Travis County Commssioners Court
July 15, 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 25
Number 25, we have to make a choice, that is to approve newspaper advertising to comply with Texas local government code, section 157.002-e to amend Travis County code, chapter 17, insurance fund, county employees to allow closed session appeals of health coverage. And I guess my question here is it's six of one, half dozen of the other for the Commissioners court. I would like to know whether cscd has a preference on that one.
>> well, judge, isn't that also to comply with hippa?
>> yeah, but I think the big question was cscd. It looks like we could do it for them this year or wait to do it next year. There are two ads prepared. We're supposed to choose the one. Why don't we just hold off on cscd until next year. If there's a reason to put them on this year, we'll take another action on it.
>> your motion?
>> that's what I'm thinking about. I thought barbara wilson may be headed down here. My motion then would be the action that allows us to address the cscd issue next year. But if there's a problem with that or compelling reasons that we should know about that now appears in the backup, if somebody would let us know this afternoon before we adjourn, we'll reconsider this one.
>> I second it.
>> any more discussion?
>> i'd like to kind of wait, though.
>> and we will wait on this one.
>> there she is.
>> we will not wait on this one. [ laughter ]
>> the first option that was originally put on for in relation to the open meetings act, when the court approves the rules to set up our health plan, the open meetings act required us to have our appeals of denial of benefits in an open meeting. And at the time the court expressed some preference that these not be in open session and we went to the legislature, got the amended to a closed session, so the assumption was that if you were to have those meetings in closed session. In order to do that because the way the rule was originally written, it warned people that they would have to go into open session because of the open meetings act, we will need to change the rule. In order to change the rule, the local government code requires us to advertise and to have a hearing. And so that was -- I assume that you would probably want to put those into closed session, so that was why it was put on the agenda initially. As I was writing out the add notice, I got to thinking and realized that in a year we would have to do another advertisement in order to change it again to accommodate the other law that was passed that will move cscd out of the health plan. And it really makes no difference whether you take cscd out now or later from the standpoint of timing. If you wanted to wait until next summer, that would be fine. If you don't want to have appeals committee hearings in closed session, you don't need to approve the advertisement at all and we don't need to amend, fwu it seems if you were going allow for closed sessions on the appeals of benefits denial then you could save yourself the cost of one advertisement by taking care of the cscd matter at the same time.
>> so we're authorizing closed session?
>> yes, we did.
>> it seems then we ought to do that. As for cscd, I guess I have a little uneasiness about what may happen between now and next summer. Do you understand what I'm saying?
>> do you want to give us some additional time?
>> I just wanted to give you the option to do both at once. I didn't really want to push one or the other of the issues.
>> then I'm okay with your motion. We can go ahead.
>> my motion was to delay action on cscd until further --
>> right.
>> but I didn't know whether there were compelling reasons why not.
>> it was a question of whether you wanted to get it done and not pay for a second advertisement, it was covered and we didn't need to remember next summer.
>> according to the legislature, the way the legislature has been written and the way the law is now, what we're doing actually fits into that support of dealing with the legislature.
>> uh-huh.
>> and we're not contradicting what's already been done and stuff like that, which is the case.
>> and actually, I was over at the legislature twice, once to the house and once to the senate, to answer questions primarily. And indicate the reasoning behind the sense of the exception to the open meetings act because you don't want people's medical records being discussed.
>> right.
>> I was wondering, cscd employees really are state employees that work in Travis County.
>> exactly.
>> virtually all of them. We have a few county employees that work there. That's the reason for the difference.
>> I second the motion again.
>> then I'm ready to vote.
>> a refreshed second and eagerness to proceed. Any more questions? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:52 AM