Travis County Commssioners Court
April 13, 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 15
15. Consider and take appropriate action on request to establish change fund in the amount of $175 for Travis County clients making co-payments for visits to county community care clinics. I did get an e-mail issue raised, john, that is whether current interlocal makes the city of Austin employees responsible for their actions, negligence, malfeasance, et cetera. Stated another way, if this $175 were to come up missing while in the charge of one of the -- of the city employees, who would be responsible? Would the city be responsible?
>> I -- I have not seen the interlocal on that issue. And I think marietta was just here and walked out. We can probably get her back down. She's probably listening to us right now.
>> that's a threshold question, isn't it?
>> I think we probably have another solution, if you are interested in hearing it while we are waiting.
>> let's hear it.
>> go ahead.
>>
>> after we consulted we decided there was probably a solution to this. That would be for me to designate someone to be responsible for this within my department and we also buy a bond for that employee. The bond would cover that loss, even though it's a minimum loss. Any employee wouldn't have a responsibility for there was a loss. Just for historical purposes, though, there's always been a change funds in the clinics, it was just funded by the city of Austin. It has been audited over the years, also. The -- the difference here that is we are using county general fund money to establish this change fund. Any recommendation would be for -- for you to approve the change fund [indiscernible] to approve the -- ... County employee designated by the executive manager.
>> what's the answer to the legal question about the contract? Was -- does the interlocal now provide that city employees will be responsible for monetary losses that may cause -- that they cause?
>> I really haven't had a chance to look at that. My recollection is that there's nothing specific in the interlocal. There's not much specific in that interlocal. I think since we are paying the city to provide these health services, there might be a way to -- to enforce something like that. But it would be pretty difficult and I -- I couldn't swear to that without doing a little research on it.
>> how much will $175 bond cost, $175?
>> I don't know. But I would guess it would not cost that much. It shouldn't. It wouldn't -- it would cost that much if you started having losses against it.
>> stephen are you already covered by a bond or let me rephrase that, is there anyone within your department already covered by a bond and therefore adding 175 to the limit isn't going to change much?
>> to my knowledge no one in his office is bonded. Generally it's elected officials that are bonded, you know, but you definitely have the authority to, you know, approve a bond for anybody who is handling cash or responsible for it.
>> on the theory that it doesn't make sense to spend $200 for your $175 issue, I move approval of the recommendation. Basically it's for stephen to designate a county person to be in charge of this fund right here.
>> yeah.
>> we would bond that person, if we can do so if a reasonable amount. $175 bond that costs $175 is in this motion deemed unreasonable.
>> yes.
>> we do the business with pretty much the same insurance company, I would think we should be able to get one for a very small cost.
>> okay.
>> and not -- not -- if you just report back to us. Discussion?
>> well, something's that -- that jumps out at me, you know, there are five community clinics.
>> yes.
>> all right. There are five of us. We are all bonded.
>> are you?
>> yes.
>> yeah, we are.
>> that's a possibility.
>> so --
>> we could do that.
>> that would be perfect.
>> so you have got --
>> I’m good for Pflugerville. [laughter]
>> I mean --
>> that would make sense to me.
>> that would be Gerald because [indiscernible] multiple multi-you know how the republicans are, we will take all five.
>> we can do that, too. [laughter]
>> second.
>> just tell you, the only real issue here at all is, you know, that somebody from -- it's county money, I know that it's a very small amount of money. But somebody from the county has to be responsible for that money. So that's the --
>> [indiscernible] will designate that person.
>> okay.
>> and I think that makes sense, somebody who interacts with clinic personnel, makes more sense than us -- I think -- let's see what the cost is, though.
>> yeah, if the cost is insignificant, I was just looking for a way -- [multiple voices]
>> may well be that we pay the additional cost anyway.
>> if there's -- [multiple voices]
>> you have to go against that bond, your bond will go up, so ...
>> I mean -- [multiple voices]
>> i'll designate an employee. The reason is because in some other areas we have been thinking about doing co-pays, so we could probably use the same person to cover that function if we go with that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thanks to the auditor's office for bringing this to our attention.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 PM