Conroe reverses ban on virtual executive session attendance 11%

By Catherine Dominguez20%

7/13/2026, 5:52:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof, Anecdotal, and Unattributed Quote, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 393 faulty-reasoning hits from 331 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28% and a BS Rank of 11% (18,368 of 20,515 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.50% of the article peer group.

The Conroe City Council repealed a resolution last week and will now allow members to attend executive session virtually. 
The resolution passed 3-2 Thursday, with council members Shana Arthur and David Hairel voting against. 
LOOKING AHEAD: Montgomery County moves toward possible November vote on $250 million justice center 
Mayor Duke Coon, who reintroduced the issue to the council, said the city should not “police elected officials.” 
“Let’s stop the nonsense; let’s stop the grandstanding,” Coon said. 
“Have some faith in your elected officials.” 
Arthur asked how they could ensure that council members were in a location where they could keep city matters confidential. 
“I support keeping executive sessions in person,” Arthur said. 
“These meetings involve confidential legal, personal and litigation matters and I believe we should do everything possible to protect attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.” 
However, Councilman John Sellars fired back at Arthur, calling the issue “ludicrous.” 
“Why did this come about at all? 
That’s what I am not understanding,” Sellars said. 
BUDGET CONCERNS: Montgomery County commissioners balk at appraisal district merit raises in proposed $20M budget 
After saying at length that he opposed virtual attendance, Hairel said he was aware of confidentiality issues with previous council members but declined to provide specific details. 
In April 2025, the council passed a resolution barring members from attending virtually after former City Attorney Mike Garner raised concerns that discussions held in executive session under the attorney-client privilege might be overheard by others during virtual attendance. 
Garner said he had been made aware of occasions when information discussed during executive session had been overheard by people who were not council members, but did not provide additional details at that time. 
Arthur asked interim City Attorney Loren Smith with Houston-based Olson & Olson LLP, for advice on allowing members to attend virtually. 
“Each member has a fiduciary duty to those they represent, and it is their duty to make sure those violations do not happen,” Smith said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 2.3%Houston Chronicle: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 22.1%Catherine Dominguez: 8.4%Houston Chronicle: 2.5%Availability Heuristic22.1%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Catherine Dominguez: 2.9%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias8.2%This article: 2.1%Catherine Dominguez: 4.0%Houston Chronicle: 4.4%Framing Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.7%Catherine Dominguez: 2.1%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.1%Houston Chronicle: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.7%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Catherine Dominguez: 6.9%Houston Chronicle: 5.2%Negativity Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 2.2%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.4%Houston Chronicle: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.2%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.8%Houston Chronicle: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.3%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Catherine Dominguez: 1.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Ad Hominem3.6%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.6%Catherine Dominguez: 4.5%Houston Chronicle: 3.1%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.8%Houston Chronicle: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.6%Catherine Dominguez: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning7.6%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 2.6%Houston Chronicle: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.8%Houston Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.8%Catherine Dominguez: 4.2%Houston Chronicle: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion8.8%This article: 7.6%Catherine Dominguez: 0.6%Houston Chronicle: 0.6%Begging the Question7.6%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 2.6%Houston Chronicle: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 18.4%Catherine Dominguez: 1.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.5%Burden of Proof18.4%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.3%Catherine Dominguez: 4.2%Houston Chronicle: 2.0%Anecdotal10.3%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.5%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.3%Catherine Dominguez: 3.9%Houston Chronicle: 0.9%Unattributed Quote10.3%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 2.4%Houston Chronicle: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.0%Catherine Dominguez: 1.7%Houston Chronicle: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice3.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 4.6%Houston Chronicle: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Catherine Dominguez: 0.0%Houston Chronicle: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

331 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers73%attributed speech91writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageConroe City Council • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMayor Duke Coon • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMayor Duke Coon • 10 words • 100.0% coverageMayor Duke Coon • 7 words • 0.0% coverageShana Arthur • 20 words • 0.0% coverageShana Arthur • 9 words • 0.0% coverageShana Arthur • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Sellars • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Sellars • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Sellars • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Hairel • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageMike Garner • 34 words • 100.0% coverageShana Arthur • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLoren Smith • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Garner

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words14% of attributed speech43% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mike Garner: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.