Travis County Commissioners Court
August 17, 2004
Item 4
4 is next, that is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a. Proposal to create justice of the peace/attorney slots and justice of the peace/non-attorney slots on the elected official pay schedule; and b. Proposal to add justice of the peace/attorney to the judicial job family and to link those salaries to a percentage of the salary of a district judge. Did we ask about the legality of 4 a?
>> beg your pardon?
>> is 4 a legal? Can we do that? If --
>> 4 a.
>> I知 not sure I understand. There was no backup, no way to prepare for this.
>> considering the backup was turned into the judge's office, there's been backup for a week --
>> I had no backup, so I had no way to prepare. If you just tell me -- the question -- we are not creating a new job, we are just on a pay schedule wanting to distinguish between a justice of the peace who happens to be an attorney in terms of what they are paid versus a justice of the peace who is a non-attorney. In terms of the local government code the jobs are one in the same.
>> so your question is?
>> my question is can we legally do that? That would be the same as setting a j.p. Salary divided into two categories, wouldn't it? One for a j.p. Who is a lawyer, another for a j.p. Who is a non-attorney.
>> I see what you are saying.
>> when I saw it --
>> it's a good question, judge.
>> the way you set justice of the peace hours are just like any other -- j.p. Salaries are just like any other elected officials salaries. You could set five justice of the peaces all at different salaries if you choice, if there was a way to justify it. If the way that you want to distinguish that is based upon a doctor of juris prudence, yes, you could establish different salaries for the justice of the peace.
>> is that done anywhere in Texas, do we know?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> attorney, non-attorney, j.p. Slots.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> we need you all on the mic.
>> anyway, that's the question that I had.
>> certainly the intent here is to work within the context of whatever is legal, certainly if we are allowed to set j.p. Salaries, at different levels, then we could distinguish and have a footnote saying it's different because these folks are in the attorney category and these folks are not. So -- so can we handle this footnote.
>> I am surprised that you wouldn't see that somewhere else in the state.
>> uh-huh.
>> do the non-attorney j.p.'s get less work than the attorney j.p.'s.
>> I think they are mostly in the rural counties.
>> I mean here in Travis County would that matter or would it matter, would their workload be the same no matter who the j.p. Is.
>> yes, workload would be the same.
>> their ability to do it in a fashion that you can do with the skills of being an attorney would be different.
>> I would like one week on a, the rationale behind it.
>> the only question that I have but if you are not an attorney and j.p., Can you ever be a judge.
>> no, you can't go up. That's part of the problem.
>> that was the thought here really the heart and soul of this is to get j.p.'s who happen to be attorneys, I知 going to say away from slots, titles. Et cetera. The concept is simple. To get our j.p.'s who happen to have the legal expertise and skills and degrees, to get them put into the judicial job family so that when we make consideration about what somebody outing to be paid, that they be looked at -- ought to be paid, that they be looked at as an official member of the judicial family as opposed to they are just another elected official on the pay scale and it's almost secondary to the job. At this point I will turn it over to judge goodwin.
>> before you go there, let me ask this question: the model that we use where we looked at the comparable salaries, the salaries that have been depicted from other counties, justice of the peace salaries, is there any indication when that [indiscernible] has been brought forth to us, that the particular j.p.'s in other counties, which of course some are making higher than you, in Travis County, then there are some that make less than you in Travis County, within those salaries, have there been any study, any aspect of it to see if -- if they were non-law attorneys or that had attorneys, would these salaries depicted on that? Do we have any idea?
>> yes, sir, I have a lot of ideas on that. And it comes from teaching judge school. There are 524 I believe j.p.'s around the state. You have them ranging anywhere from a part-time j.p. Who makes $12,000 a year, and holds court once a month. And has a few cases. To harris county where a judge has 43 staff members and, you know, the paperwork just flows like crazy. Then you have them all in between. But you can count the number of lawyer attorneys basically on two or three hands.
>> really.
>> we are five of them.
>> really?
>> okay.
>> yes, sir. You are really -- even in harris county they are not all attorneys.
>> that's the question -- that was the point that I was trying to -- I really wanted to see what the big picture is. I think Travis County is very fortunate to have five j.p.'s here that have -- that are attorneys.
>> yes.
>> lawyers. I mean I think we are very fortunate. However, in the big picture in the scheme of things, you are making less than j.p.'s in the state of Texas and other counties that do not have are not attorneys.
>> yes, sir, that's true.
>> I mean if you can count them on a handful that's very significant in the 254 counties that we have in the state of Texas. Of course the j.p.s of course vary, everyone is not the same. Five, more than that, some less, whatever. But the point is that the requirement of having a -- of attorneys being an attorney and a lawyer apparently doesn't have much depth if there is not the practice of persons [indiscernible] in the state of Texas.
>> there is a lot of discussion about that. Just as over the years you have seen the abolition bills for the constables float through the legislature, all of that kind of stuff. Each one of these counties in Texas has its own characteristics, just like within Travis County we all have precincts with their own characteristics. So you hear discussions now and I was involved last week in some of them, I will be representing Travis County and the state justice of the peace and constables association on the take a break, Texas association of counties policy analysis group. There was discussion in that group last week about some of these problems that you have when a part-time j.p. Who is a real judge and wears a robe, can have cases ranging under any area of the law that's not completely given to a district court under jurisdictional segments like divorces and that sort of thing. The very broad range of -- of cases that you have to hear, all the knowledge of all of the rules of civil procedure, the rules of criminal procedures, the rules of evidence just, you know, if you were to go over to the district court and then just sit there for a manuscript and say -- minute and say judge benbry could be hearing the same case as long as she doesn't give them over 5,000, you try to extrapolate that to a county out in the middle of west Texas where they have got one or two of those cases, you know, a month, they can't afford to pay somebody in county government in those circumstances where the population is not significant enough to have a full-time court. But then you kind of come up the scale where you are -- we are sort of in the middle. We are not harris county, we are not dallas county. With the huge numbers of -- of the -- what we call paper cases. You know my staff is processing cases as I知 sitting here in front of you. And so -- so my revenues are significant. Part of that is because of the work that they do. They also a -- there's also a very significant part of my work that has to do with sitting on the bench, hearing trials, just like every other judge. We are sort of in this unique position right now for Travis County. We are at the crossroads where a major decision has to be made by this court as to whether you want to open more j.p. Offices and that's coming occupy a different work -- up on a different work session, you all know that. The only way we can do this is to either pull on the talents that we have and make them significant courts and rely on the talents of those judges with the benefits and rewards that go with that, push that system forward with a little relief help or we can look at keeping the system the way it is and saying, you know, oh, it's just the j.p. Court and then you are going to have to have four or five of them at about 2 million bucks a pop.
>> the reason Travis County is in that unique position is because the community went through an incredible process in 1974 when a j.p. Position was up in precinct 4 and the question there was whether we would elect someone to j.p. Who was not an attorney, really nice guy, but there was another nice guy who was running who was an attorney. Every other precinct in Travis County had attorneys. And so the question came up, was precinct 4 going to have an attorney or not. And -- and the decision was made and since then we've had attorneys except an exception here and there. But that j.p. Went on to be district judge bob perkins. But I think that the uniqueness of Travis County is set by the community. And so that's what the community has -- has done since then. And so I -- I really think that -- that I want to keep Travis County unique in this -- in this -- in the j.p. System. But then I think that we have to be fair and we have to pay people again for the job, the competent job that they do. For me, as I said before, the measure for me for someone doing a competent job is to not have any lawsuits from the public. And I think that that's the case here as well.
>> speaking of -- of paying people, in 4 b we have several options before us. Is somebody prepared to lay those out so we can deliberate on them?
>> I am happy to take a shot at that. Like I said, I知 going to stay away from the idea that there's anything, a slot or not. I think the advice that I am giving it this can easily be handled with a footnote explanation as to why somebody is being offered this salary or not. What you have got under the top part of, this is on the memo that Margaret and I put together, this would be called attachment 1, we have laid out a lot of information and choices for the court. The very top part is where the j.p.'s are right now, all of them are paid the same. If you simply do the 5.75%, as is in the baseline, they get to 73,437. Option number one basically says listen we need to try to set a goal to see if we can get them close to where the associate judges are -- are. And they are 75% of a district judge's salary. The associate judges are getting another bump this year. And so rather than to try and get the j.p.'s up to a kind of a double bump situation, this 90,750, which is reflected in option number 1 is what the associate judges were being paid in fiscal year '04. And to me that was like the extent of gee, how far could this be pushed in terms of trying to get the j.p.'s to a good place on the judicial salary schedule is to at least try to get them to where the associate judges were last year. That's the 90,750 0,750. We went with another option of -- 90,750. Option 2, the salary is the lowest of the three option that's we will lay before you, that would take their salary to 83,847. How did we get that? If you take their base salary of 69,444 and you set as the goal that the associate judges next year are going too be paid 98,250, the 83,847 is midpoint. Exactly midpoint between those two numbers. Where they are today and where an associate judge will be next year. We then did a hybrid of the two things in terms of option number 3. Takes them from their base salary and presumes the 5.75 was going to be added on anyway as simply to make up for the last couple of years. And then it takes it from that 5.75 add on salary, midpoint to where the j.p., Where the associate judges will be next year. So associate judge for last year, 97050. Mid-way between where they are today and an associate judge next year gets you to 83,847. If you want to preassume they would have gotten the 5.75 anyway, this is a slightly different midpoint that gets them a little bit closer to where the associate judges are next year. We want to lay out many, many options to get some discussion going among the court to see if there is a comfort level on any of these options. We are willing to get some discussion points going and lay out to the court.
>> let me ask this question: a minimum for the case that comes to you, for an advisor, I hope that I知 saying that right because I知 not an attorney, that comes before you as far as what you can hear, the amount of money I thought I heard someone say 5,000.
>> at this particular moment, as the ledge comes up next year, you will see a perennial 10,000 up to 30,000, okay, that's what I wanted to try to get to.
>> it comes around every legislative session and there have been attempts to thwart the legislative changes. But because of the budget of the state and the fact that the -- that they probably don't wish to continue to open district after district after district court, there's still the -- the attempt to try to push those numbers down through the district county to the j.p. Courts and so we are already aware that somebody is going to pop up with like I said $10,000 anywhere from 10 up to 30.
>> up to 30?
>> of course that would be, you know, up to the legislature to do. But we do know that that's coming.
>> okay. You don't have any idea of the -- of anticipated arrival?
>> well, I do -- well, as soon as the legislature meets, then, you know, there's so many bills that they file. I too know that the state -- I do know that the state-wide group has sort of come to the conclusion that they will not oppose an increase up to $10,000 in justice court because they would rather negotiate the 10 than get the 30. So -- so that's how I know that from a discussion that I had last week.
>> anything else on the judge's?
>> just -- on the j.p.'s.
>> just one thing. Judge, richard scott is out of town. At our association meeting last week, he did not sign the proposal, but he has authorized me to let you know that he is in favor of it and would have signed it had he been here.
>> okay. There's some others here on this item, I believe, or am I mistaken.
>> I think that's personnel.
>> unless they want to be. [laughter]
>> do we have three options here? You all are leaving these options to our [indiscernible]?
>> yes, sir.
>> would it help the court if I were to note how many attorneys versus non-attorneys are in the major urban counties that are j.p.'s?
>> I知 only interested in this county. This county is unique. There were some blood letting campaigns to make it unique.
>> 4 a doesn't matter to me, I --
>> I felt compelled to ask, I got an answer.
>> I always feel lying we need to see that, though. I -- I always feel like we need to see that [multiple voices] I can do it on an individual thing -- [multiple voices]
>> but I report to the court [multiple voices]
>> I will ask you individually then.
>> I will then say I need to have court direction because I report to the court I知 sorry. But when this is a split court I have to take that position as your employee.
>> just as it was a request made on 4 a, to delay some things, look at some information that's going to be brought up, I知 making the same request on this one.
>> if I have approval of the court --
>> okay. [multiple voices]
>> you want another week on 4 b?
>> no, no, no, no, no, no, I just need to know. I知 trying to tie that into 4 a. In other words the request that you made with 4 a, I would like to still see some type of rendering of -- of the judges that are not attorneys in the state of Texas. If that's possible to do it. I would like to still see that. Not that I知 not going to go forward with this with what you are talking about now. I don't want to delight this because of what I知 request -- to delay this because of what I知 requesting.
>> let me try to get us to a place. I think that I can withdraw 4 a because I am beyond convinced that what I知 going to offer up as a motion under 4 b will not require 4 a at all to be discussed any further. Because they are all j.p.'s, we can set their salaries and if it needs a footnote on our schedule that the reason that these salaries are being raised is because all of them are attorneys and are being tied to the judicial family, I think that's just makes 4 a go away. So what I would offer up is let us go with option number 3, to set the j.p. Salaries at 85,844. It gets them on a good ways there, we still have work to go, but it basically says we are going to get half way there.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge?
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> so that would be taking them from 67 --
>> no 69444. To 85844.
>> that would be a 20% increase? Over a 20% increase?
>> actually it's 23.62. Travis did the numbers for us.
>> what I asked for on 2, does that not apply to 4 b? Because I thought, I mean, if we were to vote on that today is that 85,844, is it that -- does that have to be published?
>> yes.
>> so we are going to get -- get a week on this.
>> absolutely.
>> but it would not be published until after next Tuesday.
>> correct.
>> so that would leave the only unresolved slot, I hope, for next Tuesday is what do we do related to the county clerk and then we would -- christian at least would have most of the schedule built that would be put in the newspaper to be published.
>> do any of the j.p.'s feel awkward about the public knowing that you all knew what you were going to make when you were elected to this office? That's not to say that -- that the public doesn't expect for elected officials to have increases. I think they do. But I think that the problem is -- is how do you -- how do you really get right with this with these sizable increases? I mean I don't -- maybe I知 missing something, maybe in the next week you all have a shot at it. But I知 having -- I知 just having heart burn over this, I mean, I realize you know what there is no question in my mind that we need more than one additional j.p. Court just looking at what you all have to do. But if I just had a magic wand and could say you know what I can create extra courts and I can take truancy off your back, I can work towards those things, and work towards, you know, a pay raise that I think that most of the people in this community are accepting of, I mean from people that are really responsible for setting your salaries, that -- that's all I知 -- that's all I知 looking for. Let me tell you what, you are no less deserving of a substantial pay raise than our county clerk. You do a great job. And you do more work than what anybody -- because I know. You know, I call you, we all talk on occasion and I know that you are at the office, I know that you got people at the office. But I -- you know, I知 going to -- I知 going to have to get comfortable with how I take these salaries to these points. Then on top of that, I think that we would be putting you all in this stream where you do get some of the money that is -- that the legislature put aside with -- with this fund, is that right? Christian? Is that is where -- that is where they would participate in the fund or susan, that is set aside for -- for judicial raises that we gave last year, $10,000 and this year we are going to give another 10,000, there's a pot of money there that is set aside for raises for district judges, right?
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> it could be spent for the judiciary. And there was a lawsuit as to whether or not those fees were legal. It's all someplace else. Those fees were collected but we saved that money, because in case it was determined in the court of law that those fees were illegal, then we would return them. We would not have spent them and have to look for it. So there was a lump of money --
>> you just fenced them.
>> we put a fence around them. What we said was when the law changed and allowed you to pay more to the district judges, and that was in the final hour of the budget last year, there in fact was money to do that because we had a fence around that money. So you didn't have to raise taxes to do that. And then what we said was, well, if you look at the fees that's going to come in for the next last year and this year, that really that would take care of the raises for the county clerks at law and for the -- court courts at law and for the district judges who had not gotten raises. Once there was a raise for the district and county court at law judges, then I think what happens just historically is the jp's looked at that and they were really fairly significantly out of line. So what they did is they asked for a grievance, and you remember a grievance committee heard them. And I sat through that. And they made very convincing arguments on their work load. And that committee did recommend that they get more than -- that they should get a raise and the salaries they had, the committee did not -- the committee simply did not feel was reflective of the work load that they did. But the Commissioners court, because others did not get raises, did not agree with that last year on a split vote. So one thing that happens, Commissioner Daugherty, and i've seen that, is when in fact there are artificial freezes and holds on anyone's salary, whether it's rank and file or elected officials or attorneys or whatever, then all of a sudden we've got a horrible problem out there and you're looking at 20%. And you say wow, 20% thoorks a huge raise if you get it every year. But if in fact your salary has lagged significantly behind what others make in this community as well as out of the community -- and you have to kind of blend those -- then if that had been keeping pace, we probably wouldn't be looking at a 20%. If the district judges had kept pace you wouldn't be looking at a huge catchup, but fact is they did not keep pace. And we compared salaries of lawyers at the city of Austin. Last year I think the police monitor -- this was a year ago, the police monitor was making -- either making 132 or $134,000 a year. The city attorney I believe was making 134,000. And so when you looked at other lawyer-type positions that were making decisions and prosecuting, our own prosecutors were making more than that, it really became evident to everyone, including the legislature, which is why they allowed us to increase the salaries, that they were way, way out of whack. The other thing is that when people are not paid for a long time, there's a lot of lost money there. Almost everyone would rather get five percent a year for four years and no raise and then 20% at the end. And that's really what has happened. Because you lose that money that you you could have had in those raises. So it is true that 20% looks like a significant amount of money, and it is, but I think that recommendation is based on a history of probably not being at market. And I do think it's fair that the jp's were probably hold out because of the district judges. You look at the district judges, they didn't get a raise forever. And you say compared to what they got, this is okay for jp's and county court at law, but now we're moving towards more inequity. That's a fair question.
>> I think it's very fair and I would like to address that also, Commissioner Daugherty, from a taxpayer's standpoint. I am not only a judge may my community, I知 a taxpayer in my community. And I know that the jps -- well, all over the state, but particularly here, have become not only a court in which our main goal is fairness and justice, we are also now revenue centers. And we have set a goal for ourselves to contribute to this county in such a way that our courts do not cost you, the court, the taxpayer of Travis County, so that we are self-supporting. My revenues in my particular court, and each court can speak for itself, but I know in general everybody is on the rise here. I've already met my budget within six months, okay? That's a significant improvement from five years ago when I took the bench and the revenues were like $30,000 a month and did not even cover the basic operation of the court. So all of those factors combined, we're not only running those courts like the other judges over here, we're also running a completely separate office that is a revenue center, that is budgets driven, that is taxpayer concerned. And when I talk to people about improvements in my court, I usually use those phrases, this will help you as a taxpayer because we're going to move this many more. And so while a few years ago I would have probably have said, yeah, I agree that people who elected me five years ago knew that I was going to make that salary and so did i. I don't think anybody is ever elected to an office at a salary for life. I think that's unrealistic and I think that it's unrealistic not to realize that at some point there's change, and it's positive change. We're not over here complaining to you. We're over here saying to you, we have a good thing. We have an opportunity. And I hate to say it this way, but in some ways because of our elective nature we started out looking at it as a problem, but it's not. It's also an opportunity. It's an opportunity for you to say, look, we have five lawyer jp's who are all really interested in making this the best community in the state of Texas, that are committed to running their courtrooms in a taxpayer kind of way, and that we do so with the tools that we have and that we have the ability to represent you well. And to -- I no longer think there's a reason not to feel accomplished and to feel that being rewarded for that is not a good thing.
>> judge, don't get me wrong, I知 not saying that you don't deserve a raise. Do you know what? I'd love it if I could say, do you know what, you all do a great job, just like most people. But government doesn't work on commissions, unfortunately. I mean, i'd love to have a system set up, do you know what, you're as a business to generate revenue. You're in the business to do justice, but you also have the ability to generate revenue for the county, which is a good deal. And your reward for doing a great job of that is getting reelected because, boy, you don't think that you don't blow the trumpet hard on those kinds of things because that's the first thing that you can say. I知 saying that I知 willing to take care of elected officials in -- if I could just find a way to get reasonable. My gosh, I知 having a hard time getting reasonable with 5.75, much less 20% or whatever some of the other percentages are. And so I just -- I guess this is just really hitting me. I mean, about how I need to come down and how I really need to kind of soul search myself and say, what am I willing to go out there and front of everyone and say this is the reason that I did this. But I知 not telling you that you're not deserving of a raise. And I wish that there wasn't so much disparity between the two because I think you probably work as hard as the district judges. But i've got to find some sort of way to get you to a spot where you feel like you're not being left out. And I can see where there are some of these positions this morning where they feel like that they're not compensated in a commensurate amount. So that's all I知 talking about.
>> let me try something here. Gerald, in your mind. And I知 going to ask questions to do this, and whether it takes a a second motion. The justice of the peace 1 through 5 be taken from the spot at the bottom of this and it be placed underneath the probate judge so that we would be grouping our district judges, county court at law judge, the probate judge, and the next line would be justice of the peace 1 through 5 and put their salary there. Why I think that would be helpful is this: if we use the proposed original salary, you would see that we would have -- the county court at law judges, probate judge, district judge more or less at 131, 132. The next rung on the judicial ladder would be the jp's at 73,000. That's a 60,000-dollar drop between those two rungs on the judicial ladder. As it is if you place it in there on what we are proposing, 84,000, there's still a back gap between where they are in relation to a justice of the peace. It puts it, I think, at a better place and a much more reasonable place as to where they belong on the judicial pay scale, and Margaret, if that's all right, I would like to have that as part of my motion is that the jp's be put correctly below the probate judges in terms of this ad in terms of being grouped there so that people will see a link that they are being grouped with other members of the judiciary.
>> well, I do think it's important to note that even if this is approved, then they would be at 85, and the county court at law judges would be at 130. That's a difference of $45,000. What we decided to do several years back was to tie the county court at law judges, their salaries to the district judge's salaries.
>> $100,000.
>> so that's why I think this is fair now. There is a motion and a second. Do we request another week on this one?
>> i'd like to have one.
>> why don't we do a week. We can't do anything anyway. I知 supportive of the -- what option?
>> it's option 3, judge.
>> of option 3.
>> and I would ask when we put this back on the agenda next week I知 withdrawing for that's simply not necessary in terms of the way this is going, so I would go ahead and rather than use the same language here, judge, I would give you some new language related to setting the justice of the peace salary.
>> okay.
>> it's much more strong language than what we're planning to do as opposed to this.
>> I also requested a pbo from yesterday to give us some information, and that was basically the judiciary fee that goes to the general fund according to the research that they did on that is $255,000 that actually goes into the general fund on that judiciary fee. And I think mr. Daugherty brought something on the judiciary fee as far as how we did that last time coming in. So that's another $255,000 that does allow us to use from the general fund for the judiciary fee is concerned. Okay?
>> we'll have this back on next week. If we do wish to save you a trip, if it looks like we need you here, what we will do first thing at about 9:10 ore 9:15 is let you know and give you an opportunity to come down and take you the minute you get here. I think we've had enough discussion today. If any member of the court has additional questions of you, it's okay to contact one of you?
>> sure.
>> we'll be down here or at least i'll plan on being here for questions. I would like to add, I didn't add anything earlier. I would like to thank the court for its consideration in grouping us in the judicial groupings, no matter what the end result is. I think that that's important for all of the courts, the acknowledgment that that is what we do and that we provide that as an important service for this community. And I thank you for your consideration on that respect. I think it's important to all of us, so I do thank you. And i'll be here at 9:00.
>> judge, would we see this affecting -- and maybe I need to ask the jp's since y'all are here. Do you think that this is what is going to replace the need of an additional (indiscernible). Are you saying if you give this to the guys, this is what we're taking or are we saying if you give us this, we still want y'all to go out and do this?
>> well, may I address it from a certain standpoint? I知 sorry that judge scott's not here because he's obviously been around much longer than any of us. And helena probably twice as long. I've been on the bench five years. I can tell you having worked 60 to 80 hours a week for five years, i've been doing it twice. I've been doing my job and i've been doing my job again. So it's more a matter of, you know, when it's additional help in terms of bench time only, we can get into that discussion in the work session. What I see this as -- i've watched the court now for several years and the last year in particular, with all the growth that we've had and the trying to maintain the quality of county services under some strict burdens from unfunded mandates and all that sort of stuff, we're not like out of the loop in terms of knowing what's going on around the state. And we're not out of the loop when it comes to being very involved in our communities. And so what I see this move as is a matter of respect for who we are and the jobs that we represent as a reward for all the hard work we have done and will do. And as a matter of responsibility because my putting us in that slot and giving that reward to that slot, then you placed an additional responsibility on us to maintain if it's that 60 to 80 hours a week. It's not a give us something and then we're going to start sloughing off. It's that we need a refurbishing of the commitment as a value of our office. We know we're important to our community. You don't have to tell us that because we're in it and we know the contribution that we make because people all over tell us. And I can say this because we've talked for several weeks now individually or among ourselves or whatever, but we see this as a -- like I said, a matter of just recognizing the conditions for what they are, first of all. That will give us the added incentive, the added commitment to then do this job within the confines of the resources available to the county, only asking for those specific elements that we need in which to boost the bench time or whatever, not to completely then go, okay, now we've got that marked, let's go for something else. It's not that. And in these discussions have been going on for quite awhile and you know we're not just down here all of a sudden. These things have been going on since the census was drawn and we had all those initial discussions about the enormous numbers of people. So I think that's where we are. And we are very appreciative of the fact that so many of y'all have been willing to bring this forward and not have forgotten it. And that we are committed to Travis County, all of us.
>> we'll have this item back on next week and different language.
>> thank you.
>> if I could add -- I知 the one that gets to talk most late lay. If I could add i'll save you some headache here with the judges that are lawyers. Because we can just call one office and then we're there. So we can get you that list if that's okay.
>> that will be fine.
>> I would request that. (indiscernible).
>> it's readily available.
>> I would like to see it.
>> and we have to act on this next week, correct? Like next week is like the final call. Thank you.
>> thank y'all very much.
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.
Last Modified:
Friday, October 28, 2005 8:37 AM