Travis County Commissioners Court
May 29, 2007
Item 35
35 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to approve the district clerk's fy 2007 records management fund plan and budget.
>> hi, I'm michelle brinkman from the district clerk's office.
>> good morning.
>> we submitted the plan to you. This is in a way a rework of a previous plan that was placed on hold at the recommendation of the consultant from the national center for state courts who look at our dms system. We had planned on moving forward with the crimp nam namnal nal--criminal dms last ferrelly and he recommended we place that on hold until there were some issues with the civil dms resolved. We feel we are at a point to proceed. We consulted with the judges on the project and they felt we could proceed. We had conversations with the criminal district judges judges. One of the changes that we are going to make in iming the criminal system over what we did in the civil is we will be maintaining a dual system where we maintain paper fails as well as start preparing the electronic files of the court case. We believe that we have the resources staff websites staff--staffwise to do this because there are some large efficiencies to be gained by moving to the electronic system for our criminal records. One is in the preparation of the minutes of the court where we have configured the dms system to automate the process, and we will be able to now now automate the criminal minutes, that is a large staff saving. Also the preparation of the appeal record that goes to the third court of appeals is automated in the system. We will be able to take advantage of that automation automationlve we feel the additional work of scanning the document before we file it, the paper file, will be offset by these two savings. We have also enhanced the project with a module available from the dmv vendor called agency upload. We want to take advantage of this, as it allows any county department on the intranet system that we have who needs to file something with the court office, to electronically submit it so that they don't have to put it in paper form, give it to us and then we process the paper. This is a module that allows them to take their documents even electronic documents, and submit them directly into the dms system. I think this is going to be particularly valuable for the returns of service from the constable. That is the second largest type of document that we file in our civil system , that service return. This could be citations, could be subpoenas, could be just about anything. What this would do is allow them to submit it to us in electronic form and then they would take the paper that they would be using, normally to send to us, and it would go straight to our storage facility. So we would be maintaining the paper but it would go directly from the constable to the storage facility without them having to transport it to us. We also know that there's been legislation passed that will allow us to electronic issue process, most types of process. So our ability to do that, it eliminates the paper itself in getting it to the constable will be there all these things seem to be coming together quite nicely and we'd like to proceed with the enhanced project that includes both the criminal dms and agency up uploads. We have a budget of $80,000 for the project. The quote from the vendor for the two modules was $68 $68,000 and included a a contingency of 18 percent or $12,000.
>> the module itself, the module that we are looking at to hopefully help us get a better dms system, as far as input into that system, does it take in consideration the manual aspect where by you may have a manual document that still might be, let me put it, you have one department, one person that may be submitting a document in the field that needs to be inputted into the dms system through this module, is not consistent, no consistency as far as field location on the document. What type of, what do you do when there is not consistency in the document itself coming from several sources? I know there was a problem before when we looked at having inconsistency as far as form is concerned where you look for a field on a document and the information is not consistently looked at. How that is being look at ?
>> we have been looking at the constable and the portion that you are talking about there is what you call the return of service information, and have been working with them to try to develop some uniformity. But one of the other benefits to agency upload is that the types of information you are talking about would be entered by the constable who is submitting it, who would be familiar with that information. Therefore, even if it deviates from another constable's office they would be familiar with those of theirs. Our need to go look for that information would be minimiz minimized because it would be coming from the source of the document rather than from us at the receiving end.
>> okay. So I guess what I'm trying to get to, even though, what you are saying, even though there is inconsistency with the, from the constable's office, this particular module can digest this information and convert it into an operating document that can be recognized by the overall dms system. Is that what you are suggesting there is this thisthere--suggesting there sm.
>> I think that is a good way to say it. I think this compensates for the format what happens in the process of filing, you take certain information that you need coded into the sill. The system itself where it has coding structure is consistent. So by having some of this come from the constable's offices, then you will have the end result being that consistency when it codes the information.
>> let me ask this and then I'll shut up. Do all the constables, which I don't know, do all the constables have the same type of document where format does not become an issue as far as, let's say they need to write something in field one, is field one consistent, I'm just gig it a name, is field one consistent with the rest of the constable, in other words as far as the form itself is concerned, whatever they have to handwrite into that document itself. Is that pretty much, and if not why isn't it ?
>> in many of the document it is because they are using form that we generate.
>> okay.
>> where we get some in inconsistency is mostly on what you call the writs of exexecution and other special writs where they are required to provide a lot more information back to us as far as what they did to execute that writ. I think several of the constables each have their own return form for that. That is a small percentage of the documents that we usually receiving back from them.
>> okay. Minimal.
>> yes, it is.
>> okay. All right. Thank you for your answers.
>> we have $290,000, and you are requesting to use--
>> 80,000.
>> 80,000 of it. That is on page 2.
>> there is a bit of wiggle room there.
>> pbo stands behind this recommendation or pbo is leaving that to the court?
>> there is sufficient funding for this recommendation. We noticed on the memo that it did go to joe harlow. As long as there own i.t. Issues that has been worked on. There is a current allocated reserve for this budget. This amount if the Commissioners court reserves would take down the allocat allocated reserve to $231 $231,000. This they also have a budget request--
>> wait a minute. I thought the $80,000 was supposed to come from the dedicated fund.
>> this is allocated reserve.
>> this is not the big allocated reserve.
>> no.
>> don't shock me like that.
>> sorry about that. Using my shorthand. This is allocated reserve.
>> okay.
>> one-time cost basically, right? And then there is a budget request for fy '08 also that the districts have submitted for funding, another $88,000 $88,000. Last year, for this year, fy '07, there was $89,600 certified for fee revenue. So that is pretty much on ongoing. If it stays more or less in that range there is no problem about funding from this fund, which will be healthy.
>> the clerk seems to be sort of stuck on $80,000 for this program. Let's get him up in the 90 range. Move approval.
>> second.
>> yes, sir.
>> michelle, tell me, I'm reading on the strategy part on page 1, the district clerk strategy for use of funds is to allow about 80 percent of the revenue to accumulate for two to three years until it reaches a sufficient amount to fund a significant records manage management project. Up to 20 percent of these funds will be used each year to compensate key records management staff within the district clerb's office for their records and management duties. What does that mean exactly? I mean, are those dollars, are those functions that are being performed, are they above and beyond, are they after hours, are they, I mean, to me that kind of sounds like, you go on to the following page, then it starts asking for these additional requested dollars dollars. Explain to me, well, I guess answer that first question. Is someone receiving additional dollars for something they are doing within the eight or nine hours of our day that we work now, and how do you use 20 percent of that fund for staff? I mean for their duties ?
>> most of the money was used for primarily three employees who have records management duties, this one almost exclusively working with our technical system. Part of it was used to do the just am just--add just am for am--adjustment for the computer and i.t. Staff and we needed to come up with money to move them up so to speak. We decided to go above that just for purposes of retention. We have staff that we feel is very, very good and we are trying to remain competitive in the marketplace so we are moving them closer to, they are not at, but closer to midpoint in order to try to remain competitive and retain these people.
>> okay. I mean, I guess since I usually squawk about dollars that are collected, if you will, outside, given the fact this $10 was allowed through the legislature, and the build-up of this fund, that you would be able to selectively take 20 percent of that and use y'all's addition crest. If you are using that are-- are--to take care of green circle employees, that probably is a sellable deal of with you are using, since we can't use the word bonus, is that the word ?
>> I am not an attorney.
>> there is one of those word that you can't use in county government. But if that is what we are really doing with that 20 percent, then I am okay with that. But if this is something where you have the sum of money that you put off to the side and say, okay, your job pays you this and you do that within the eight or nine hours a day that you work, that is where would I have an issue. If you are telling me that that is not how that is used as bump for people beyond their salaries, just because we just happen to have that additional dough.
>> I would say it's more, again, in keeping with the compensation policy of the county. We are not funded in our general fund budget other than pretty much at the beginning of the pay range or the minimum. Perhaps certain positions they have been here a while, you have the cost of living adjustment. But if you want to be competitive, especially in the feel of tech, you usually have to hire above the minimum pay that the county pay scale offers dñm. Since we didn't have those funds available in our general fund budget for salaries, we looked to this particular pool of money to be able to achieve that and make sure that they are funded according to the skill set that they bring to the office based on education and experience and certification.
>> do you work with human resources ?
>> yes, sir.
>> that is not something you all do just autonomously out of the clerk's office.
>> we have a determination guide on every person and they review it to make sure the compensation does match the person's credentials.
>> does it go through the budget process also? A couple of years ago when they first requested this and we went through and reviewed and look at what they were trying to accomplish, and what it is, it's a transfer from this special fund, actually, not that. It's that these people have a certain portion of their pay paid out of this fund. And the regular paycheck comes in but most of it is general fund and a little bit is from this fund.
>> you guys sign off that.
>> yes, and it was part of first first records manage management plan and went through the budget process, I was the analyst at the time and we reviewed it sound reasonable. They were going to ask for those funds anyway and so, what is the best source of funding for that, and we try to shy away from the general fund when possible. And doing these records management duties that legally can be paid out of this fund.
>> so the $14,653 that records management staff is the pay supplement, does that come out of the 20 percent transfer out of this fund ?
>> yeah, it's not 20 percent but it's whatever.
>> up to 20.
>> yes. From that fund. Ongoing.
>> that is considerably less than 20 percent.
>> right.
>> if you consider 190,000 has been collected over the past three years.
>> right.
>> so 20 percent of 290,000, you know, that is roughly 30 000. So it's considerably less.
>> exactly. And they haven't made any request for more, more pay increases from this.
>> as the 20 percent was meant to be policy cap. Not meant to be necessarily that amount of money. We just chose a policy of how we are going to manage the fund to set that as a cap.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
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 30, 2007, 8:00 AM