Travis County Commssioners Court
July 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 44
This morning we did indicate our intention to call up item number 44 this afternoon. We did get on item number 8 we did get a request from the judges not to consider that, but I told them we need to call it up to deal with some space items for two people already at the county and maybe some others in the budget, so we'll call up 8 after this one. But we've been asked not to deal with space in cjc until they've had an opportunity to talk with alicia. But 44, consider and take appropriate action on recommendations regarding the integration of community supervision and corrections department, cscd, with the Travis County integrated justice system, including, a, I want tkpwraeugs of cscd's case management system with ijs. B, integration of cscd's financial services with ijs. C, request to appoint a fines and fees task force, and d, proposal for a technology service level plan between cscd and Travis County. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners court. This item is one we have had a lot of assistance in working on. Basically cscd's decision the migrate to specialized software created the need to decide how cscds should be handled by the county. On behalf of judge Biscoe and Commissioner Daugherty we have worked to resolve this problem. As part of that, what we have done is a survey of the user community, which you will find in attachment 2. Basically attachment 2 shows the number of specific pre-fills. We asked for the user community to respond to in terms of the need for pre-fill options. At the same time, we went to the cscd side of the house and said which specific fields would you like to have access to if you had your preferences. After a lengthy process of evaluating those, we came to the conclusion that integration two way of the cscd case management software would maximize the needs of the user community while minimizing error and the cost of data entry across the justice system. In attachment 1, you will see --
>> excuse me. My attachment 2 tab, there's nothing there.
>> I'm sorry. Okay. Let me see if I have --
>> should be an attachment like this, Margaret.
>> should be two pages of blue, yellow.
>> guess what? I have two of them, no, no --
>> we definitely -- I apologize. This is a fairly lengthy item and it was done in many pieces.
>> we weren't trying to test Commissioner Gomez [inaudible].
>> no, no.
>> tell me again what attachment 2 is.
>> what we did is we went back to the original i.j.s. User preferences for field, and we went and we surveyed the justice community with respect to do you need access to these specific fields. Because that gives us a feel for how much time you would have to have across the justice system to reenter the data.
>> well, this is part of the original i.j.s. Users who were deciding what date take they needed.
>> -- data they needed.
>> yes, that's correct. And then we did the same sort of survey.
>> the cscd side and they were able to tell us, you know, we've looked at this and re-examined this issue and we really would prefer to have access to this. Based on these two surveys, and actually we had done a previous survey to determine how many concurrent users we have in the system, and I think we're all kind of surprised how many people we do have signed on to the justice system. We're recommending cost option 3, which you should have, hopefully, in attachment 1.
>> barbara, can I ask a quick question. I'm noticing there are quite a few columns that are blank. The sheriff had two blank columns. We also have two blank columns from the county attorney and certain areas the district and county clerk and our district attorneys here. What does that mean? Does that mean we don't need anything or does that mean we didn't bother to respond? I'm just trying to get a level of comfort that people have signed off in terms of what they respond understand this document as opposed to they ignored the request for information.
>> no. The sheriff's office responded. The reason they didn't put anything in this -- these data fields, I'm -- I'm not complete sure why we're not showing that. They certainly did to the first survey we did. In fact, the sheriff's office has probably the most and current users of any department.
>> that's why I was kerbd. -- concerned.
>> so I have to confess, I'm not clear why we left these data fields blank. But the survey shows, given the response of the other departments, that this integration is clearly cost justified based on data entry time alone. Basically we did a little calculation which showed that if you have as little as five minutes a day of duplicative entry over the justice system, you cost justify this cost in a year and a half.
>> and the other question I had was, was this data in the original survey information or was some of it missing from the original survey that was made before we got into the i.j.s.? Because we had asked all departments to be involved at the beginning.
>> yeah, all these data elements came out of the original i.j.s. Planning documents.
>> okay, so you pulled from the original -- okay.
>> we did not try and be creative.
>> no, I was just wondering if you were updating the i.j.s. Because there were some people who did not respond in the original i.j.s. That we gathered so that we would all be on the same page going in the same direction. That was the reason I asked.
>> for the district attorney's office, I can answer why we have a blank column in the second section.
>> thanks, vicky.
>> the first section, we have every data field noted because we need to be able to see tonight the i.d.v. The second section are pre-fills that people have asked for to bring down into their module. We don't need to have the data brought down into our module, we just need to look at that information on the i.d.b.
>> thank you, vicky.
>> we tried very carefully through this survey to evaluate all the cost options, and basically the justice community is recommending option 3, which of course is the most expensive option because it's two-way integration. We would propose to pay for this by $75,000 in savings from the i.t.s. Department. Cscd is here and can respond, but they've agreed to pay for their portion of the modifications we would need to make the two-way system work. And then the balance we're looking for from other sources. Before I take this any further, I think ronnie has some things that he would like to share with us about this.
>> well, thank you, barbara. Well, we're from the government. We're here to help you. Back on may 30th you all got a memo from ms. Skin their related to -- skinner that related to the bureau assistance -- to provide moneys to reimburse local jurisdictions for prosecuting and detaining federally referred cases. In other words, we get a case referred to us by the federal government, they will reimburse us or they will pay us money according to a certain scale for the money that was expended in that regard. And as a result of that, the short answer is that the d.a.'s office applied -- vicky skinner applied to the justice department for those moneys and as a result of that application process, we're going to get $185,000 of new money. And, you know, i've been talking for years about the need for an integrated justice system. Where everybody could talk to everybody online. How important that was for the safety of the community. How important it is that we all read from the same sheet of music. The cost has always been -- there's been two problems. One has been getting everybody to agree, and we've gotten cscd to agree to do its share of the integration costs. The next problem, of course, is everybody else's share, and we think that this $185,000 will go a long way toward paying for that. And so we would like to offer that. We thought about asking you for the money to apply that money to the d.a.'s office budget, and god knows we need it, but the truth of the matter is that the public needs this really worse than I think any individual department needs anything. So it is in that spirit that it seems especially appropriate that we use this particular money to support the integration of the data. Especially since in coming up with the information that we had to have to make this application, we had to search our files and the sheriff's office files. That we would not have been able to do had it not been for integrated database. So it seems to be particularly ironic and particularly fitting that we use this money to support the complete integration of the i.j.s.
>> thank you.
>> so it would be the 75 and the 815 that we would -- how we would get to the 254?
>> and cscd has agreed they would pay for their $48,927, so we wouldn't actually have to use --
>> the 75.
>> -- all of the 75 we've identified as cost savings.
>> we'll need 21,000 of that.
>> right.
>> let me ask a financial question in a different way from last week because I was kind of like going back through a few things. I think Commissioner Daugherty had asked the question, I didn't quite hear it the way I needed to hear it. It is my understanding that 1z, you are coming -- cscd, you are coming to the end of a by and ial, and you are allowed to carry over certain amount of money and what every is left goes back to the state of Texas. I think Commissioner Daugherty had asked the question you all got any money. Let me reask the question in a different way. Knowing you've got a few more weeks to go on your fiscal year of this biennium, and knowing that you are allowed to keep a rollover amount, what is the amount, if any, that you all might be leaving on the table that could -- that would be going back to the state of Texas unless another one-time project might be inserted there since those dollars that came to Travis County get spent in Travis County as opposed to going to the state of Texas where we will see them never more?
>> well, there's a formula that is applied to the money that we have left over. And a portion of it goes to the state, but a portion of it stays at the cscd. Approximately 60% of it stays at the cscd level. So that when we spend money, we also lose a portion of the money. So I want that to be clear. And I'm telling you, we historically have sent between $300,000 and $600,000 back to the state annually. But gone, we keep a portion of that. I cannot tell you exactly, but it will be somewhere in that range that we will send back to the state of Texas. But again, we get to keep 60%. It's a formula that's applied to the funds that are left over. And we budget that money back into our budget for the following biennium, and it's a two-year biennium. So I can't give you a specific number at this point in time.
>> is it possible for us to ask those who are wiser than I am in financial matters to be able to figure out what's the better offset in terms of if we have to go ahead and plug in general fund dollars to go and offset this, it may be that spending more of the money here locally, you actually come off better, at least our general fund comes off better than 60% of a slightly smaller number. It seems to me there ought to be a better analysis than simply, well, the more we spend, the less we get to carry over. Well, that's lovely from the state's pointed of view, but I really want to see what the analysis is from Travis County's point of view considering how much money Travis County has had to plug into this equation. And I'm largely thinking of the swat team that susan and mike wicker headed up going into cscd to try and fix that. That was all done on Travis County dollars. And I just want to hear a better analysis in terms of what's the cost benefits related to spending a little more up front and you get 60% of that rollover as opposed to well, we're just going to send a million back to the state of Texas and those were dollars allocated to Travis County for use within cscd that we are feeling comfortable about sending back. That may be the best situation. But I don't know that. So I'm just wanting others that are better at this stuff than I am related to analysis of cash flow of are we better off spending more money up front and you have a formula like 60% of that or are we better off not doing that. I want an answer.
>> well, I just have to tell you that the carry-forward we use is used to fund the salaries of our employees. So it's all in our budget for the next biennium. And that's already on its way to -- over to the capitol.
>> well, we're not at the end of the fiscal year yet, you all. From what I'm hearing, we don't have an analysis of are we better off --
>> and the only thing I would comment on is cscd has invested some money in the financial systems, you know, last year and this integration and the case management system that we are going to have for next year. I mean, we have an investment of over $400,000 that we didn't have before that we've made as well. So those are all new expenditures for us. We've had to upgrade hardware. We've spent nearly a half a million dollars on this project.
>> I just want to make sure that Commissioners court has the full information because when a question is asked do you have any money to put into the pot, the answer ought not to -- there is a yes and there is a no, but there's also an explanation in terms of it can be yes, but here are the implications, or it can be no and here are the implications. And it seems like the department is making a judgment as to what that answer ought to be as opposed to the Commissioners court being told it could be one or the other, but there are implications for the department if you decide to pull down more money up front. We've seen this before where we've asked do you have money and the answer is no, and the department has signed agreements with other companies to do things on their behalf and it was just basically no, they didn't want to spend that money on what we asked about as opposed to what they wanted to spend it on. So this is a cooperative venture here and I'm just making sure we have all the information and it needs to be shared so that we can have full knowledge of when we ask questions we know we're get the full answer and the implications.
>> the only thing I feel, it's kind of like the landfill issue. We need to kind of reach some decision and move on with this.
>> thank you.
>> I'm really comparing this to the landfill issue. [laughter]
>> we need to stop talking trash and move forward, you know. Can we move forward on this?
>> why not talking swimming pools? Let me ask, I mean obviously -- and I agree, Commissioner, that I think everybody would like to move on. I mean I know everybody would. Everybody that's getting drug through a mud hole in this deal. The ultimate goal here is really after all is said and done is the idea. That's really what the district attorney and all of us know that that ultimately is what we need to have.
>> I would agree with that, Commissioner. I would add one thing to that, the goal is enhanced public safety. And the vehicle to that enhanced public safety is the i.j.s.
>> that's right. And I didn't say that, but that's what I meant, and I know that's the reason you, ronnie, feel like that is the best tool we have have, the i.j.s. And I think everybody understands that. You know, it is fortunate -- thanks for applying for the grant because that stretch was really, you know, making us all very uncomfortable. And, you know, I wish that I had another two years of history in this thing because, boy, this is an ugly --
>> no, you don't.
>> well, I only say that because --
>> [multiple voices]
>> rick can fill me in.
>> the fun part is rewriting history.
>> but it's obvious to me that we need to get beyond the finger pointing. And I think the only way that we're going to do this is, you know, to move forward with this and to make sure that -- I think everybody has talked allowed enough about, you know, answer questions, be specific about this, be specific about that. But I for one am willing to say, okay, I think I get it enough to at least vote on it and to move it forward. So that's where I stand on this.
>> what we tried to do was get some indication of information that would be made available through facts. What cscd did provide and to the extent necessary what it would cost us to integrate them. So that the departments, whatever information was available in fax or c.s.c., The departments that needed the information regardless of source could through integration access the information.
>> that's correct.
>> that's what all of this is about. And that's what the --
>> that's why we're so specific with the [inaudible].
>> right. So we enter with a third system that really is integration or further integration.
>> that's true. I might add, this is not the first one. The first one really is the combined emergency center. Because we had -- we have it to run the c.a.d. System to go away and we use the new combined c.a.d. System and we are paying for integration for that system back into the i.j.s. As well. That was part of this project. It's not like this was an unknown thing, and it may happen again with another system.
>> but we'll try not to let it to.
>> there's no way to control it.
>> now, when we discussed the financial services piece, what was clear was that the issues are a whole lot more numerous and probably a little more complicated than imagined. And attached to the handout today, the third page, really is a listing of those issues. And what I suggested last week, and I think where the committee landed, was in addition to this, we ought to take another week where we basically set forth goals and we have the task force looking at how to accomplish them. And the goals that we kind of tossed about, in my view, were critical but pretty simple. And if -- for example, if the number one goal is for the clerk to leave court with some indication of the amount of fines and fees that the judge has just ordered, how do we get that done. And in my view, that question is not whether we should do it that way -- and I'm thinking the goals will set forth what we think we ought to do. Now, everybody that's looked at central collections has wondered why is it we don't get that information realtime, right? And if it has to be automated where somebody else is doing the collecting, we punch a button, in a matter of hours, not days or weeks. The task force ought to be looking at that. Otherwise I wonder about what they can get accomplished for us in 60 or 90 days. We don't want staff working [inaudible].
>> no.
>> we're looking where basically we can take this information, make it part of our real collections program and benefit from it.
>> judge, I think you are correct in terms of where we were in terms of this being a much smaller county. It's got to be long gone. Same thing with handling all the bookings coming into central booking. The idea somebody could do their probable cause reports whenever, we can't do that anymore, and I think we're going to have to get exactly where you just said in terms of as soon as it's set on the bench, somebody is in there logging this stuff straight on in there so that we can just start getting some of the stuff immediately out of these courtrooms the instant that it happens. Because that's the only way other pieces of this puzzle will ever work.
>> well, we're putting in the facts court system and the technology is there to do that kind of thing, so we need to take advantage of it.
>> need to do it.
>> with respect to items b and c, I think the auditor is here to answer questions. That's really the financial integration piece of this and I think she put on the table when we were discuss ing this a lot of process in financial issues, and I am not qualified to make statements about that.
>> before we -- you don't need me for this and I think we'll go back to work, but I just wanted to again point out that the efforts of vicky skinner in finding this information, making the application, bringing it to court, pursuing it and coming home with $185,000 worth of bacon.
>> that's great. Thank you. [applause]
>> it was all because of ideas.
>> thanks, vicky.
>> could we get the rest of the project going that fast?
>> really.
>> I'm really serious. I'm tired of dealing with this.
>> I didn't mean to get the jump on you on the issues. Mike did a good job of outlining some of the issues that --
>> I don't know, judge --
>> I don't need a lot.
>> what we need to do is we just don't want [inaudible] every issue needs to be tpoeufd in your backup -- identified in your backup, mike identified those issues. We don't want another painful process where things are not done correctly. In this decentralized organization, what's important is there are communication links. Those are identified, everyone knows the role and they do that. Whether it's the computer rised link or a manual communication, and the money has to be there to provide those communication links. And so I absolutely agree with the judge. I think we need to get some specific goals there. And one of the key things with integration is everyone has to do their job and they have to do it fast. Because if one party doesn't do their part and is not on the system, doesn't matter how integrated it is. What you need to do your job is not there.
>> I think the other thing we need to remember about these huge projects where we try to integrate everybody, it's not one size fits all. And I think that's what we started out with, and I remember in 1995 coming here and hearing this i.j.s. Proposal for the first time and we've been talking about it since then. But just great promises, you know, great hope was held out for this project. And we need to remember that one size does not fit all. And I think we learned too as we went along that everybody who is going to be involved needs to come to the meetings and sign on and be there to participate. Otherwise we have to keep going back and pulling information from the past. And I guess that's what's so annoying to me. And we waste a lot of time. Meantime, justice, you know, is delayed in the community and that's what ought to be our real focus here.
>> well, unfortunately the approach that you discussed was not taken with the financial and those that were here remember that painfully. And the truth is the decisions that were made then by all of the people except for our office on that task force could not be rekpaopd. It can't -- things that needed to be done cannot be done now. So now what we're trying to do is piecemeal. And a lot of dollars have been spent on that.
>> we should be able to recover, susan, when those parties are gone. This is a new day.
>> and I think the way that it's done is don't jump in again with plans that are not fully detailed. You know, what is going to be integrated. Who is responsible for the data. What is it going to cost. I mean we can't pretend those things are not there.
>> of course not.
>> and so that's why the financial part, I mean, you know, ronnie talked about justice. The fines and fees are part of that justice. But also, they are a part of a recouping of the cost of the justice system to the taxpayers. And I know you are all interested in that. So it's important for both of those. The other thing that's important is we have to prepare -- we, an annual report for issuing bonds and for taxpayers to know what we spent, and we need to have accurate data in terms of doing that. And it's -- you know, it's easier to get emotionally involved in the justice part and the accounting part is just not quite as interesting. People don't run to do the accounting part, but it is a critical part. And, you know, we didn't know -- I mean we now have c.s.c. Doing some and the tax office and we now have three different systems that need to be integrated. And the task force really needs to lay down what's going to be done, what those costs of integration and bring that in here and get it done. I mean I agree with that. Or what we will have is we will continue to be spending money on fixing up problems over and over again. Not interesting, it's not a good expenditure of money. And so our concern, because we're usually the ones that get to clean up a lot of these messes, is let's not repeat mistakes of the past. Let's do it right, which means taking a little time, thinking it out, getting everything written down, get a plan. If, you know, there's been a lot of talk about central collections. But the integration piece of that is not there. It will not integrate itself. So that needs to be thought out and it needs to -- and money needs to go out. So I mean that's --
>> I understand all those things.
>> yeah.
>> are we ready to move forward?
>> basically in b. And c., We're proposing a process to help resolve the questions that the auditor's office has laid on the table. And you will see that we pretty much put everybody on that task force so that it's an enterprise-wide solution. We feel like everybody will sit down and help us clearly state the problems and clearly resolve the issues that are associated with this. So it is our hope at the end of that process the Commissioners court will be able to make clear decisions about the financial integration piece and where you should land on central collections and what you should land on in terms of the appropriate number of people who should be involved in central collections.
>> is one of the questions you all will be asking, because it strus struck me when susan said that in terms of you got facts, you got csc and the tax office working off a different system. Is the answer three different systems that need to integrate or is the answer two systems that integrate between the three offices or is the only one that handles everybody's needs. I don't know the answer to that, but I'm just asking if that's one of the questions you all will be asking.
>> can we say amen at this point?
>> I'm just making sure I'm getting it.
>> one, two or three.
>> I don't think we know the answer. That's why we're proposing this as --
>> and there are obviously implications for joe's office just because of the support of one versus two versus three systems.
>> I think part of the task force effort will be scope out pros and cons of each one of those and let the business decision drive it.
>> thank you, joe. And others.
>> there's a list of issues that I think you have before you now which are really the accounting part of who is going to do what. It kind of goes along with what you were asking, Commissioner Sonleitner, as far as this doesn't take into account, doesn't force anybody to use one system or two systems or three systems. It's like lay out the process on how you are going to do this, who is going to do this piece, who is going to do this piece, who is going to do this piece. How is the information going to get there. Then once these issues need to be thought through, but there's sort of a list of a process, and for lack of a better word, i'll just call it a business plan, that says essentially now do these things, tell us, you know, what funds will be collected, you know, how much you think you are going to pull in doing this. Documentation cost estimates and time frames for any required system modifications and interfaces so that yes, even though you may have a plan for doing this and using whatever system, now show us what this is really going to cost and really going to do. Once somebody puts that together, you may say, well, wait a second, this is going to cost $2 million if we do it with three systems. If we do it this way it's going to cost a million dollars or half a million dollars and we can bring in this much more revenue, and then you've got, I would assume what you reallyment. If you are trying to decide whether to fund more money for central collections, for example, you would like to know what if total cost of that would be and what you think you are actually going to get for it. And also is the -- I mean the subject that's most near and dear to our hearts is going to be accounted for correctly and we're not going to be connelling back to you like -- coming back to you and say you need to spend some money to get this problem fixed. So hopefully we can lay out all the pieces to this and a decision can be made where you have all the facts. Farce farce. [one moment, please, for change in captioners] change
>> we'll be asking the court to support us similar to the way you did in y2k. We don't need to make more --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> on this one we have the taskforce members listed here. He did agree to help us. The county attorney, county clerk, tax office, its, Commissioners court, one representative from here. We probably ought to add debra hale, and I think the taskforce is in place. My recommendation is that we recommend this taskforce and ask these offices to appoint one person who can dedicate the necessary time and attention over the next 60 to 90 dez daze to get that done.
>> second.
>> any more discussion on that? > [inaudible - no mic].
>> I think the taskforce needs to talk with the jp's first. I think we need to discuss it with them.
>> if I could, judge, I think when we had this internal discussion about the process, we were hoping to do sort of this in phases and we would have the first phase, the cscd, the collections and fines and then we would look at the jp and figure how how they fit into the facts and all that. So we were looking that the as sort of a phased process because our most urgent, critical need, is to resolve the cscd central collections issue.
>> we just want to send a message that we haven't forgotten them and they are intended to be brought in.
>> my boss remind me that that's where all the money is about once a week.
>> easy money.
>> any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Let's issue that invitation to ms. Hale. My other motion, I guess, is going back to the first part of this, a, to accept the integration plan recommended by the committee, and that is option number 3. And the funding that's recommended also, that is to accept the da's commitment of the $185,000, cscd's 48,000 and the difference coming from available funds and its. Any more discussion of that? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Third motion would be for us to take the issues prepared by the auditor's office and have the committee work between now and next Tuesday and present a list of specific goals to pass on to the taskforce. Any more discussion of that motion? Favor? That passes by -- all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And we have not discussed d, right?
>> yes, that's the last piece. That's an its piece. Its worked diligently. When you look at the bulk of your packet, it's the its piece. Basically we wanted to not have this on the court's agenda, so this was our solution to try and avoid some future potential conflicts between the county and cscd with respect to having different software now.
>> basically we're going to put an agreement about how we'll operate on an day-to-day with cscd, outlining who was responsible for what and so we can avoid any future conflicts in that arena. That's what we tried to do here. We've given it to cscd, they've looked at it and we'll come back to the court with a final document that covers everything. Basically what we want to do do is ensure cscd that they will continue to get network support and support for the pc that the county buys and any pc's that are tied on to our network. And we have the ability to adopt all the security standards that may come up and whatever is required of the csc systems and to support our network security, that they'll agree to do those things. And then also to identify what we're not going do from an its standpoint. We're not going to be able to support that csc system from a day-to-day how did this work wore figure out this problem or that problem. They will need to get that from csc. That's outlined in here. And the ability to access the systems in order to do whatever we may need to do for security or whether it's to verify problems or whatever might occur in the network. It's a pretty lengthy document, but it covers a lot of things, including the telephones.
>> we have shared this document with cscd and they're reviewing it, but this I think we're recommending to the court to adopt it as a draft item and then after cscd signs off on it, we would bring it back to the court for your final approval.
>> you anticipate that cscd may have some changes?
>> I think -- I couldn't answer that question.
>> yes. We just wanted a little more time to go over it. I was going to meet with nick next week, and nothing sticks out, but a few little things we wanted to tweak in it, but it's a draft right now.
>> we're coming back next week, so we'll put both of them on?
>> do you feel like you could have it ready? I mean, we're ready to go. It's really kind of --
>> she's on vacation, so if I can meet with her. I'd like a little more time if you don't mind.
>> two weeks?
>> two peaks. That's fine. We'll have it back in two weeks. Next week we'll have the goals on.
>> okay.
>> anything further on this item?
>> no. Thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> I want to thank y'all. We appreciate the work of the committee.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:31 PM