Travis County Commissioners Court
October 11, 2005
Item 33
Item number 33 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, proposed amendments to the lease agreement between the Travis County hospital district and the board of regents of the university of Texas system for the use and benefit of the university of Texas medical branch at galveston for the operation of the Austin women's hospital. 33-b is a request from the Travis County hospital district to assist the district with the intergovernmental transfer pertaining to the medicaid upper payment limit program for fiscal year 2005. 33-c is proposed amendments to the Travis County hospital district's investment and collateral policies and procedures. And 33-d is proposed amendments to the Travis County hospital district's ethics policy. Morning.
>> good morning. Item 1 simply reflects the amendments to the agreement between the Travis County hospital district and utmb reflect the transfer of ownership of that asset from the city to the Travis County hospital district. There are no other significant change in terms in this agreement. It really reflects the legal transfer. Similarly last year you approved the interlocal with the city of Austin that reflected the change in ownership. Ms. Wilson is here to answer any legal questions regarding this amendment.
>> and who is ms. Wilson?
>> the assistant Travis County attorney.
>> hello ms. Wilson. Questions?
>> yeah, I had one question. It's just my continued participation in this process, and as you know, I have been continually abstaining on things that I have to abstain on because of my wife that's employed with the daughters of charity. And by doing that, looking at the particular categories, abc and also d, is it appropriate to abstain? I need to get that out publicly to abstain and I submitted an affidavit to the county clerk that I need to abstain on 33-d, is that correct?
>> yes.
>> judge, I would like to make sure when your motion is made that I will have to -- the discussion has fulfilled itself that I would like to abstain on 33-d of this process.
>> am I correct in assuming that a simple majority of those present is sufficient? Small though that number may be?
>> we were a little concerned that perhaps his vote, with just the two of you, if Commissioner Gomez is on the way, we may just wait for that last vote. [inaudible - no mic].
>> it may be necessary for you to wait a few minutes then. Commissioner Gomez is supposed to arrive shortly after 10:30.
>> we can wait, we can go through the other items, whatever is your --
>> I知 thinking that she may need to hear the other items. I thought that one was fairly straightforward. The others are a little bit more... Commissioner, you feel the same need to abstain on the other two items?
>> just on d.
>> that's the only one that involves them even indirectly.
>> so you don't need to abstain on a?
>> no. A, b and c, I think.
>> then I move approval of a.
>> second.
>> discussion? A is fairly routine. Basically this is something that in reality exists already. This is the legal documents that support it.
>> that is correct, sir.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B is a request from the Travis County hospital district to assist the district with the intergovernmental transfer pertaining to medicaid upper payment limit program for fiscal year 2005.
>> yes, sir. This is something that we've discussed before, and you have before you in your package the documents reflecting the research and all the checking that we've done to effect this request. Ms. Kimberly wilson from the county auditor's office is also here to clarify one item in the request, but basically this will allow the district to access additional funds that have been made available through the federal upper payment limit program. Without our assistance with this loan in essence, we would not be able to access the funds and make them available to the community.
>> so what is it that the county needs to do.
>> susan would like me to point out that from our point of view the intergovernmental transfer, this is not an intergovernmental transfer that requires a budget in reserve. That county attorney has given us an opinion that this is a loan and will be a balance sheet item. We will be lending them the money for a week and that's how we will be recording must not on our books.
>> so with that clarification, this is appropriate and makes sense to do it.
>> yes.
>> any legal issues of which we should be advised?
>> no, sir. The county attorney has issued an opinion saying that the county has the authority to make such a loan to a public entity, and consequently we believe the funds are available according to ms. Mays. The county auditor, both the external and internal, have also signed off on this. So we believe it's appropriate.
>> based on those reasons, I move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And c pertains to the district's investment and collateral policies and procedures.
>> yes. The amendments to the district's investment and collateral policies and procedures reflect several things. First of all, changes to the hospital that Travis County has adopted for the current year as well. We go through a similar annual review process that you do. Also it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of Travis County, the cash manager as well as the treasury function, and the role of the district administrator, myself and my staff. There were certain provisions in the policy that reflected our prior arrangements when the Travis County auditor's office was assisting us with our bookkeeping and financial statement preparation. That has been clarified. I値l ask ms. Wilson if I致e left anything out of significance.
>> the other thing that it does is it deletes the requirement for an investment advisory committee. We've worked with ms. Mays and we understand that that committee really isn't necessary any longer given the expertise of her office at this point. So consequently with her concurrence, we have deleted that particular provision from the investment policies.
>> anything else to which we should be advised? Ms. Mays, any ideas that you want to share with us?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> move approval of 33-c.
>> second.
>> for the record, ms. Mays from the audience said she was in full agreement with the recommendation. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. On the next one, do you want to postpone this until next week or wait until later today?
>> I知 happy to wait until the Commissioner arrives if that so pleases the court.
>> then I think we should wait. We will call up item 33-d later in today's meeting.
>> thank y'all.
let's call back up 33-d, and that will be to consider and take appropriate action on the following: we approved a, b and c. D is proposed amendments to the Travis County hospital district's ethics policy.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> I知 going to ask our Travis County attorney stacy wilson to describe the changes that are being proposed to the ethics policy. Ms. Wilson?
>> thank you. There are basically two types of changes that we are proposing to this policy. The first has to do with the definition of what is a discretionary contract under the policy. We've exclude or propose to exclude two types of contracts from the definition of a discretionary contract. One is an interlocal agreement with another governmental body, and the other is an agreement with any entity that would either operate a hospital on our behalf or provide inpatient services on our behalf. And the reason that we're proposing these changes, number one, as I understand it, the purpose of the ethics policy was to resolve revolving door issues with employees. We don't think that's present with interlocal agreements. We're just going to another governmental body. Number two for those entities that would operate a hospital on our behalf, number one, the pool is very limited on who we can select for that. Number tworks the contracts are already in place. They were assigned to us by operation of law and they're long-term contracts and not likely to change. We think having -- the other issue for us is timing. Currently the board is meeting twice a month. At some point they will go probably to meeting once a month. If we have to follow the ethics policy which requires us as you just saw from mr. Connally to lay out the exemption one meeting and then wait until the next meeting to vote on it, that will delay us by at least six weeks or so. The other change that's in conjunction with this is the definition of who a key contracting person is. And we've proposed two exemptions from that. One is a person who was first employed by a key contracting person prior to the creation of a district. Again werks don't think there's any of the evils at which -- the ethics policy is directed there. And the same is true for a board member whose spouse was employed by a key contracting person prior to the board members becoming appointed. Again, there's no revolving door issue, it just appears happens to be when the district was created and when the board member was appointed. That's the first gist of the changes. The second change has to do with section 015 which deals with the financial disclosure by the board members and the president and ceo. Currently it requires the board members who are volunteer appointees to -- and the president and ceo to file with the county clerk the same document that elected officials are required to file, which I知 sure you're all very familiar. What we're proposing to do is to substitute for that the conflict of interest affidavit that you currently have approved and require the county appointees to file. What we would suggest is that on an annual basis all nine appointees file that conflict of interest affidavit as well as the president and ceo with the county clerk. We think that really gets at probably what you're interested in, which is do you have conflicts? Are there things that have arisen since we appointed you that would cause us some problems. We're suggesting that that may be more appropriate than how many shares of ibm stock they own, for example, which is sml they would have to disclose on the personal financial disclosure form. Those are the things that we're asking the board to approve on their last board meeting on the sixth and I知 happy to answer any questions as I知 sure trish is as well.
>> questions? So the thing about the key contracting person change more than anything else is to protect relationships that existed before creation of the hospital district.
>> correct, or prior to the aappointment of a board member to the board.
>> or prior to the appointment of the board member to the board.
>> yes, sir.
>> which makes sense to me. In essence there's no way to avoid that, and it would be punitive I guess to apply the policy after the fact. That's what we're trying to avoid more than anything else.
>> yes, sir.
>> can we approve the first part first?
>> certainly.
>> I guess we would call it discretionary contracts and key person concerns? I move approval on those. Discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty and your truly voting in favor. Abstaining Commissioner Davis. Now, on the conflict of interest disclosure affidavit, let me make sure I understand the reason why this is the requested now.
>> it's basically because we think that the personal financial disclosure form is probably overly burdensome and I guess intrusive on volunteer appointees to the hospital district.
>> because it inquires about --
>> their personal financial holdings. For an elected official, that makes sense. For these volunteer appointees, we were thinking that it didn't make as much sense. So our suggestion was to have them file something, but that would be the conflict of interest affidavit that would disclose whether or not they had potential conflicts with the folks that the district do business with or would intend to do business with.
>> but the conflict of interest affidavit basically is the affiant certifying that a relationship does or does not exist.
>> that is correct.
>> and no specific information that may lead others to the conclusion that in fact a conflict does exist and is not provided, or is it?
>> it does provide for -- it is the affiant's disclosure, but so is the personal financial disclosure form. I don't think you need to disclose other than the ownership interest in leaseholdings and things like that, which seem to us to not be particularly relevant to -- what the public may be interested in concerning these particular board members.
>> other than the time it takes to complete the document, what are our other concerns about this?
>> well, it is intrusive in terms of what they hold and own as private citizens. And I understand that they are also now appointed officials, but that would be another concern. And we now thought that it didn't really get at the issue of what the board -- I知 sorry, the Commissioners court would be interested in or that the public might be interested in.
>> the request comes at a time when we seem to be fighting with some citizens, one about whether we ought to appoint non-elected officials to certain positions where they have a whole lot of power, but, quote, no accountability some are saying. And the other thing is that if you don't have a specific information there, it's almost impossible to make an objective determination as to whether a conflict exists. So in my heart of hearts, I macon clued that in fact I don't have a conflict whereas if I laid out specific financial information, others may objectively question that or we might before the appointment. So it's not so much, I guess, you're divulging that information after you were appointed, but to me it's us knowing that up front before the appointment is made, so we can kind of-- on the bond advisory committee, I count on my people to say if you're in this kind of business and you're looking for one of these projects, my guess is the Commissioners court will have a serious problem doing that just because it doesn't look right. There's the appearance of impropriety. Do we address that concern if we -- are we legally able to gather that information and keep it confidential?
>> probably not.
>> okay.
>> probably not.
>> you know, I guess if you're requiring this annual filing after the board member's been appointed, the question would be why. What are you seeking to gar er from that information once the board member has been appointed.
>> what if we just get that information before the appointment.
>> and that's fine.
>> one time.
>> you do get a conflict of interest affidavit prior to the appointment. If you wanted a personal financial disclosure statement prior to appointment, you could require that as part of the application process.
>> that's when it's most critical to me. Not only should we know, I think, but a whole lot of people if you call to their attention and there's this thing here, then they may well conclude that rather than let all that information go public, I壇 rather not serve on this board or committee. So I have an issue with getting rid of it completely, but if we could get that information before the appointment.
>> the way we could do that is it wouldn't be part of the ethics affidavit, but it would be part of the application process that the court has already approved. You remember ms. Fleming came and we made a presentation about what that appointment packet would look like. We can certainly upon the court's desire change the conflict of interest affidavit to the personal financial disclosure form if that's the court's preference, but it would still allow us to eliminate the requirement from the ethics policy, which is an annual filing.
>> as long as we take the two steps, I知 fine with it. What it means is that if you give the detailed financial information up front and that changes say dramatically later on in your financial disclosure affidavit, you would read that and reach conclusions and I guess the affidavit would reflect that.
>> well, if the individual were up for reappointment, then at that time the individual presumebly would be required to file an updated or amended affidavit, a personal financial disclosure.
>> why don't we adopt a requirement that says if your financial situation changes dramatically, and in a way that may conflict with any policies, rules, etcetera, of hospital district, you would call that to the attention of the chairman of the board. Do you see what I知 saying?
>> yes, sir. And would you make that part of the ethics policy or would you make that part of the application process, something that would occur at that point?
>> that I have in mind any time after the appointment, so it would be the ethics policy. So I知 thinking that there's a way to make it less intrusive. Less labor intensive, but at the same time put us in a position where a member of the board of managers would have a duty to call to our attention or the chair's attention certain things.
>> I understand. Yes.
>> I wonder if we don't have a duty to put ourselves in a position where at least we ought to find out about potential conflicts of interest. And on a whole lot of this, the harm is that we're way down the road when it's called to the court's attention and it's too late to do damage control, and sometimes a person affected as well as people doing the appointing, both of them sort of lose out.
>> and I guess if somebody files a conflict of interest -- I知 sorry, the personal financial disclosure after a dramatic change in their financial condition or something that may lead to a conflict of interest, that at least would be brought to the Commissioners court's attention, I guess is what your point is.
>> my thing is bring it to the attention of the chair of the board, but the Commissioners court would be better. I think if you bring it to the board's attention, everybody thinks it's all right, maybe we don't need to know about it. But if the board chair thinks it's serious enough to call to our attention, that would -- thaicialtiond -- that would be his prerogative to do that.
>> one clarification, the president and ceo would not -- does not file an application for appointment. So I guess maybe just a point of clarification in terms of how you would want to handle that with the appointed administrator. Because right now there's no -- under the current policy it would require annual financial disclosure, but if you change it to include the -- appoint the actual application process, it would exclude the president and ceo. So I would to bring that up so it's not forgotten.
>> although I would assume for your employment process, there was -- there were applications and there is a contract. And presumebly it could be part of -- I would think that the board could make a procedure by which it required the filing of the personal financial disclosure form prior to entering a contract with that individual.
>> for employment.
>> right.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I do think up front we ought to see the detailed financial information. If you have not served on one of these boards before, it's almost impossible to be able to do due diligence on your own. On your own data, your own financial stuff. You kind of need some help. Plus I think we have a duty to call to your attention how public this public service can really be. And so I think that we have a duty to try to ascertain that information up front. After that, though, then if we have in place something that places on the serving appointed official responsibility to continue to do due diligence, then I think we've done our part.
>> okay.
>> would you like to see this again? Would you like us to bring this back for your approval in terms of language?
>> I think I would. So my goal is to try to simplify it, but at the same time have in place measures that promote accountability, and I think we owe the public that.
>> yes, sir. We'll be happy to put this on the agenda next week and bring it back for your approval.
>> I知 doing all the talking, but is that okay? Okay.
>> and the other issue is of course our board doesn't know about this yet unless they're watching tv, so we would like to take it back to them as well. Our next meeting is scheduled for October 20th.
>> so ours is the 22nd. Should we have it back on the 22nd?
>> yes. That would be great.
>> or 25th.
>> 25th.
>> all right.
>> as a matter of record, I would like to -- on my abstention on the first vote on this, we've also given to the clerk a copy of the disclosure statement showing the relationship between my wife and daughters of charity. So I just want to update with that particular disclosure statement. It's already been turned into the clerk as a matter of recordment.
>> on the second part the revision is over just directions from the Commissioners court without objection. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all.
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, October 11, 2005 4:42 PM