The Conroe City Council on Thursday voted to adopt a resolution requiring councilmembers to be physically present for authorized executive sessions, following extended debate about attorney-client privilege, confidentiality and the consequences for members who participate remotely.

Councilwoman Shannon Arthur moved to approve the resolution, which the council's legal staff and outside counsel had recommended. Several councilmembers expressed support based on legal advice and concern that remote participation could increase the risk of inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications. Arthur said she supported the change "based on the unanimous recommendation from legal staff and engaged legal law firms" and described it as a "positive step forward."

Opponents argued the rule would disenfranchise members and their constituents when elected officials must travel for work or face medical or family obligations. John Sellers, a public commenter, said restricting remote attendance "is not about technology. It's about access" and warned the change could withhold counsel from an absent member. Councilman Wood said remote participation is an issue of accountability but warned that sudden exclusion leaves absent members unable to obtain legal briefings before votes.

Councilmembers described real-world examples during the debate: one member said they had joined executive session from a semi-skilled care unit where others could overhear the conversation; others said counsel and outside law firms had expressed discomfort with remote participation for executive matters. Some speakers suggested alternatives — moving executive sessions to evening hours, scheduling special sessions or increasing pre-meeting briefings — but those alternatives were not adopted at the meeting.

The final vote was taken after floor debate. The chair called for the ayes and nays; the motion passed and the council adopted the resolution requiring in-person attendance for authorized executive sessions.

Why it matters: Councilmembers said the policy change is intended to protect attorney-client privilege and the city's legal posture in ongoing litigation. Opponents said the rule risks disenfranchising voters if their elected representative cannot attend in person and that options exist to mitigate confidentiality risks without a blanket prohibition on remote participation.

Council direction and next steps: Several members said administrative staff and the city attorney should identify accommodations (special meetings or adjusted times) when a member genuinely cannot be present; others said the change is immediate and that staff will manage logistics or call special meetings in urgent situations.

Ending: The council adopted the in-person executive-session resolution and asked legal and administrative staff to manage accommodations and any necessary scheduling changes that preserve confidentiality while minimizing member disenfranchisement.