Travis County Commssioners Court
December 9, 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
Eight is to consider and take appropriate action on the following requests from the Travis County health and human services and veterans services department. 8-a, authorize reimbursement of training and travel expenses for child protective services case workers working with abused and neglected children in Travis County. And 8-b is grant hhs authority, health and human services, authority to fund training for non--county employees who provide critical services to Travis County youth and families in wraparound initiatives and county child welfare and system of care programs. Morning.
>> good morning.
>> I'm laura atkins. And I want to introduce the folks that are with me here this morning. On my left is dieta douglas. She is a volunteer appointed by the court, is currently the chairperson for our child protective services board. To my right is ms. Dolores houston. She is a volunteer on our children's partnership board, and is a parent representative that's been participating in designing the building of our system of care. And Margaret salz is also the community volunteer on our children's partnership board and she's currently the board chairperson. I thought what I would try and do is briefly put the two requests in context in terms of why we're here today from the department's perspective, and then these folks can share their perspective on the particular requests with you. The first part of the request, part a, is actually a specific request for the court to entertain reimbursing five case workers who put forth their own funds to participate in a very specialized training that was held in dallas, the crimes against children training. And this request comes through a mutual child welfare program that the county has with the state Texas department of protective and regulatory services for serving children in the community that are abused and neglected. The nature of that program is that the state primarily funds supports and services for children that are abused and neglected, and for some time we have felt like the state funds to our community are insufficient to meet the need, so as county piece to augment the state funds. That consists of a contract with the state for 12 state cps case workers as well as we have a county employee program of county employees that pry in-home support services that are housed in the state building. The state pays for the overhead for them and for training and support. Then we have the direct service funds in act 5863 that the board, the child protective services board oversees on behalf of the court for specific requests that come up to augment what children need. And this is the kind of request that came up through the child welfare board. The cps board approved this request for five case workers to go to this training in dallas. It was a very specialized circumstance. And then the case workers went to the training and they paid out of their own pockets the cost associated with the hotel and with their mileage. And they did that on a good faith commitment from our department that they would be reimbursed for those expenses. And we represented that commitment to them because of a couple of things. One, because there's a line item for training in that budget, 5863, that's approved by the court. And the other reason is that we've done this in the past. There's a precedent where we have paid for state cps state workers to go to training, so we thought it was a legitimate expenditure. And on that request we're here today for y'all to consider that and hopefully to authorize reimbursement so those case workers can essentially get the money back they paid out in August. I guess two other things i'd tell you on that is the funds, the expenses in '03 and the funds were accrued from the '03 budget and are earmarked for that purpose. The other thing is the reason we don't put funds in the contract budget for the state employees for training specifically is we don't want the state to supplant their obligation for basic core training of their workers. And this is a specialized training that the board thought was important for the case workers to go to. The second part of the request and the motion --
>> can we go over the first part? I think we need to deal with that. I guess it had gone through the auditor and you would have just paid it, but because it's something -- if it met everything that needed to be done, it would have gone through the auditor and been paid and that was it, but obviously that hasn't happened, so I wanted to hear from the auditor as to what is going on.
>> the issue that we had was a policy one. And on August 15th someone from my office stated that we had a policy issue with did the Commissioners court inhe had tend to use county funds to train state employees. And so the department knew that we had an issue with that and our recommendation was that they take that to the Commissioners court immediately to clarify the policy so that we weren't in the situation we're in today, which is it's questionable whether you contemplated paying for those kind of things, and yet employees were in fact sent anyway and paid these things out of their own pocket. So I think there are really two issues. One is the policy issue. Are these the kind of expenditures that you contemplated out of training. And then, of course, whether you contemplate that in the future or not, how you want to handle this training that took place anyway. But we notified jose -- jose e-mailed all of you with backup and steven williams showing the conversations back and forth on e-mail saying that this wasn't handled appropriately and that we really wanted it to go to court for a policy direction on your part. These are the kind of things as we see coming through, it's not that they're illegal, but if we have a policy issue of whether we think this is what you intended, then we would like them to come back and get policy direction from the court. So that's really the issue, a, the policy direction was not taking its time and now we have employees who in fact have traveled and paid and then what you want to do in the future. So there are really two issues.
>> and I see a couple of problems. One is that when people pay out of their own pocket in county government, we have the purchasing department set in place and the act says that when you pay, then you cannot expect to be reimbursed. It has to be approved and the county will pay for it. And there's no such thing as being reimbursed according to the purchasing act. And so while I think that it makes sense that the state employees got training pertaining to our clients, there's still a process that we must follow in order to do these things the proper way. And it's not about being inflection I believe, it's about needing to follow the process that county government has to follow. And it's not that the county auditor is being inflexible or being picky, it's that those are the statutes that she has to follow in order to make county government work or be accountable to the public. So I have kind of given this some thought, and ieta as the chairperson, I really think you need to get together with the auditor and probably go through some of the processes that county government needs to follow to avoid any kind of problem areas in the future. And I would really recommend that to you.
>> Commissioner, if I could also just speak to that issue because in this particular case I would say the board -- the child protective services board followed the processes and the policies absolutely. And if there was any miscommunication that happened with the auditor's office, it was really with our department and the auditor's office, but the board approved the expenditure July 15th. The training wasn't until August 17th, so there was adequate time to fill out the paperwork and submit it properly.
>> that would -- [overlapping speakers].
>> make sure it gets there on time. The main thing is to just do some planning way ahead of time is to do the training that is required or utilized, have take place, but still it will avoid some -- just to prevent problems in the future.
>> and we definitely did not provide the adequate timing in terms of our processing or the paperwork that was necessary, but we did feel like we were communicating with the auditor's office a little earlier on than the 15th and had checked in with them the week before and had felt like we had gotten communication back from them that this was okay and we had done this in the past as long as stephen signs the paperwork for each individual person. And if they felt like they needed court clarification, and the timing for that for us we felt like put a halt on all the plans.
>> I think it's a lesson to be learned for the future. Someone needs to herd that paperwork all the way through. It happens with the jail overcrowding issue. It happens with most of our business that if someone doesn't herd that through, it sit on somebody's desk and time keeps ticking.
>> i'd like to make a comment. For the first time that I found out about this was the requisition in the system and it was just for registration. So when I questioned that, I said what is this for, they said it was for training. It wasn't until August 15th that I got a response from stephen williams' department saying that this was for out of county employees. It was August 15th when I first found out about this training. And that's when I started communicating to them about this training. So if they would communicate with our office, I have to nothing to say that they were, because August 15th I got involved with it and that was the first time I heard about this training from hhs. So if it would have been before that time, possibly there would have been more timing to take it and get it approved. There wasn't. You may have talked to the auditor's office, but I was the only one involved in this training. And as you see from the e-mails, it was August 15th when we started talking about the training?
>> they were leaving on August 17th, which was that Sunday.
>> and actually, our financial staff worked with gloria rios in your office. We see it differently in terms of the mission communication.
>> gloria got the form when I got it, when I requested them, that's when we got them.
>> so the training was one day?
>> the training was three days.
>> it started on the 17th through the 19th?
>> through the 19th.
>> yes, ma'am?
>> yes. On behalf of the Travis County child protective services board, Commissioner, I will definitely try to make sure that there's maybe a longer process. The board, as laura had indicated, approved this on good faith efforts that were based on the fact that we felt we could approve such funding based on the budget that we were given to approve from. And i'll let you know and assure you that when board looks at funding requests, we have a very diligent committee that looked at all of these requests. That committee has a treasurer and we also have a judge that sits on that committee and we looked at those very closely. When we looked at the expense we looked at that we had money in the budget and the fact that there was not enough funding from the state perspective to try to do that. And ultimately the ones who benefit from the training are the children. And we just felt that because at that time we had the monies, it was the best thing to do. And like laura explained to us, this training is a very different training than what they actually do on a normal basis. And our job or role, we felt, was to make sure that we looked after the children and the benefit they would get out of the training but we definitely will? look at your?i request and maybe set?r up some guidelines and meet with the auditor's office so we also as volunteer board members understand the process best.
>> let me understand the specialized aspect of the training. I've heard that several times. Help me understand that.
>> it's a training that's conducted by the dallas police department and the children's advocacy center and is specialized on best practice interventions. And the most recent practical training on what they consider to be best practices and both investigations as it relates to child protective services as well as for the case work practice in foster care.
>> a few more questions. So is this money in the board's budget or health and human services's budget?
>> health and human services budget.
>> it's the health and human services budget that is overseen by the children's protective services board on behalf of the court.
>> okay. So we budget the money to health and human services, but in fact, it was placed under the child welfare board.
>> correct. All the expenditures are approved by the board.
>> so there's a pending line item that is budgeted for child welfare, child welfare board and you looked at this training and concluded that, in fact, Travis County youth and families would benefit if state workers are trained.
>> right.
>> typically I guess we would first of all determine whether the state will provide the training.
>> yes.
>> we did that this time?
>> yes.
>> and the answer must have been no. The other question was should the county make this investment to give benefit to county residents to make that call. But the five employees, state employees were told by the board, and I guess county staff, you need this training, go get it, we think the county will be able to pay for it. And the auditor is saying y'all need clarification from the court before you expect to get paid. And unfortunately it looks like instead of July, a whole lot of communicating took place a few days before the training. And that's why we're here today.
>> the other thing also is that the cps has a state division, cps, and an accounting division cps. So I would think that any county training that would be budgeted that it would be the county. We saw it was being paid from the county division for cps.
>> I know it's confusing looking at it at a glance, but actually the -- it's an integrated program. The only way it would be in the state budget would be to put it in the state contract, the contract that we have with the state for the 12 employees. And if we do that we don't get to influence the funds -- what specific trainings they use it for and they can just supplant the core training that they need to be providing and are obligated to provide to state case workers. So the actual account, 5863, is inclusive of the funds for that contract for the state employees as well as these direct service fund for this program.
>> how much of these employees' time or workday is spent with Travis County residents? These five case workers.
>> 100%. They only work with Travis County children.
>> okay.
>> judge?
>> good morning, my name is jean murr and I'm the judge of the 98th district court. I want to clarify that I do not have a position as to how the process may have gotten botched with regard to the handling of the request and coming to the Commissioners court. Apparently there is some dispute about that and I'm not getting involved in that. I simply wanted the court to be aware that each -- the child welfare board, as you well know, is made up of your appointees. And this board --
>> outstanding citizens too.
>> that's right. And they do this because they chair so much. And we have worked a long time ago with judge mccouncil and the board to try to streamline processes. This is a small budget overall in the big picture of things that is to help to a certain extent with those payments that we do not seem to be able to get from the state to cover our children or the training or however we look at it. It's a partnership relationship. We have a lot of requests that come through that board and we rely on that particular board to identify whether they meet their criteria that we have worked so diligently to formulate as to whether it meets the opportunity to be paid. This board, and I promise you this much, is not in a position and should not be looking at taking anything that could be paid by the state funds. That's one thing we have worked hard to make sure never happens. We do not want county funds to supplant state authorized funds. And case workers have to have 40 hours a year. The state is mandated to give that to them. This is not to supplant this. This is a training over and above, but the state would not authorize this training because they have their own in-house training and their own requirement and that's where they're going to get their staff and they're not going to give them this other type of opportunity. That's why I think the board approved it. I would like an offer to work with the court and with the board and the auditor's office and health and human services to work on this as a more streamlined approach for all other matters. Because they authorize all kind of expenditures that sometimes the auditor perhaps has questions about. And we have not set up a good system to get a quick payment because any of these things are for immediate payment. They're things to get school stuff and clothing and immediate psychological. So I would offer to the court that opportunity to set up a better system for the communication lapses not to occur in the future if you so desire.
>> if we put aside the lack of advanced qualification by the Commissioners court, is there agreement that this training for these five case workers was important for Travis County youth and families?
>> I think that the board should answer that based on what they heard.
>> the answer to that, judge, is yes. We actually felt that this training would definitely benefit the children of Travis County. I myself am a product of the foster system and I'm sitting here before you today because of workers, which is the time -- they took the time and guided me the right way. I felt as a board chair when this item was about to be approved and there was no other way to approve it that this training would be ultimately beneficial to the children of Travis County. So the answer to that is yes.
>> I do agree with jose. It seems that advanced notification would have been better, but I also think that had they come to us in advance they would have approved it. We would have said the same thing. My view is we ought to go ahead and approve a. That we ought to postpone b until we have specific language to review. My suggestion would be that staff -- the second part of my motion, apparently, is that staff draft that language, get with judge murr and whatever other judges, work with the child welfare board, and then the child welfare board plug jose into it so when it comes back to us they're in general agreement on language that basically sets forth criteria under which we really ought to go ahead and provide and pay for training for state workers who provide credit sell services for Travis County youth and families.
>> and we can definitely do that, judge. I just wanted to point out that the second part of the motion is a little broader in terms of our looking to you all for some clarification about whether this department does have the discretion to authorize training for non-county employees in two circumstances, one being the child welfare program. The othe(hpart of that is? a request as it relates to our system of care effort and training on wraparound for families.
>> it will be as broad as the department can. So bring back a policy in two parts.
>> okay.
>> one dealing with the child welfare board and the other part that's more general. Assume that the court must be persuaded to branch out in this innovative, creative direction. How's that?
>> absolutely.
>> the first part of the motion is we go ahead and approve reimbursement of the costs incurred by the five case workers who went to dallas for the training. Do you second that?
>> I second all of that, but in addition it that I would just add that the chair please meet with the auditor's office to figure out how county government does its business. It's not opposed to helping children at all.
>> jose is a lot friendlier than he looks today.
>> we'd like a relationship with the cps board. Any matters with the cps board, we do have communication and we do work with the issue here, but other than that we've been working together on other issues, so it's not a matter of what it is. We have guidelines and everything. We've been working together on all these kinds of issues with cps, it's only this one that came about.
>> just have to communicate more.
>> yes.
>> so is it not the auditor's opinion, auditor's office opinion that this should be denied?
>> we don't have an opinion on the policy issue, Commissioner. What we want to do is make sure that the policy issue is in front of you and you make that decision. And if you think we ought to do that, then we have no problem paying it. When it doesn't come far enough in advance for us to look at, what happens is this unfortunate thing, is employees think they're going to get paid, they put out their money, they go on a trip with all the best intentions and they come back with everything else and want reimbursement and they don't get it. So it's important that departments take care of employees and vendors where issues that are questionable are handled enough in advance so that this doesn't happen, but we would not have -- we would not step into the policy part of this and interject what we think the policies ought. Our only position is this looked like a red flag, something not usual, and we've always stated to the department, take that to the court and let them decide. So we would not try to intervene in what we think our policy decision ought to be. We thought if there is a policy issue, it's a little bit different.
>> so what did the class cost for three days? Was there a sum price that these people -- it was a three-day class, right?
>> yes.
>> what was the cost of the three-day class? This is a 980-dollar, roughly, per person expenditure.
>> the cost of the class -- I don't have it broken down. It was $2,275 total for the five case workers.
>> all right. So in other words, $2,800 of this were expenses, were daily expenses?
>> the $2,600 were the cost of their hotel and the travel, the actual mileage to get there. And then the other half of it, the $2,275 was the cost of the registration fee.
>> it looks like for one of them registration was 455 per individual. It looks like the hotel for four nights was 320. And then there was per diem, four days per diem at $34 a day. And I can see how you add it up. If you start out with a 455 registration fee for the training, add in a hotel for four days, per diem four days --
>> that's correct, it was $455, the registration fee, per person for five people.
>> and plus the hoament and $34 a day per diem. County per diem is --
>> we have no problem with any of that. It was simply the policy issue. There was no problem.
>> obviously, y'all have gotten our attention out of it. I mean, this seemed to have been a deal that you assumed was going to happen, procedurally it didn't happen the way that it should have. And obviously we need to make a change with that, but if it's not something that the auditor --
>> so we at least make some attempt to get the state to do it and we got a negative response. If there's a determination by the board that this training is critical for serving Travis County youth and families, sort of checks like that before the determination that in fact county money ought to be used to provide training for state employees who provide services for Travis County residents.
>> we have that information.
>> right.
>> any more discussion?
>> I want to say one thing, judge. I'd like to, number one, thank the cps board. I think you're doing an outstanding job working with the community. I know stephen williams has been quite involved as executive director of hhs. I know we've embarked on something here that we really need to resolve. And again, I think the comments that judge meuer made and the motion that has been placed on the table before us this morning, I think it's really something we need to work hard toward. I guess, judge, my question, though, is when do you expect this to come back before us so we can look at this as far as policy directive and the criteria that's necessary to establish some type of guidelines for payment, not only this, but there are other issues probably as far as payment is concerned on other things. So when would you expect --
>> if we could get you to forego christmas this year, come back the week after christmas. Are we looking at about a month?
>> January sixth, that's no problem.
>> let's give you another week, say mid January.
>> mid January.
>> does that include the offer by judge meuer to help?
>> all the other payment -- this other payment issue.
>> sure does.
>> I think it's right to settle it once and for all, and let's not leave any doubt in the process.
>> do not bring any more training invoices to the court until after this policy is in place. [ laughter ] any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much. Y'all didn't say much, but you were eloquent.
>> actually, judge Biscoe, if I may, dolores and I came on item b. And after listening to the discussion as a consumer, I guess I was here a few months to go to thank you for your leadership on these children and family issues and giving families a voice. And I would just say Travis County, our board, the children's partnership board, which is made up of families and professionals, representing all the service agencies, we've had an opportunity the last six years because we got a federal grant, to develop systems of care for children and families in this county. And after listening to this discussion, I think more and more you're going to be faced with similar discussions, to change the policies that we currently have in the county because -- to allow the department to be more flexible. Dolores was here today as our family representative to talk about how the training has enabled her to be empowered. And to help mentor other families. I'm here as a community volunteer because we have seen the difference that this makes on the prevention end. And so we'll be back for part b, but I do want to tell you, I mean, it's important because this is not a black and white issue. Because the integration of the services, what we're trying to do now is integrate services based on what the family tells us they need. And it's not going to be, you know, one of those things where you -- it's cut and dried about how it's done. And paying for the training is not going beyond what the expectation of the county resources is, what it is is including family members to be trained so that they then can build that capacity in their own community. So that's all i'll say. I did get fired up listening to this discussion, so i'll be back. [ laughter ]
>> thank you very much for your hard work. Thank you.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 10, 2003 6:44 AM