Travis County Commssioners Court
March 9, 2004
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 30
Number 30, barbara, I necessary 30 is consider and take appropriate action on letter to certain county departments requesting assistance with the implementation of the facts integrate justice system. This is kind of a remind tprer the court to various county departments that I was asked to consider and the more I considered it the more I concluded actually this letter should come from the Commissioners court. It basically is to say help us get facts up and after we get facts up, we may want to work on some of the other changes that we're being asked to consider. The problem is if you are working on changes, we don't get the basic system up. That's the thrust here so. This is really to sort of help joe and his people and the consultant more than anything else, but also to let the affected departments know that we're not putting you off, but we need to concentrate I guess primarily on getting the system up and running, then whatever changes we neat knead to implement, -- need to implement, they can consider.
>> basically in August there is an additional expense to the budget of $55,000 a year -- I mean a month, excuse me. If this system does not go up. This letter is based on a letter that the court did previously when you were doing the sheriff's baseline, and this is designed to be the same with the facts system. I think mr. Harlow can answer any additional questions. It does still give departments time to put forward any necessary changes. The June 1st deadline we hope will focus everybody's attention on, guys, get it done. And this is just a letter to sort of help reinforce that we need to get the baseline up on this project.
>> basically we need to get on facts and get off the other system because the 50,000 a month kicks in when?
>> well, we're paying 50,000 a month now for the unisys system. As soon as we get evebody over to facts, we'll discontinue the unisys.
>> and the 50,000 a month continues until we convert.
>> that's right.
>> this hopefully will just serve as a simple reminder, kind of courtesy reminder to department heads. But actually if we don't do something like this, we may be on the other system forever.
>> if we don't get off facts, we're going to be sitting there with both of these costs going at the same time.
>> you certainly don't want to face this cost in the '05 budget because you have enough challenges there as it is.
>> yeah, and 50,000 a month is a substantial amount of money.
>> yes, it is.
>> who exactly is this letter going to be going to?
>> I'm sorry?
>> who exactly is this letter intended to be targeted to?
>> well, basically anybody that -- that's going to be using facts, which will be both clerks' offices, judiciary and anybody else that's going to be using facts.
>> so they are kind of in the know in terms of link bow being used, et cetera.
>> right.
>> ily -- I will tell you I found the second paragraph to be beyond confusing and I have to wonder if it's even necessary. Read the first paragraph, and then see if you can go directly to the third paragraph. Because otherwise you kind of get lost in terms of what exactly are we asking folks to do here. And I also -- you know me and wordsmithing, in the first paragraph this will complete a significant investment of the taxpayers of Travis County. Because we really don't have dollars. We simply give lovely suggestions and approve a budget to do it, but this is truly an investment of the taxpayers of Travis County, period, ends of discussion. Our role is really irrelevant. [inaudible].
>> probably the key sentence is one that says let's don't make any more changes, let's keep on track with where we are.
>> but straight from it's a significant investment, boom, we are asking you start using it. And go from there. But I found the second paragraph to be confusing and getting us way off target as to where the letter is intended to head us.
>> we can work on that.
>> that's just me though.
>> and this was basically the same -- I saw the draft letter that was done, what was it, in 1999? I mean it's almost verbatim, you know, the same letter. So obviously, I mean here we are five years later sending it because you didn't start doing it five years ago, but, you know, we really do need -- I agree, joe, I think that important sentence in that second paragraph talks about we are requesting project manager and all user departments to freeze any changes of design.
>> we can bold that if you like.
>> if [indiscernible] better than five years ago that's fine with me. What about second paragraph? Leave it in or out?
>> it's your letter and we are happy to delete it.
>> it's not necessary.
>> let's take it out.
>> I would take it out.
>> the less words people have to read the better thanks they are going to read it.
>> like basically start using it, people.
>> do you want to get that sentence somewhere in the --
>> have we not already --
>> or is that -- [multiple voices]
>> at this state, right in the center of the second paragraph, judge, starting at this stage in the implementation, we are requesting -- maybe the rest of it already --
>> why don't we leave that in, take out the rest of it.
>> so you want us to put in requesting freeze --
>> I would say at this stage. That from there on is fine. Take out the first one, two, three sentences. So that the second paragraph starts with "at this stage."
>> okay.
>> any questions about this letter to reference to Commissioner Sonleitner? On behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> and we're hoping everyone will sign it.
>> yeah. The other thing, though, is that I think don't we have the directions on those three forms? I think at some point we have to say thank you and we're putting these in a stack of things to turn to after implementation. I mean I guess if I were handing one, I would like to think even if it's not being addressed immediately, it will be addressed as soon as possible.
>> would you like us to redraft this letter and put it on next week's agenda or do you want -- is it good enough to just bring it back to you?
>> I'm not that anal, you all.
>> okay. We want the court to be happy.
>> if the wordsmith is happy, I am too.
>> the wordsmithing we just suggested and a signature.
>> [inaudible].
>> let's let the whole court sign it.
>> okay.
>> isn't it all of a sudden very quiet in here? Did something go off?
>> it sounds like the air conditioning.
>> move approval. With the changes. We can get that this afternoon and get it to the court to sign, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> oh, well, yes, sir.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 9, 2004 6:57 PM