language and bring it back for council review, likely at a January meeting.

City Manager (Speaker 1) told the council the draft covers council relations with each other, with staff and with other boards, and includes a section on how to handle constituent correspondence. "You all are free and have an obligation to talk to your constituents," Speaker 1 said, adding that resident concerns should be routed through the city manager or appropriate staff so they can be evaluated and prioritized. "I work for you all, not the other way around," Speaker 1 said, explaining why staff should be copied on responses when a request leads to an assignment.

Councilmembers asked how to respond when a constituent requests to meet with two members. Speaker 4 asked whether two councilmembers may meet privately with a resident; Speaker 2 (city attorney) said two members do not automatically constitute a quorum but cautioned about "walking-quorum" risks — for example, successive conversations or chain emails that effectively involve a majority. "Two council members is not a quorum," Speaker 2 said, while urging members to avoid patterns of communication that could create an open-meetings violation.

The council discussed email practices and suggested avoiding "reply all" on potentially sensitive constituent communications. Members agreed it is often safer to ask constituents to meet separately with individual members rather than jointly when possible, to reduce the risk of creating a public-meeting scenario inadvertently.

Councilmembers also raised questions about digital communications and retention. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 said that text messages and emails that relate to city business may be subject to public-records law and retention schedules. Speaker 2 summarized the practical rule: councilmembers are a temporary custodian of records on their personal device until they turn them over to city staff. The attorney advised that screenshots or copies of relevant messages be provided to staff (Susie was mentioned as the recipient) so the member may then delete the personal copy if desired.

No motion or formal vote was taken on the draft policy during the work session. The council asked staff to prepare revised wording that clarifies correspondence procedures, CC practices and records-retention expectations, and to circulate the changes for review before the next meeting. The item was set to return at a later workshop for further consideration.