Travis County Commssioners Court
February 25, 2003
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.
Item 8
8 is to discuss with community supervision an corrects department, cscd, the decision to change from tiburon to corrections software corporation, csc, to implement a state required community supervision tracking system for case ng mment and resulting impact on Travis County and take appropriate action.
>> morning.
>> just to give the court kind of a status report as far as we see where we are today on this issue, my understanding is that cscd has decided for a new vendor for the case management system, which is the same vendor they are using to work with the financial cleanup, as you just discussed. Concerns have been expressed by other members of the steering committee that they have a need to access the probation system and that they need to have that information to -- [papers shuffling - audio interference] and information that we would like to look at. Once cscd removes off of tib Ron and makes this move, they would not be integrated back into the. [papers shuffling - audio interference] unless we contracted with tib Ron to provide that interface. And there would also be some programming from the csc vendor as well. The full integration cost -- [papers shuffling - audio interference] or the county to get the -- would be #- $62,000 from tib ron. 362,000. One thing that csc has indicated to get prefills back that may not be as important to them, but other county departments are still wishing to get this information, that one-way feedback from cscd back into the system would be $192,000. Both of these you are one-time costs?
>> can you repeat those figures again.
>> to integrate both ways would be 362,000. And to integrate one way, where the rest of the county would receive the information they would like to have from probation is 192. With either one of these cases, we could say that the cscd would remain integrated with ijs system. Without the interface, the clerk's office would have to reenter some data that would normally be predild coming from cscd back into the system. And then we've also have requests from other departments totaling about 119 people that say they need to have access to look at the cscd data. So without the integration dollars being spent, without the reintegration of the csc system back in, those are the issues that we'd have to deal with. I believe that john henley in the county attorney's office had drafted a draft agreement that was sent to the members of the court that basically would be the basis for an agreement between cscd and the county, which would outline that cscd would fund the integration costs and that we would also have an agreement as part of that, that we would define what kind of services that they would get back from its to service their e-mail system and their know vel network novell network that support the pc's that are installed over at cscd. That was the -- what was the item that's on the agenda as far as the court to look at that contract to see if you would want us to proceed in that direction.
>> judge perkins in a recent e-mail indicated that he thought the -- we could achieve one-way integration for significantly less than the 192,000 quote that I guess tiburon has given us.
>> there's some question about why that dollar amount is as high as it is. When you look at a case management system that cscd is planning on installing at like 200,000 for a whole year's worth of processing. The difference is that this is a fully integrated system. And tiburon is going to have to take some 14 different systems that are involved in the integration. And they put the integration into each one of these systems so that it would be from a foreign system that they have not had before. So it's not just one program or one system, they've got like 14 different systems to do it.
>> so if they turn off integration, we have to pay for that too?
>> there would be some charges for that as well.
>> don't it off, but -- turn it off, but try to leave it on, they charge us for that.
>> right.
>> well, I guess instead of -- we can't agree on the price, is the priets really that important or is the commitment to pay the cost integration at the appropriate time what we're shooting for? So if it costs 50,000 $50,000, so be it, but it could cost 225. But I assume we'd be able to achieve agreement on how to accomplish the integration when it's time to do that? We think we'll be able to do that?
>> I believe we can enter into discussions about it certainly. My directions were not to commit commit at this point to more than $250,000 for an integration package.
>> do we think that the diswrujz and cscd are willing to commit to achieve the one-way integration and have the cost paid for, whatever the cost is?
>> are you saying would cscd be willing to take on the cost for the integration? Is that the question?
>> I'm saying two things, one is integrate.
>> absolutely.
>> two, to pick up the cost.
>> we are certainly wanting to integrate with the county. And make available to everyone the information that is public information to the county and to the different departments. However, we are not willing at this point to commit to a cost -- taking on the cost for that integration. Available -- one of the alternatives would be to make available our new product to each of the offices that wants access to it. And that would -- there were 119 people who voiced an interest in looking into the window of probation, and we would certainly make that available. The other part about the clerk reentering data, I'm not sure about that. We haven't been in discussion about that part. But as far as letting the county look at all the information that they would normally need to look at, such as addresses, etcetera, we are absolutely wanting to integrate at that level. But taking on the cost at this point, judge, we're not willing to do.
>> are y'all willing to accomplish the integration yourself? That way you control the cost basically as long as it gets done.
>> well, I guess I don't know what all is involved in what you're presenting. We are -- we're willing to take on the cost of a new product, which was $200,000 to accomplish our goals and to pay for any integrations of the financial back that we had agreed before. But beyond that, we are in a situation where we're still not sure exactly what remains in our could havers for the -- coffers for the state or the county. We will have that shortly. In addition to that, the state of Texas has told us that we will have to return seven percent of our budget for this year, which actually amounts to about 14 percent for the last six months thf year. Of this year. So we're not sure. We can't commit to that kind of money at this point, judge.
>> okay. Commissioner?
>> given the 14 percent, can you all commit to the 192 that we're talking about today?
>> no, ma'am.
>> that's what I was getting to.
>> I think that was getting lost in all thf.
>> I was calling it 200,000, but yes, 192.
>> I can understand you not being prepared to pay for the cost of two-way integration at this point, which is substantially more expensive. But I need to get a fix and to hear it again. On the 192, which is the one-way cost of integration, are you saying that you cannot guarantee that cscd will pick up that entire cost?
>> right. And what that integration is about, it's for people to come and look in the windows of cscd and look at what we have, the information that we have, the data we have, addresses, who's the probation officer, etcetera. That's what that connection is about. And we are willing to let you look in the other window, which has the same data and the same information on our new system and make that available on the district clerk, to the district clerk, to county clerk, to the judges, etcetera. So as far as I'm concerned, it would be the same information and at no cost.
>> that piece is it's the prefill information. If you need feed it into the igs system, then that keeps the clerks have having to reespeciallyter that data.
>> oom I'm not familiar with how much they will have to enter in there. At this point I don't think they're reentering it back in.
>> so what can you tell this court about what you can commit to as far as a dollar amount? Because we are talking about entering into something that is going to cost $192,000 for the one-way is integration. If you're looking at cutbacks, what do you think is that gap and who do you think is going to pay for it?
>> I don't think there is a gap as far as we're concerned about giving the data back to the county for you to fewview integration. We're going to make that available to you at no cooft.
>> it's not about the data, it's about the money. If you cannot firmly commit to $192,000 for this cost of this one-way integration, who do you think is going to pick up the difference and how much of the difference do you think that might be? We can't enter into contracts without the auditor being able to certify where the money's coming from.
>> we're not talking about the money, we're talking about the case management right now.
>> no, actually, we're talking about the money. So who is going to pay for this 192.
>> she's not willing -- she's not able to commit today is what you're saying. Right. And if they can't commit they're saying the commissioners court needs to be here as a backup lien position here. I was left with the impression that it was going to be cscd that would handle the one-way integration. And they couldn't commit to the two-way, which is substantially more expensive. , but there has been zero discussion with this court, unless i've been mistaken, about the county once again wanting to potentially pick up five figures, six figures, whatever, in terms of the responsibility for getting this system up. And we need to know that number. We've locked down our budget as well. The state of Texas is not the only governmental entity that has a budget situation. We have locked down everything until April 1st ourselves. What's the gap? How much could be dumped upon Travis County that you either pay for it or it doesn't get done?
>> well, perhaps in the future we could give you a better idea if we have another month into this if you also can't commit to money before April. I can't commit to money right now, no. And I still -- as far as I can tell, what we're talking about is case management. I have not been talking about anything about financial connections. I'm talking about the --
>> I'm talking about finances. Who is going to pay for this? And certainly I don't think joe has offered on his side to say i'll cover the 192.
>> well, I still say you're going to get the data you want for nothing as far as I can see. At no cost whatsoever from csc. The data you need with having to be who's on probation, what their address is, who is their probation officer, those are the kinds of information that the different agencies need from probation. And we are willing to give you that at no cost.
>> and there's no disagreement there, donna. But in order to get the change order with tib Ron to be able to get this integration to occur so exactly as you just said --
>> to break the connection? It's going to cost $192,000.
>> that is the magic question. Who is committed at putting their name on a document saying we're responsible for that money and to pay for that no matter what? And I'm hearing y'all aren't. And we haven't been asked. Stuck ourselves in there as in the reserve position in the least.
>> I feel a little bit at a loss here because this is not the information that I had. My understanding was that the 192,000 was to connect us and to give you information, not to turn off tiburon.
>> that's a different discussion.
>> we were not aware of that cost at all. We had not been informed that there was a cost to disconnect.
>> why don't we do this then. You may help us to have in writing two things that relate to this one issue. One would be, I guess, what information we can access from csc at no cost to the county compared to what information we think we need, what the one-way integration would give us. The other thing would be what would it cost to turn off tiburon, and by turn off, we really mean without the one-way incident, right?
>> right.
>> what the cost would be of the -- the cost of the one way integration is 192,000. And if you're turning off 14 systems and tib ron's request is what will the turnoff cost?
>> we can get that.
>> so the one issue really is one-way integration or access. And these two pieces of information I think will help us determine that. So what is the second issue? You've made it clear you're not willing to commit financially today.
>> yes, sir.
>> what is the second issue about this?
>> that is that -- those are the two issues. That basically is whether or not we are going to integrate it or are we going to let them drop off altogether and have only an inquiry into that system. Only the inquiries do not satisfy the needs of the other members in terms of data actually being fed back into their system.
>> and what's the cost and who pays it?
>> right.
>> and not to put words in your mouth, but I'm getting the impression that this is something that the commissioners court need to discuss with the district judges.
>> yes.
>> I think what we would like direction on today is to be able to negotiate some sort of an agreement with cscd and come back to the court with that agreement.
>> joe, I'm about to suggest to the members of the court to work with you and cscd and the criminal district judges and with an eye towards reaching some sort of compromise between now and maybe March 11th. There is a draft contract that would set forts the understanding. This is just part of it. I'm hoping that we can take that draft contract, consider it during these negotiations, and on March 11 maybe come back with specifics that the commissioners court can consider taking action on. When will the criminal judges meet again?
>> I don't know, sir, but I can find out for you?
>> they meet once a month, don't they?
>> generally, I believe they do.
>> I believe the last meeting was like a week or two ago.
>> one other issue, back to the financial side there, I believe donna said that they had committed to taking care of the financial integration back into -- after they get the financials under control. And that there's also going to be an integration to need that -- feed that back through. And that's an issue that still hasn't been addressed and defined 100%.
>> I thought the condition was one-way integration.
>> that's the financial piece as opposed to the case management piece.
>> that 192 doesn't have anything to do with integrating any financial data whatsoever.
>> so is the second issue financial integration?
>> yes. That was part of the ornl concept. When cscd initially contracted with csc to do the financials, we indicated that there would be another cost come later that would have to bring that data back into the county.
>> [ inaudible ] just so you know and can be thinking about it, is one of the big issues there -- I don't want to speak for cscd, but I think that you feel that you committed to paying for integration of the financial system. To know what that cost invite now, it's not possible because there has to be some other things taken into consideration, one of which is going to be the collection of the fines and fees and who's going to do that. If cscd collects all of them, we have to look at a different type of system design than we do if the county had a central collections and they collected all of them. And I can tell you there's a third possibility, which tells you that you've got cscd collecting must not sometimes and collections collecting the money sometimes. That's going to be the most expensive integration piece because we will have to integrate several systems together and there's going to be a lot of back and forth between those two. And I think you could see where that would get to be the most expensive. So that is a decision that needs to be made.
>> that would also be more difficult to manage that you would have financials in two places.
>> and it would take longer that implement than. The rest. I want to make sure that the 200,000 is snt for the financial systems as all and that there will have to be decisions made as far as the collections of fines and fees that are going to impact the cost of interfaces between cscd's system and tib ron.
>> and that's a real legitimate concern as we look at both these systems, we think we should be competitive here, but again, if cscd should look at who they think are the best people to use as far as software is concerned, such as csc, however, we've made substantial investment into the tiburon system and to be sure that we have an integrated justice system whereby we've been able to address not only the court tracking financial end of that stuff, but also the fines and fees. And it appears to me -- I'm not really, really sure, but even if it was a cscd situation established, I want to know about the formatting, the data and then reentering this back into the integrated system for other folks to use. I'm really having some real strong thoughts about this. It appears that we have time lines, and I know we do as far as igs. We like for certain things to happen in a certain time frame using tiburon. I think there have been some good suggestions put on the table, but I'm really concerned about the fines and fees and the court ordered fines and fees are directed into the right direction and make sure that the database is within the database as far as how far we've come along with tiburon. And if we can't capture that information at this point, it appears that we're going backwards in my mind.
>> we can assure the court that we will collect everything that the court needs and that all the different departments needs need, everything, nothing he will.
>> but part of the problem being the past and this is why we're in the position where we are now, trying to find out where the fine and fees are that should come back into the county coffers as far as that's concerned. And that was in the real world and everything else. Somewhere along the lines somebody convinced that real world was the best thing to go along with. I wasn't here at that time, but I'm here now and I want to make sure that what we're doing is not going to send us backwards. We can revisit or reformat or redo where we are as far as tiburon is concerned in my mind is a step backwards. I understand that maybe coming out of the court systems before it even get to you guys or cscd in my opinion there should be an intercept where we can still collect that information and collect that data and ensure that that data is fed back into an integrated database which all the departments would be using, sheriff's department, the county clerk, csd and others, they would be using the integrated database or contribute cribting to it that would end upcoming out of the court system. That's where it really ties in. A segue into 18 and in my opinion, independence as far as the state requires thing that y'all must do as far as the reports are concerned, name, address, the offense, the probation officer, all that stuff, that's all well and good. But I do not want to see Travis County in my mind get into a program where we will not be able to capture the information that we necessarily need. Fines and fees is very important for us, court ordered fines and fees, but not only that, but the other information that the departments will be mit schmidting through data entry into that integrated database. We don't need to to it two or three times, just once. I'm going to be looking at this real cautiously. I'm not saying that you're in the making a step in the right direction, but I don't want to be drug into the cscd format and we've come this far with tib Ron to conflict the integrated systems. That's where I'm coming from. No offense or anything, but I'm letting you know that we've gone this trip -- down the road before with the real world and I don't want to revisit that.
>> I appreciate that. And I just want to comment that -- and I think the commissioner is aware that the cscd does look more like a state agency than a county agency. That is what is driving us to do that. We would not be doing this if it were not essential to do so. And we would like to do it as cautiously and accommodate the county as much as we can and give you all the information that you need as cheaply as we can. As inexpensively.
>> would two members of the court like to work on this?
>> I don't mind working on it, judge.
>> can I say one thing, judge? Let me make sure that I understand. I think I do. And donna, you weren't present at a little informal meeting that I gathered. That's not your fault. There were certain people that were asked because I was trying to get up to speed on this. It sounds to me like what really is happening and the choice here is that cscd is driven by complying with more of the state regulations. You all have some Marching orders that you all need to get done and complied to. In order for you all to do that, you all are of the opinion that csc is the system that you all need to use. Now, if you do that, that basically cuts the link between what the rest of the county needs or feels like and the number of people, 115 or whatever the number is, that have articulated that they would like to have the ability to be integrated with their computer. And that's not to say that you all can't say tell us what you want, we'll pull it together if we have to walk to your office or fax you something. Because that is in essence the only way that we really could get the information from you all not through the computer, right?
>> no, through the computer. We would make it available on your screen, absolutely, that you could look into our data in all the different offices. That is correct.
>> so you think you all could do that.
>> at no cost to the k.
>> with no cost to the county?
>> wow. I'm glad to be part of this committee.
>> that would be another system that you would have to get out of ijs and get into that system.
>> it would be on your desktop.
>> that's why we need to make the comparison. I have worked on this for the last three or four mon. I'm not sure it makes sense to me. I really think I need to keep working on it.
>> that would be fine.
>> but I still need -- they still need to put that together for us.
>> here's part of my problem. We kept saying today in terms of this will be providing to the county at no cost. What we are not acknowledging is that all of this has been at tremendous cost to Travis County when it shouldn't be v and donna, you weren't here for this and I acknowledge that. And I think it's extremely unfair that you are the one put in the spotlight today rather than the head of the department coming over and answering questions that really have to do with policy and financial commitments. We begged cscd about whether an integrated financial system was going to be needed and we were told no, it's not needed. We can handle everything. We will enter everything manually. Now all of this stuff all this time later has come back to haunt us. While this new thing is being offered at no cost to the county to the county this county has been stuck with tremendous amounts of monies that we have to reinvest because of very poor decisions that were made along the way and assurances made to this court that it would not cost this county any more money. It wasn't necessary. And I'm going to continue to set the record straight about what happened during all of those time periods that the department was begged, do you need it? No, we can handle it. And now we're having to pay for it. And again, we need to get this thing worked out. But the auditor's office has spent a tremendous amount of time and energy and money on this project. Joe har row lowe's staff has spent a tremendous pament of time and energy. And it would be extremely helpful to me that when these things come before the commissioners court, something clearly laid and ou and where this is oos this department going, how much will it take to implement and the resulting impact, that the department head ought to be here to answer the questions thf commissioners court.
>> I would have only one comment, and that is having been in the field of probation for some 20 years, I would say in the last five years the data requirements have become excessive, not excessive, but extensive. Each year. And so things that were so three years ago are not so now. And the state continues to ask us for data on a daily basis that we're not able to provide. So I would just make that comment.
>> it was bad all along, donna, and it just was never acknowledged as being a problem. It was like it's okay, we'll get along. Well, it didn' work that way, and it was a disaster the. And I would really like to see the department head come here and discuss items that have to do with this.
>> so do you want us to work on this? I've been to five or six meetings.
>> that's fine. I didn't know that you had been working with commissioner daugherty on this.
>> there is a possibility that we won't be able to reach agreement, and if we don't, the question is where do we go from there? But I do think that before we address this in a voting session again, we eight to have backup that clearly sets forth different options, unless there is agreement and hopefully a proposed contract for the court to look at. And I hope this is done in two weeks because you have either negotiated with csc or negotiated a contract. So on case management, they're in there. So the only question is where does that leave us in terms of some integration, what that is -- what costs are and who bears those. And then in addition to case management, mike, you're saying that financial services piece may as well be discussed at the same time?
>> that is an issue that it's going to have long-term and short-term cost effects on the county.
>> let's do that and get as much done as we can for the next couple of weeks.
>> back on the 11th, judge?
>> that's my thinking. So we will have a proposed agreement or all the issues set out. , and we'll be able to respond to them.
>> that's the best we can do.
>> if it's all right, we'll just indicate our intention to have this back on the court's agenda in two weeks.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM