Travis County Commssioners Court
April 29, 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 40
[One moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> they have graciously extended the deadline now through the mid part of June. The impact on travis --
>> comments or in line for what?
>> for application. Application for reimbursement?
>> yes.
>> that does not give us much time. To cut to the true impact to Travis County, in the numbers that I have been working with for the last few months, we have been hovering around 1500 individuals. We would have committed for potential eligibility. This new criteria would take that down to around 800 individuals. It has been broadened to indicate if they have ever been convicted of those crimes. The difficulty in that from my perspective is given the time frame that we have to work with. To find a state prison, that's pretty easy because I know you are not going to be in my prison unless you have been convicted, so it's a given for them. For us it's going to tell a lot -- entail a lot of research to see if we can get criminal history information, to see if those individuals were ever convicted somewhere other than Travis County to determine eligibility and provide that documentation for auditing purposes. That's going to be very labor and time intensive. My goal is to get as much of that as we can done prior to the deadline, but knowing that it has to get on court here and even though it's electronic submission, their system has been quirky through the years and I don't ever cut it to the last minute. So -- so my goal is I’m sitting on about 800 individuals right now who would be eligible. If we can expand that we would certainly like to do so.
>> may I ask a strange question. Is it possible to get a rocket docket because if we had a diagnosis position, they don't have to go -- disposition, we don't have to go hunting with the past. They have the present. If they are convicted then they count. Can we talk to our judges about rocket docketing these guys and getting a special docket and dispose of these, but deal with these 800 individuals over the next six weeks and see how many of them we can clear out of the system? Because they are also taking up a bed which we are extraordinarily interested in getting clearing especially if we are not going to get reimburse the because they are found not guilty.
>> two points probably on that. One I would certainly encourage that to happen, it would help me tremendously. However, the second point is the information that we are submitting is a year and a half old. They request information, we are covering the 2001 to 2002 time frame.
>> oh,.
>> I don't see this until sometime later. Not that that would not benefit news the future. But what we we have to apply for today given the federal funding guidelines always lag on far with the feds we were actually dealing with 2001-'02 information that we will be submitting here in '03.
>> the letter that I received which I assume went out to most of the county officials, suggested that we take two actions, one to contact the department of justice to request that the prior years -- that we contact our senator and representative and ask their assistance in contacting the department of justice to request that the prior year's definition of eligibility that included accused criminal illegal inmates be reinstated. They are acting like this was an agency determination, not congress. We get the letter from charles green.
>> I did not get that one.
>> my question, though, is should we do that? It's really foe us to contact the senators, representatives, for other urban counties that have been taking advantage of that program, a million a year for us, right?
>> we have brought inasmuch as -- the second is work through congress to fund the program in '04 in future years at $750 million or more annually. That seems to argue that not only should we focus on accused or convicted -- [ phone ringing ], what your definition was and the department changed it to convicted. [ phone ringing ] the problem with that is if you are in our jail six months, we finally convict you, in the past we have counted I guess the six months [ phone ringing ] and post conviction, also. This seems to say start day of conviction and move forward. No matter how long you and I [indiscernible] prior for conviction. Trying to get the old definition restored and trying to get funding appropriate I guess to pay out the whole deal. Which I think we ought to do. The other thing is in our hands. If they stick with the convicted only, it's incumbent upon us to try to get the convicted as soon as possible, especially if we think the offender is really guilty, right?
>> that would be correct. We have been inundated across the country dealing with the situation. Again a simple wording change that threw all of us into kind of disarray with it. The latest thing that I received which was on April 25th from the deputy director of the program for bureau of justice, deputy director [indiscernible], indicated again that it's a language they -- they say that -- again this was due to a routine legal review, that these definitions -- they seemed pretty steadfast on it. The point of -- of having senators discuss it I think is worthwhile. Certainly the point of actually restoring this program to full funding. This program was cut almost 50% by congress. In the last session. We are already dealing with a smaller pot of money in situations most states and municipalities kind themselves in. It's a lot more aggressive now than the early years when we did bring in those big dollars. Anything that helps us move forward would be beneficial.
>> okay.
>> this letter also starts with the premise that the protecting our borders is a federal responsibility. Which rest so nature's because that's what we are used to hearing.
>> all borders.
>> or just the south?
>> all borders. Seems to me we should try to pit fort an appropriate letter and send to it our two senators and representatives in central Texas, you know, trying to get the other counties to do the same thing and I do agree that I think that they will get a better response than we will complaining directly to the justice department. Don't you think?
>> I would agree given the response that's we have received so far.
>> would their office make that contact for us? Or --
>> make the draft letter.
>> draft the letter. [multiple voices]
>> make the draft, give it to us. Back on the court's agenda to -- for the court to approve it, for the whole court to sign it? Why don't we try to have a letter ready next week for the court to review, sign it and get it out.
>> okay.
>> we can do that.
>> okay. Let's do that then and take internally ourselves and we don't have time planning to do that.
>> we have the facts and history.
>> I think, too, in terms of being preactive, since we are dealing with this is something way, way in the past. Let us make a presumption for three seconds that we don't get a change in interpretation or the funding does not improve, we need to start thinking of strategies right now to make sure these folks get their day in court and get their justice quickly, either on the fed's tab or they are not, in which case they get to leave that bed and give it to somebody else.
>> appropriate for us to take action --
>> just as information as part of this, this is a reimbursement and the revenue that we have had certified in this has come in in mid year, has never been counted as our routine ongoing general fund revenue.
>> okay.
>> it's always --
>> been a kind of bonanza, we kind of expect it, although we don't ever certify, right.
>> we have certified it when it came in. Very useful last year, of course.
>> related to the sheriff's office situation.
>> personally --
>> the volatility of it is that we are sending a list of individuals and kind of to answer Commissioner Gomez's question of kind of the south border. We send people born in any foreign country who have claimed foreign place of birth, that information is sent to department of justice run through ins. It matters not whether that was mexico or moratania, but that information is sent, they screen it for legal status.
>> I can hardly wait until next week when we have an opportunity to look at this again. It will be back on the agenda. You will get that letter ready for the court's review.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:52 PM