Travis County Commssioners Court
December 23, 2002
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.
Executive Session Items
The executive session items are next. 21, consider request from Travis County judges regarding workplace safety issues at 1622 east riverside drive. That would be the consultation with real property matters exception to the open meetings act. 22, discuss certain personnel issues regarding starflight staff, receive legal advice and take appropriate action. Personnel matters exception. 23 is to consider appeal of elbert walker, facilities management employee, of grievance panel decision of September 20, 2002, and take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney and the real property -- personnel matters exceptions to the open meetings act. We will discuss these matters in executive session and return to open court before taking any action.
>> judge, could I make a comment? The starflight matter [inaudible].
>> we announced at the the outset we would have to discuss with legal counsel on that.
>> [inaudible].
>> but we're also going on the personnel matters exception. We are aware of the request that mr. [inaudible]. > nawblg.
>> I'm saying we will discuss in executive session appropriate personnel matters and legal add -- get legal advice from counsel and return to open court and try to respond to his request. Part of what the law will tell us will tell us what that response is. Disub.
>> > we have just returned from executive session where we discussed the following items. 21, regarding workplace safety issues at 1622 east riverside drive.
>> judge, we have some additional information. [inaudible] budgeting issues. Jessica rio from planning and budget is on her way down as we speak. We briefly discussed this and she felt that there were only two sources available. One is allocated reserves for the move costs and lease costs and car reserves. She express thrd is a freeze on allocated reserves and there would need to be a separate agenda item to change that situation.
>> jessica?
>> I not sure if I need to add anything. I told pat I'm in the middle of doing end of the years. I have no further information this early on on what the department's end of year balances are so I rely on the department's savings at this point. It does not appear they do given our conversation and it would appear that some of these -- of the requests would be eligible for car funding and some of it would probably be more appropriate for allocated reserve. So it would probably be best for them to come back, have a review of what's appropriate for the car reserve, what's appropriate for the allocated reserve, and knowing that currently there is a freeze in place on the allocated reserve and there would need to be an exception to that.
>> is there something in between, jessica, an ear mark someplace, only because the department is not running out of money the third week of December. That would allow us to have some time as we go through and we may not even bump into the issue of the allocated having a freeze until April 1st because we could see where we are April 1st and see what savings or not have been in that department. But with the full intent we -- we intend to fund it, we just don't know.
>> I don't know very much about the issue, unfortunately, but that sounds like it could be something that could be looked at. Obviously the lease line item is currently not negative. It has sufficient funds to go through the end of the year for the items that are budgeted for that. That's one place that could be looked at to sort of bridge fund, if you will.
>> will you be at work late this week and the first part of next week?
>> me?
>> ms. Rio.
>> I'm leaving tomorrow and I won't be back, but I'm sure someone from our office will be.
>> we'll put this item on the agenda next week to have a follow-up discussion with p.b.o. About the funding possibility.
>> second.
>> move we authorize the county attorney's office to initiate an appropriate conversation with current landlord to let him know basically our considerations. Further I move we authorize ms. Heard to keep seeking an alternative location for us to move the csc employees currently at this location to another one to [inaudible] the reasons and the potential loss of substantial revenue for that's a three-part motion.
>> second.
>> judge, there was one other item I would like to discuss. When I was looking at these costs, this lease, as we discussed in executive session, what we're proposing is February 1st. This is an occupied space that does not become available until February 1st. I would strongly recommend adding one month lease cost, approximately $25,000, to the number I gave you earlier, in order to cover a time period of moving out of the old and into the new. There will be a short period of time where we'll have to be paying for both spaces.
>> except for holidays, that would be a full week to work on that. We'll have it on next Tuesday. The exact amount as well as funding options. Source of funding options.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor say aye. That passes by unanimous vote.
22, regarding starflight staff, we did receive legal advice to not have any discussion under the personnel exception there. I move that we basically preserve the status quo. I understand mr. Henley is working for steve baldwin and the name of the program is the emergency services --
>> pete baldwin.
>> and have this matter back on the agenda two weeks from today.
>> second.
>> that will be January 7th.
>> second.
>> seconded by commissioner Davis. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 3 regarding the grievance appeal of elbert walker.
>> yes, judge, I move that we oppose the appeal -- uphold the appeal filed by elbert walker and we overturn the grievance panel's decision of September 20th, 2002, and that we pay, repay, reinstate the pay that mr. Elbert walker lost in this particular grievance issue and all of the personnel matters need to be expunged from his personnel record in this particular grievance.
>> is there a second? That motion dies for lack of a second. I move we basically ratify the decision of the grievance panel.
>> second.
>> seconded by commissioner Gomez. Basically it's to uphold the panes decision. And my reason is that after hearing the evidence and reviewing if file on this matter, I did not find anything that led me to believe that they have erred. I believe the department could have done a better job of documenting reasons for action, especially allegations failure to properly respond to emergency call-in, but on the other hand, it seems to me that the response to the burg la alarm -- burglar alarm issue went unaddressed far too long by mr. Walker and others. If that was his responsibility, I think that justifies the action taken. Any more discussion with the motion?
>> judge, I won't be participating in this vote nor in the seconding of commissioner Davis' motion because I was in flight and did not hear the full discussion of this particular case.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Voting in favor of the motion show commissioners Gomez, daugherty and yours truly. Voting against show commissioner Davis. Abstaining for the stated reason, commissioner Sonleitner. There being no further business before the commissioners court move adjourn.
>> merry christmas everyone.
>> I second that if nobody else will. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM