Travis County Commssioners Court
September 30, 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 7
Number 7 is consider and take appropriate action regarding order setting elected officials salaries for f.y. '04.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> motion to approve the order contained in the backup, and that is consistent with actions taken to date. Right, christian?
>> that's correct.
>> any more discussion? That was seconded by Commissioner Daugherty.
>> I'm sorry, there's always Karen catching something at the last minute. We don't have -- we've got some things marked on attachment a that has a little number 6, and on the next page on the end notes to attachment a there is no number 6. And I think the one the sheriff is really 5 because 5 talks about assigning a vehicle to her. I'm sorry, I'm usually good at catching these little things. I don't know what the 6 is for the probate judge.
>> I believe that that is a remnant counselor from a prior order. Am I correct, barbara?
>> pulled it out?
>> I apologize that I did not -- I usually catch these.
>> they've got 6 down here three times.
>> let's get back to it later. We will get back to item number 7 at the appropriate time. Good observation.
>> >> >>
Let's go back and pick up number 7. 7 is consider and take appropriate action regarding order setting elected officials' salaries for f.y. '04.
>> and judge, she has done two different versions of this for us to talk about because one of them was not just a cleanup of that little getting our numbers straight, but had to do with taking off references to mileage reimbursement and certain elected officials not being able to assign themselves a county-owned vehicle and acknowledging that the sheriff specifically has a county-owned vehicle as part of her compensation package. That was left off the new revised version and I was asking her, I would like to see a version with wr it's back in because I think it calls back into question, we've had some issues in the past about certain elected officials assigning themselves vehicles. Not any of the five of us. And this makes it extraordinarily clear who gets to assign a vehicle to themselves, who does not, and it codifies a decision that was made, margo, how many years? Three, four years ago related that from the salary committee, the independent committee, that an asign vehicle was part of the sheriff's compensation package. I don't want to lose those as footnotes so barbara has done a separate version that keeps the notation about mileage and not assigning county-owned vehicles and specifically that the sheriff has a county-owned vehicle. And I think it just raises questions about people doing things that we put the notation in there to begin with because of some issues. And a million years ago, the Commissioners court actually were given not mileage, it was a car supplement. So that's kind of a leftover thing from there, but it is kind of like codifying, hi, you are not being paid for a vehicle, but you are allowed to claim mileage as appropriate.
>> your recommendation is approve the second --
>> is the second revised number 7 that has five footnotes.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you, ms. Wilson.
>> thank you, barbara.
>>. >> >>
We we call back up and consider 7.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> that passes by unanimous vote. We have a corrected document that contains new language, and the new language is, however the Commissioners court be allowed constables to assign themselves vehicles out of the take home vehicles policy if vehicles are available within those allocated to their offices. Is that the new language?
>> yes, sir, and this basically clarifies that while the sheriff's vehicle is a salary and benefits compensation item, number 4 is really an equipment usage item related to the constables, and we are allowing them under the take-home vehicle policies if indeed they've gotten a spare car within their allocation. Move approval of the final, final, final version.
>> substituted for the other order we approved, the other ordered being rescind aod that would be part of the --
>> motion and second. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Melissa, will you know which one we have done because we only sign that one. We had not signed. And if the county attorney is listening, I guess I should use the signature page on the other one.
>> right there.
>> is this the second copy?
>> you can use it.
Last Modified: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:52 PM