Travis County Commissioners Court
January 25, 2005
Item 31
31. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 79th Texas legislature. (a list may be obtained from any member of the Travis County Commissioners court.) That part is added because legal counsel has invited -- advised me that on this generally worded item it will be important for us to have copies of whatever bills we will consider for the public. And my on that is as part of the backup that will change from week to week, if residents called asking for -- for one specific -- legislative issues or proposed bills that we are looking at, that is what we should send, right, john? So far the list is -- we don't have on the list, but my guess is as the legislature cranks up, each year we probably will be having a revised list, some bills taken off, some added. Good morning.
>> good morning. Good morning, judge, Commissioners. We've asked to speak to you on agenda item 31 to request that you add a -- add a revision to the purchasing act that will allow counties the same privilege as other public entities in Texas to use a broker of record in solicitation of insurance for -- for what the county purchases under commercial -- with commercial insurance carriers. The reason for is that is it will give you the broader access to market right now, we are somewhat limited in. We routinely receive proposals from generally the same insurance carriers through the same brokers. With broker of record we will be able to go out and more directly contact the insurance carriers and hopefully do a better job in -- in accessing what's out there in the marketplace. We -- we -- as I said, we are prohibited from doing that under the current law, but other public entities have done -- are able to do this, they have done very well. This is especially true in a hard market where underwriting comes very tight when you can go directly to the market yourself through a broker of record. So we feel that that would be of benefit to the county.
>> did you turn in any backup to us?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> not trying to get you as an example, this is what we talked about last week, is really difficult for us. I'm with you. I agree with you. But I really need to have something in front of me so that we can focus on it and have a record and certainly melissa needs to have things to put in the record as well. We have to have folks not orally bring things to us, but to use the procedures the Commissioners court adopted last week to funnel these things appropriately through so that the right people can be, so that the right information is in front of us. It's going to make things go faster. Sure. So I'm with you, but I would just rather see it in a backup memo that's presented to the courts that we can -- we can act accordingly. That's just one member's perspective.
>> our policy basically is that we need in writing whatever the recommendation is and the reasons why it's a good one. The other thing is that if there are public entities with language in place already, it would help to have that. What we do with that is kind of an incentive to our legislative consultant to put it in a bill format. So -- so I'm with Commissioner Sonleitner, that makes all of the sense in the word, I think you ought to -- you --
>> the language that was actually being proposed would be to copy the language that's in the city purchasing act. I think it's section 252.4 --
>> it ought to be in the backup, too. That makes it even better.
>> we can hardly wait until next week.
>> it makes sense, dan, but we just need to have it in a format that you can handle.
>> ms. Flemming here on the same item?
>> no, sir.
>> more urgent.
>> we were notified yesterday afternoon, excuse me, I'm sorry, sherri flemming, executive manager for Travis County health and human services, that representative naishtat's office was requesting comment from Travis County on house bill 470. I have staff who is copying that for you all. I thought that I had a little more time. But basically house bill 470 would -- would change what currently a community what mental health and mental retardation centers look like. It would minimize mental health responsibility. So he had an interest in hearing from Travis County as to whether or not we might support that bill as -- in its current format. Staff would -- would point out that that regional concept in the bill as it's written right now and david is going to circulate it to you just at this moment, does not define what the regions would l.i.-c.o. It does not define the funding structure. So we have found that in situations with child protective services and with the workforce development efforts, that are currently under a regional funding structure, that it's difficult to track appropriations to Travis County. Also, this has the potential to hamper local efforts that have depended on mhmr being at the table, the reentry round table, the report that was reported on yesterday by the mayor's mental health task force. It also has the potential to put a private vendor between the Commissioners court and the men hall health authority -- mental health authority. It also does not allow the men hall health authority to provide services. For example if the current structure that we now today as mhmr decided they wanted to be the mental health authority, they wanted to -- they would have to contract out the provision of mental health services and vice versa. If they were going to provide the services, there would be another entity potentially outside of Travis County that would be your mental health authority. So if it were the wishes of the court to comment on house bill 470, staff would recommend that we not be in favor of it in its current form.
>> is there a hearing scheduled on this this week?
>> yeah, well, not a hearing, but Commissioner -- representative naishtat is hoping to talk with the author of the bill to -- to make some changes. That was why his request was sent to us to comment.
>> again, this is one of those things where I'm with ya, in fact I think that's consistent with what conference of urban counties is saying. But again it's not -- none of us have read this bill. I think what you just said is probably 100% accurate. But we can't do things like this and especially if they are just seeking comment to go visit with the author, we would like those comments to be the bs possible thing, case that we can put forward and it is not going to be helpful to get things like this, especially when there's not even a hearing where there's a deadline. It would be lovely to have it happen this week. But we could have just as easily handled this next Tuesday with an appropriate letter and appropriate information to us. Not one person here has read this bill. I can't act like this.
>> tra it under advisement, put it on the agenda for next week, see what other things we can have next week.
>> if you all want to look on -- work on draft language for us to consider next Tuesday, it's just we can't operate like this.
>> but I think, though, if the legislator asks for input, wants it immediately, I think we need another way for us to provide that as soon as possible without authorizing you to go over and take full responsibility for what you are saying. But I do think that we ought to handle our draft comments, my recommendation would be that we chat with -- with Austin Travis County mhmr, david evans, see what his take is, judge herman.
>> I don't believe david evans would score this.
>> anyway --
>> which is why, but I'm assuming that the good intentions, good faith behind it and somebody looking for -- for a good response, the other thing is -- that -- that probably get [indiscernible] to touch base with cuc, one of our accounting people, see if the other urban counties have had a chance to review this, whether they have taken a position, too. For us to get that next week in writing I think would give us a good indication of where we ought to land on.
>> okay.
>> part of this I guess is also touching base with representative naishtat and saying we're glad you brought this to our attention, it will take enough next Tuesday to form a response --
>> I think if we gather together all of the groups together that the judge mentioned, we can get a good draft letter and maybe some remarks over to representative naishtat.
>> sometimes it's being helpful, here's who we suggest we want to get visiting with you, see if judge herman, Davis evans, butler, community action network. Sometimes it's just the clearinghouse for references, but to get something out of us, we just can't operate in terms of comments from the Commissioners court of something on the dais. Saying approve this.
>> in responding to the lobbyist on this issue, would it be appropriate I guess what I'm hearing the court say is that -- you need at least a week. So that you can get the -- the backup because -- because I think this issue is going to come up again.
>> sure.
>> I think -- I don't know that we need a full week. But I think we need at least something in writing to look at. To -- to help to have a couple of days before. Friday is always better than -- than Monday. Thursday is better than Friday. Something in writing at least I would say at the latest, if the bill is set for hearing Wednesday morning, we found out on Monday then my recommendation would be put together the best document that you can so on that Tuesday we can look at it.
>> okay.
>> but unfortunately when we get hear on Tuesday morning, my guess is, our minds are kind of clouded by some 40 or 50 items on the agenda already.
>> some of it is just being able to authorize mr. Cam or chris to go over and sign in for Travis County in opposition either with or without comments. The other thing that is always very helpful, I learned this from an indent that happened three sessions ago, we always need to get some information as to who filed this bill to begin with. Because we've had situations where we have opposed bills, then found out oh, my goodness, and they were carrying our court's bill as well. And we always like to have information about who it is that's filed the legislation.
>> if you talk to mr. Cam, he's already talked to don lee at cuc, so we will be able to not make too many calls.
>> we will take care of it. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. That was the governor wanting to know how we are doing over here [laughter]
>> we're doing great. The state of the county is good.
>> our budget is in the black. [laughter]
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:
Tuesday, January 26, 2005 8:31 AM