Travis County Commissioners Court
May 3, 2005
Item 32
32. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. (a please come forward.
>> I know that you have a lot to do, I知 only going to spend a minute or two with you. Thamg you for having us here, I知 a late replacement for judge wisser who had a -- has a lot more experience than me, being much older than I am.
>> that will get back to him.
>> he's been on the bench longer, also been with our bail bond board as you all know I think for many, many years. Or a representative on that board, he's more of an expert than I am in this area. But we are here on -- on house bill 2906, I believe it is.
>> yes.
>> and just -- we are opposed to it for many reasons. And we would like the Commissioners to join in that opposition. It's -- it's a bill that -- that amends the code of criminal procedure to eliminate the section of the code that allows judges to attach electronic monitoring as a condition of a personal reconnaissance bond. And it eliminates -- it eliminates that provision of the code. And amends the next section or next article to allow electronic monitoring as a condition of a surety bond. So the circumstances would be that an individual would have to make a surety bond in order to have electronic monitoring as a condition of his release. We see it as having no positive -- nobody has been able to demonstrate to me a positive reason for it other than to put more money in the pockets of surety bondsmen. It's -- it's kind of ironic that the same the legislature is debating a bill to give more discretion to judges on what to do with folks when they are released to the community on supervision on probation, that they are attempting to take away the discretion of the judges when it comes to pretrial release. So it makes no sense to me. I have discussed it carefully with judge wisser. He sees no positive reason for it. So we are definitely opposed to it and we believe that, you know, any time you reduce a judge's discretion, he's probably going to automatically be against it. But in addition we see it as a -- as potentially keeping our jails fuller than they already are because there are a lot of people that just quite frankly, I would release on a personal bond if the -- for instance, a lot of young offenders, fairly serious offenses, but they are at home but they are not getting quite enough supervision, we don't want them being out at night but we want them out working or going to school [noise] thought maybe I said something. This gives us an ability to release them when otherwise they would not be able to pay for a surety bondsman and they sit in jail.
>> representative haggerty is from where?
>> el paso. We can't quite figure out.
>> I was going to say does el paso have a situation like we do are they basically bail bondsmen person --
>> I知 going out on a limb, I think they are largely bail bonds, because I don't know. Not many places, sheriff.
>> we always joke where is the bad bail bondsman bill. It's arrived.
>> they don't take the surety bond from the attorney. [inaudible - no mic]
>> so I can only suggest that this was introduced by bail bond interests.
>> anybody else here on this item?
>> let me -- there's one other.
>> move that the county indicate its opposition.
>> second.
>> for the reasons stated.
>> the other provisions of the bill that I don't know what the sheriff's position, but it allow the sheriff to release people on electronic monitoring after they have been sentenced to a term in court in jail. In other words if I sentence someone to a year in jail, the sheriff could release him on an electronic monitor. Even though I sentenced him to jail without any further intervention by the judiciary, but the person would have to make the surety bond in order to be released on that.
>> this was just brought to my attention. I just read it. I haven't had time to talk to the sheriff or chief about this. But first blush I mean this is a logistics nightmare, we don't really want to have anything to do with it, we are opposed to it also.
>> can we get you all to work with staff on putting together an appropriate, short letter that the court can sign to -- to send to the appropriate members of the legislative delegation, to the bill sponsor, indicating the reasons for our opposition.
>> I will be happy to work with them, as will the folks with me here. Thank you very much.
>> any more discussion?
>> no questions, we will get out of your way.
>> fall in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> next?
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, dana debeauvoir, Travis County clerk. I知 here as a policyup to last week on -- as a follow up to last week on isaac's bill 3278. This is the bill in sections 5 and 6 at the end of the bill call for basically discontinuing the records management fund and the archive fund and bringing it back into the general fund. What the bill says is that if there is any excess, then it shall roll to the general fund. The problem with the wording is that it would be -- since we are already in a budget agreement process to form the plan for those documents, it could -- a Commissioners court could determine that in fact the project had been completed and take the money and on -- I知 particularly worried about the archive fee portion of it, which is section 6. Because it's -- the estimate that I have, the on progress that we are making, we are doing all of our work in house. There's -- there's very little that's going to be called for for any kind of expertise from the outside. That I知 -- that if the -- if the bill sunsets at seven years the way it's intended to right now, I will be half finished with restoring the oldest of our records. So I知 concerned that even the concept of excess is not even there. And that we so desperately need to take care of these records that simply cannot compete with the higher priorities that you deal with such as indigent health care, courts, all of the others. If that fund was created as a different pocket for that reason, it's hard to justify old records and -- against other [indiscernible] the cuc indicated that they are watching the bill, but taking no action at this time. It is still pending in committee, but I have heard that -- that the committee is potentially anticipating sending it to the consent calendar this Wednesday. So what we would like to do is ask you to help us stop this bill on the basis of -- of not only Travis County but all of the other counties who desperately need that money to restore 100 years worth of neglect in our older records. I guess I知 having a hard time figuring out why we wouldn't continue our collaborative relationship and let the counties that need this fight over it. What is cuc's rationale.
>> it's late in the season.
>> my job is -- as a county clerk is to also try to help my other county clerks.
>> sure.
>> and if one cookie crumbles, a lot of cookies crumble. So they need to see some strength and some protection in this. That's why I知 coming to you all. Not because we have a problem in deciding what to do with this money, but because the other counties need to also see that, you know, this is the right thing to do.
>> certainly.
>> what's the bill number on this one?
>> 3278, isit.
>> sections 5 and 6 need to be deleted and then we have no -- no interest in the remaining part of the bill. It can go if you -- if it needs to, that's fine. Just those two sections that were tacked on at the end of the bill that harm that effort.
>> procedural question for either chris or for bob. I mean, at this point in the session, in terms of somebody trying to get it back on to a different kind of a legislative track as opposed to it goes to local and consent, what are the options here in terms of kind of letting the process work with us as opposed to the process working against us, in which case we can kind of still continue to monitor, judge, not have a yes or a no, but we are helpful in terms of just the flat out time is --
>> we really need since -- let's take the assumption that the way the legislative process works that it will get voted out on Wednesday from committee and it will go to local and consent. From then on, it's to the house and now we're talking floor amendment and you know so it's got a greased path once it gets to local and consent. The only thing that will stop it is I need at least one no vote from the committee. That's where I could use your help. We are trying to convince someone on that committee to vote no or to vote to amend to strike sections 5 and 6.
>> who is on the committee?
>> it's chairman denny's committee elections. How it got put over in elections is another question, too.
>> I move that we oppose sections 5 and 6 of it.
>> i'll second that.
>> let me ask --
>> thank you.
>> our lobby team. Is there any potential liability of weighing in on an isit bill where there is something elsewhere we quite frankly don't need to make an enemy?
>> I think sit has already gone there related to revenue caps.
>> he would probably appreciate your endorsement of house bill 1006, to accommodate you on this. No, sir, I don't think so.
>> we are only asking for the last two sections of the bill. We make no representations for support to the rest of the bill.
>> I think dana what obviously somebody has abused something in somebody's mind which is the reason this thing has come about for somebody else. I still feel like you are not going to have a problem with us because you have a if working relationship with us, we understand what the fees are there for. I知 perplexed on why cuc --
>> the cuc tipped me off to it because it was sort of misplaced in the elections committee. I know they are watching it had an interest in it. I think that I other counties don't share your I think they don't share your need for that fund.
>> I think in the cuc it getting down to where are the best uses of resources, big issue that's we are related to cuc, revenue caps being just one of them.
>> I think we ought to pat on the back. I think we would feel better with a record [indiscernible] state-wide citing the situation in Travis County, suggesting that in other urban counties the situation is probably the same. Rather than just coming out and opposing anything and telling them specific section that's we don't like. I don't know that it would be fair for us to say that we are not spending 100% of this money for the intended purpose in our community. If you want to estimate in our view it would be 14 to 20 years before we get it done here, I think it would say that it would be more appropriate. It could be the sponsor doesn't really appreciate the situation state-wide. In el paso.
>> no, this is isett.
>> lubbock.
>> in lubbock it may be entirely different. Seems like urging him to coming up with a lubbock specific bill or something indicating you have to meet these minimum standards before you can even declare a surplus or excess funds, would be more appropriate. But there's a motion and a secondment any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner, Gomez in favor. Voting against show Commissioner Daugherty and yours truly. So because we have failed to meet the four required, for an official position, my recommendation now would be to put together a letter that sets forth the fact that I think would --
>> thank you, judge, I will second that.
>> I will do that. I wrote you a letter last week that talked about it locally. I will go back right now and craft one that talks about it from a state-wide perspective.
>> add that little bit to it.
>> we are one of the original land grant colonies of the state of Texas. We have some real issues here. Gerald, I don't think it's a matter that it's been abused around there. I think it's just like bail bondsman. Somebody is always looking for an angle to try to say hum I would huff that little pot o money. I don't think it's a matter bad faith in any particular county. Somebody is looking for an angle to say gee I would rather have that money.
>> have that money, yes.
>> we have got some responsibilities related to our heritage. Hello. Stephen f. Austin, where have I heard that name before.
>> we have Sam houston's will.
>> it may be a good idea to call the clerks in the other urban counties. They may feel the same way. It may be a small county issue to the extent that in -- any sort of narrow the need. I would think that may be posh to the bill's sponsor.
>> next.
>> do we need to make -- was that a part of the motion, judge?
>> just direction.
>> okay. Just making sure she had the ability to move on.
>> if -- I guess, john, if the letter is consistent with the -- that request, she will get that to us, I guess we could do a motion basically for the court to sign it. It basically is an informational specie that kits the -- piece that indicates the critical need for funding for these purposes into the future. Maybe stiffening the definition of excess funds, surplus funds.
>> special circumstances, judge, because I said we are one of those original land grant colonies, we have issues here perhaps they don't have in lubbock and other small counties, but maybe there's some special conditions related to certain historical aspects of our counties that could also kind of be thrown in there.
>> [indiscernible]
>> actual letter --
>> the motion is to do that and sign it. Send it to the appropriate legislators. Seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Seconded? Fall in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> yea, thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, david he is lla, I have been asked to update you on house bill by goodman. An omnibus bill dealing with tax collection, does a lot of cleanup work. Some things in the bill I think will actually help the county. I discussed this with you before that there was language that would if adopted take away the Commissioners court authority to -- their options to decide how to collect delinquent taxes, whether it be in house or only private outside legal counsel. After some negotiation in the past, the bill currently sits the sponsor was agreed and took out the offending language. But now we are from our resources we are getting strong signals that there are attempts by a particular firm to find someone who would amend the bill on the house floor. Right now it's out of committee in the house waiting to be scheduled -- it's in house calendars waiting to be scheduled and we are hearing signals that there is going to be an effort or there certainly seeking an effort to the house floor to amend it to put back in the offending language. I don't know whether to say that's true. None of that has been directly, all hearsay to me from the resources that you all have available. Coming back with the signs. It's come back to the remind me that the court never took action. Back then we didn't ask for action because we thought we could work with the sponsor. We still don't know if the sponsor would support that. We believe there is a fair chance there will be an effort. Also we are here to ask you if you consider the court to speak as one voice and pass resolution letter whatever that you would think appropriate that the court would be on record as opposing any effort to take away the Commissioners court's decision power on how they would decide that their continue quent tax question work is done. Delinquent.
>> [indiscernible] on the Commissioners court authority in any area.
>> well, on this particular one, I don't want there to be mixed signals. We are in the midst of a procurement process, moving along, it will be whatever it is. But I don't think we want to send mixed signals that because we do have a procurement process underway that somebody says well that's just not important to the Commissioners court about the ability to be able to have attorney's fees. It not just for Travis County. There are still some other governmental entities out there that collect their own taxes and do it separate and apart from some omnibus delinquent property tax firm. And I just think that in terms of a level playing field, that we would want to preserve that option even if at some point in the future we decide it is in Travis County's best interests to go another way. But if you take away that option, there is no other way and that is heavy handed is the nicest way that I will say related to the attempt to put that back in after we had a letter saying we would get assistance in getting it taken out and we did get it taken out.
>> you succeeded.
>> it's inappropriate for somebody to even talk about it might get thrown on as a floor amendment either on the house or senate.
>> these kind of rumors come up often. I think our lobbyists would say. Especially towards the end of the session. I知 not trying to cast aspersions on anyone, I don't want to go into the details unless you ask. But I think it does bring to light following what Commissioner Sonleitner has said is to put the county in the strongest position would be the county to say formally what they have said to me in the past. They have said in this courtroom that you would not be in favor of limiting your options.
>> I think cuc position is always that the county, county government does not give up any authority that it has.
>> second. There was a motion? Who is the bill's sponsor?
>> goodman.
>> from? From?
>> arlington.
>> the thing is here that this is the possibility in terms of a floor amendment because this has the germaneness of anything related to taxes that this could come up on any kind of a tax bill, which it may not be in the form of --
>> three vehicles.
>> right. There's also -- so I would hope that our motion would cover any vehicle that this amendment could wind up in, whether it's part of representative goodman's bill or some other attempt to attach this segment to some other germane source.
>> so I would say the appropriate motion is the Commissioners court being opposed to any change in law that would restrict their options to continue the current practice of in-house delinquent tax collection.
>> and the assessment of attorney's fees.
>> that's right.
>> but I thought the -- the intention is to leave that decision in the hand of Commissioners court?
>> that's absolutely, absolutely.
>> I do think there ought to be a letter that says that, if we want to expand it to any other matters, concerning Commissioners court's authority.
>> sure.
>> that makes sense to me, also.
>> all right.
>> I think we should --
>> was that part of the motion that you just stated?
>> no. Sort of clarifying the motion.
>> yeah, I mean because yeah.
>> to me it's the -- regardless of what other letters or actions that other people are taking, the cuc principle is that Commissioners court authority will not be challenged or diminished in any margin.
>> we -- in any manner.
>> if you send that letter out there, that resolution, we take it over to the legislature, they are like this could speak to a million things, what we are really talking about here --
>> whatever this bill covers I think -- what if we relate it to whatever this bill covers.
>> any other vehicle that it may be attached to.
>> sounds good.
>> basically we are saying we want this bill as currently amended to be considered and we oppose changes that would result in diminishment of --
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
>> authorizing a letter from the court that says that. Any further questions, comments?
>> no. To me it's -- it's in line with cuc principles.
>> absolutely.
>> somebody would draft that letter for us to sign later, late this afternoon.
>> working on it right now. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> anything further?
>> no, sir.
>> chris?
>> what's the name of that bill again?
>> 2233.
>> there's not much in the way of an update. The house bill got tagged with the second point of order, I believe, yesterday. So it's still pending on the house floor. The senate bill was left 1647 is the senate bill number. It was left pending in committee. Conference of urban counties had -- had drafted amendments presented those to senator staples' staff, the senate sponsor. I talked to cuc this morning, they had not heard anything back from the senator on that. We have no indication about whether those amendments or something the sponsor would be willing to add to the bill or not.
>> this is the bill that you met with the stakeholders on? Uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> did we get the records straightened out, tom? I know you guys had sent us a little love note about that in terms of the -- your check box.
>> I believe so. We testified it was on the bill.
>> okay.
>> make the change for you?
>> they agreed to, yes.
>> okay.
>> okay. Questions, comments about this matter? Thank you for the brief update. Anything else? What's the fate of that -- that 3,000 to 5,000 registered voters? Per precinct bill?
>> good question.
>> it's -- it's an amendment was drafted and senator jackson accepted that amendment to senate bill 1272. And we are hoping that it will come up on the senate floor right now today. They are meeting right now. The -- we had assistance from senator barrientos and then Commissioner Sonleitner and our county clerk dana debeauvoir were very active behind the scenes in trying to convince the -- it was the -- the senate democratic caucus that it put out the alert, raising some questions about the bill. And we contacted them and were able to work with them to get some lapping. But I want to -- some language. But I want to thank Commissioner Sonleitner and the county clerk for their efforts. And senator barrientos. So I think the bill is back on track, we are hoping it will come out of the senate today. There's a house bill waiting in committee, the elections committee in the house, where we can substitute this senate bill in. So I think we may get there.
>> okay. Do the other urban counties have as high of a percentage of voters voting early, participating in the early voting process, as we have in Travis County?
>> I think there were 8 or 9 counties that we identified on a chart for the legislature and I think 8 -- 8 or 9 of those, except for harris county, harris county is fairly close, but 8 of 9 of those counties, early voting exceeded election day voting.
>> okay. Seems to me that like early voting here takes place over about 12 days. We just have -- we can count on half the people voting early on election day, just the other half who really need to go to the polls, even if 100% of them voted.
>> judge, so much judge, that I think there was even interest in saying let's do away with election day. You know, and -- and let just have early voting. And -- and not have election.
>> we would still have election the same early voting locations kind of those regional.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... Language that you just couldn't send somebody to the hinterland, like telling the folks in lago, hi, you are not voting over in govalle. We couldn't manipulate the law to a bad end and we understood that in the -- so language came up which actually was pretty close to some language that was originally out there a couple sessions ago that never made it into a final version. We think we've got it point and at this point we just cross our fingers.
>> judge, you had also sent several letters to the naacp that I think were very helpful in pushing it along. We thank everybody for their involvement.
>> and senator barrientos direct us who we should be meeting with to meet concerns on.
>> that's for the update.
>> one item that I would like to maybe bring before the Commissioners court.
>> yes, sir.
>> it's h.b. 3363 sponsored by garnet coleman. This is all the e-mail that i've gotten into my office asking that the transportation committee -- the transportation committee headed by mike krusee have a hearing on h.b. 3363. They feel a hearing is very necessary, and I would like to entertain a motion to the fact that the Travis County Commissioners court, based on the requests from, as you saw the evidence, of persons requesting a hearing on h.b. 3363 before the transportation committee headed up by mike krusee so I make a motion to that effect that the hearing be held on h.b. 3363.
>> Commissioner, with all due respect, the court has already taken a stance on 3363, which is basically to monitor but to not take a particular stance on this. And I also have gotten those e-mails because I stay on that e-mail list, and a good chunk of those e-mails that came in are not from Travis County and they don't represent what's coming in from Travis County, and in fact don't even come close to originally what came in on our own toll road situation. I知 comfortable with where we're at right now and that is we continue to monitor it, but the court not take an official stance one way or the other.
>> of course, with that motion made to monitor, it did not have the advent of the issue of a hearing being conducted on that particular bill. So when we did say that we would just basically monitor it, there was no language or either e-mails suggesting at that time that this particular bill not be heard. This is recent. Approach to this house bill. At least have a hearing, and that's basically what they are requesting. So I知 responding to the e-mail requests that i've received and I guess all of you, I guess, have received it, I don't know, but to that effect. I just basically put it before us in the form of a motion.
>> the only information we had that -- for benefit of your constituents is the essence of that bill were submitted in two amendments on the house floor to senate bill 1. And so there was some discussion and consideration by the full house of the merits of that bill. , but the amendments were defeated on the house floor. I don't know if that helps at all, but at least they will know there was some consideration by the house.
>> and I guess my point, though, is that it was requested that a hearing be conducted before the transportation committee on this particular bill, and I知 responding and just basically acting in accord to go the thousands or I don't know how many this is, I haven't counted all of them, but I got a box full of requests on this particular item.
>> [inaudible].
>> it's on that coleman -- basically want it heard.
>> motion. Is there a second? Motion dies.
>> thank you.
>> anything else today regarding legislation? Move that we recess till 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Gomez away.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 10:33 AM