For the first time since 2014, Conroe voters will decide this November on 15 proposed charter amendments. If approved, the changes would update how Conroe operates, including how meetings are held and shifting the city to a council–city manager form of government.
City Administrator Gary Scott said via email that the process was guided by public input.
“Hopefully [citizens] will come out to vote,” Scott said. “For or against ... just vote.”
Proposition A would be the most structural change, replacing the city’s current council-city administrator model with a council–city manager model, creating a city manager position who’d oversee daily city operations, among other tasks.
Scott said that voters should weigh each amendment separately.
“Every proposition should be considered by the citizens of Conroe on the proposition’s own merit,” Scott said.
The full impact
When Conroe voters decide Nov. 4 whether to approve the 15 charter amendments to the city charter, it will be the first update since 2014. The changes range from procedural clarifications to a possible restructuring of city government.
Scott said the amendments aim to reflect Conroe’s growth and streamline efforts.
“Staff may be actively working on a project or issue, only to be diverted by ... council members pursuing their own priorities,” he said. “This can result in the disruption of day-to-day operations, as staff must shift focus to accommodate what one member deems most important at that moment.”
Proposition A would shift Conroe to a council–manager system, which Scott said “maintains accountability while promoting streamlined governance.”
“By contrast, the Council/Manager form of government offers a more efficient and effective approach,” he said.
Under the model, the city manager acts as chief executive officer, carrying out council’s policies and overseeing departments, while council sets policy.
If approved, amendments take effect once results are canvassed, Scott said. If some fail, council can consider them again in future elections, though state law already applies to some provisions.
Among the proposed amendments are changes to quorum rules, debt limits and recall petitions.
Proposition C addresses how many council members must be present to conduct city business. Currently, the charter counts the mayor toward a quorum, though the mayor mainly votes only to break ties. Scott said the change would eliminate confusion and ensure that “three council members—or two members and the mayor—cannot meet privately to deliberate city matters.”
Proposition O would limit the city’s ability to take on debt without voter approval. Scott said the goal is to “prevent some of the bad spending decisions made in the past,” giving residents a direct say on large financial commitments. Per the proposed amendment, exceptions are for necessary infrastructure costs.
Proposition K would alter how citizens can recall elected officials. The current charter requires signatures from 10% of registered voters. The amendment would raise that threshold to 15%, calculated from the last general city election, per the proposed charter amendment.
“The issues at stake go beyond routine government business,” council member David Hairel said. “They are decisions that will chart the city’s governance path for years to come.”
Conroe’s charter, first adopted in 1965, was last amended in 2014. Per the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, the city had about 56,207 residents. Today, Conroe’s population exceeds 110,000.
Since 1992, the only charter revision came in 2014, when voters approved four-year terms for council members and the municipal court judge. Unlike this year’s effort, that process did not involve town halls, Scott said.
In March, Mayor Duke Coon raised questions about the city’s definition of quorum. The issue prompted Coon to consult Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Council ultimately voted to let citizens decide.
To engage residents, the city held two town halls in July. After reviewing suggestions, the council advanced 15 amendments out of 17 to the November ballot during an Aug. 14 council meeting.
The two proposed amendments that did not reach the ballot would’ve changed rules around term lengths and limits, and where the mayor and council members could have physical offices.
“The citizens were very engaged in the process which was truly encouraging,” Scott said.
However, resident Tanya Maddux with Conroe, Vote No, a grassroots citizen group, said the town halls were “conducted in a way that limited public participation, with minimal notice and inconvenient scheduling.”
Community reaction has centered on how much power the amendments could shift inside city hall. Conroe, Vote No, opposes the entire slate of proposed amendments.
“If passed, these amendments would fundamentally restructure our ... government to be less responsive to its citizens,” Michelle Martin, resident and member of Conroe, Vote No, said.
Supporters, however, say the changes aim to modernize city operations and strengthen accountability.
“It’s time for Conroe to become more professional,” Resident Cherie Murphy said. “We need good governance to move the city forward.”
Kim Attaya, a Conroe resident and board member of the Conroe Industrial Development Corp., said while not every suggestion at the town halls made it onto the final ballot language, “this is how democracy works,” and that proposals were discussed before City Council finalized the list.
“We need to strengthen the code of ethics and financial disclosure rules to improve transparency and accountability,” Attaya said.
Both sides agree the amendments could shape how Conroe grows and governs in the years ahead.
Notable quotes
- "If you read down through all of these propositions, they just make good business sense. It’s time to update it—it’s time to be reasonable about it.” —Doug Frankhouser, Conroe resident
- “This isn’t modernization; it’s a deliberate reduction in citizen oversight.” —John Sellars, Conroe resident, member of Conroe, Vote No, board member of the Conroe Industrial Development Corp.
Election Day is Nov. 4. Early voting takes place Oct. 20–31. By law, canvassing must occur within 11 days of Election Day, and any approved amendments would take effect immediately unless a later date is specified within the amendment, Scott said.
If amendments fail, council could revisit them in future charter elections. However, if at least one passes, no additional charter election can be held for two years, per Article 11 of the Texas Constitution.
To get more information about the upcoming election, visit https://elections.mctx.org.
