Travis County Commissioners Court
May 3, 2005
Item 28
[one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...to require at least an hour. And my thinking too is that if we were to make this decision now, we could notify those who may be inclined to come down this afternoon of the decision. If we were to take it this afternoon, say after the landfills, then it could be as early as 2:45 or 3:00, but it could be later. And my view is that even if we had it this afternoon, we still would need to take the action of posting it for a time certain, trying to notify those people that sent letters, e-mails so at least they would have an opportunity to come down, or send a representative. I don't know that it's necessary to hear the same thing over and over again, but if you were to get a representative, have your say, that way I think the process would be a little fairer. When I learned about this, it was Wednesday morning. Typically if I知 in court all day Tuesday, during the Wednesday meeting is when I get requests for time certain. We got three or four on the agenda now. So in my view, the best thing to do would rule I be tell everybody concerned on may 17 at -- and I suggest we do it either at 9:30 or 1:45, we will take this item up. If you want to come in, give comments to the Commissioners court, do so at that time. And the reason I think early this morning is good is we do have -- we can identify those who made the [inaudible] to come, so we basically --
>> well, not really. I don't agree. If alicia and the staff would come up front, I would appreciate. That number 1, I don't know if you had a chance to read the he had torld in the statesman, but it talked about what the Commissioners court was going to do today with the process of renaming the historic Travis County courthouse. And on March 15th of this year, there was an advertisement that was sent out with the Commissioners court letterhead or on the Commissioners court letterhead that went through a process. This particular process had been publicized in media sources throughout the community. The process basically said this, that on April -- the recommendations for renaming the historic courthouse, Travis County courthouse, would follow this process, and the process was stated to be this: on April the 25th, '05, that all the recommendations of naming in writing must be sent to this particular address and which it was stipulated or depicted in that advertisement. It also said that on may the 3rd, the Commissioners court would have a public meeting on receiving testimony of persons who wanted to get involved in the process, but anyway, a public meeting was to be conducted. And, of course, that is basically the process. Now, alicia, if any of those statements that i've just made are incorrect, please correct me. So that process has been -- it's out there, so folks -- you know, the calf being out of the barn. The harder we notify persons that have read the media, looked at the newspaper, even in today's editorial section of the american-statesman, there's a real big article on this today, which folks are looking to actually deal with the process. Now, I have been involved in the renaming of several facilities here in Travis County for the Travis County buildings. I know of three that I was involved in. And in fact, the buildings that we are in right now was one of those buildings. And I cannot recall this particular item being postponed or referred to on another date. I just can't recall that. So in fairness, it appears to me that the process should go forward. Because it is a process. The process being that after we hear the testimony from the -- in a public meeting, which is today or any other day you set, once we do that, then these particular nominees will be referred to the Travis County historic commission, and after 30 days of them reviewing the nominees that go forward, then they would come back to the Travis County Commissioners court and to make as far as their comments are concerned, we hear those comments, and after that the Travis County Commissioners court could take action at that time or either set a public hearing. One of those two things could happen, either/or situation. And again, following the policy and the guidelines that are already established by the Travis County Commissioners court, in my opinion, this overrules the policy that's been established. The 3rd is the advertised time to hear the public hearing or public meeting, conduct a public meeting, and today is may 3rd. So it appears it's being treated different than any other naming of any particular building here in Travis County, this appears to be treated different. And I don't know why it's being treated different, but it is. So alicia, if I知 wrong with any of the process as far as what we have or what I have just illustrated before the public, please correct me, but I believe that is in concert with the policy that we have followed throughout the course of naming buildings here in Travis County. Now, again, I can't control who has tuned in and who has listened and who has read the advertisement on a Travis County Commissioners court letterhead suggesting may 3rd to be the public meeting. So that's my pointed.
>> but if they are relying on may 3rd ubgs they would either be in the courtroom today or watching it on television. And our policy, 1.020 b-4 says after the public hearing, the Commissioners court will submit all recommendations to the Travis County historical commission or any other group designated by the Commissioners court for review and comment. The question is when should we have the public hearing. Typically we would post the public hearing, basically. My motion is that we schedule a public hearing before the Commissioners court on this matter on may 17th, 2005, at 9:30. And that we give as many people who have indicated an interest in this matter as much notice as possible and that we get that notice out immediately, which is today or tomorrow. That's the motion.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez okay okay.
>> discussion of the motion?
>> yes. Let me say this. I think you have maybe quoted something that may not be correct. The reason why anybody is not down here, as you just suggested, is because the fact that you would not give me a time certain. I asked you for a time certain.
>> I could not.
>> I asked you for a time certain --
>> on Thursday.
>> and, of course, not being able to give me a time certain, the persons that have called and asked for a time certain is kind of up in the air. So normally when we do set a public meeting, it's on the agenda, then people would come if they know exactly what time that you have stipulated on your agenda day you have certain items that have time certain on them. I requested the same thing, and of course you refused to give it to me. Now, so there's a ball of confusion that's going on out there in the listening audience is that, number 1, yes, we would like to come down; however, Commissioner, can you tell us what time we need to be there? In the morning, evening, when should we be here? I couldn't really tell them because it was your call to do that, judge. And not having that evidence and availability for people to be here, it is really confused out there. Because of that.
>> you couldn't tell them and I couldn't tell you. The reason I couldn't is that the agenda is full. We will be here till today at 5:00 no matter what we do on this. It just makes a lot more sense to me to tell people, hey, may 17th at 9:30, Commissioners court has a public hearing scheduled. And if you want to address the court on this item, be before Commissioners court. That's the purpose of this. Now, the people that asked me, I said my recommendation would be for the court to set another date and another time. If we were to receive comments today on this item, it would be after the landfill discussion this afternoon. There are three or four items with a time certain before that time. If it's a 10, 15-minute discussion, it's easier to give a time certain or work it in than if you are going to take a lot more time than that. I think that this public hearing on the naming of the courthouse will take at least an hour. But I知 just guessing. A lot depends on how many people come and how long they speak.
>> let me try something in between. When is the historical commission scheduled to have their next meeting or is it one where they have discretion as to when they can call this meeting?
>> they usually schedule once a month, and I believe they are scheduled on Thursday.
>> this Thursday?
>> to have their meetings, and then it would be a month from --
>> first Wednesday of the month. That's when they --
>> that's correct.
>> did they have something posted on tomorrow's agenda related to taking up this particular issue?
>> did they have something posted?
>> there we have a problem right there. If they don't have anything posted on tomorrow's general, I think they have the same kind of posting requirements, john, like we do related to the agenda?
>> this issue is important enough to the community that they should direct them to do that.
>> they new, so we'll have to check -- they knew that this was coming.
>> but if they don't have a specific kwrepbd post and that we were doing the same kind of thing of trying to publicize it, I know that I personally, simply because the question of a time certain came up earlier in the week, it seemed like people were saying, you know, 17th may be a better day and we can give an absolute time certain. You are right, normally we don't have this many time serpbs, but today is one of them. Got three in the queue in terms of a 10:00, 10:30 and 11:00. And 1:45. I知 fine with that, and I know when I visited with around tpharld garcia from the statesman he said you are going to take testimony tomorrow and I said I don't really think so. Kind of changed a sentence to reflect that we're going to bring this up, but likely it's not going to be today is the testimony. I had the same discussion with supporters of the human sweat name, that they weren't expecting this today. And i've gotten enough e-mails from the folks supporting other names that it would be very easy to get an e-mail out to say here's the time. I just think it's a much more dignified and orlandoly kind of thing to say it's going to be on a certain date and time it simply wasn't available for today to have anything other than somewhere on this agenda from heck.
>> let me ask you, is there anything wrong with letting people that come down to speak today, I mean knowing that it's going to be after the landfill discussion, which I think may be at least a couple of hours. I moon I think we'll be lucky to do that and to carry the thing on time specific to the 17th, so if somebody feels like that they want to say something today, I mean, and carry this thing forward to the 17th, is that permissible? Is that something that we can do?
>> we can certainly do that. And my next meeting is at 7:00 this evening. I知 just thinking, I know we typically kind of run out of energy late afternoon. We would be a whole lot more attentive at 9:30 on the 17th, but if if majority of the court wapbtsd to do that this afternoon, won't bother me.
>> [inaudible] firefighters banquet tonight and i've got to get down to onion creek by 6:00, which will be entertaining.
>> I think [inaudible] the motion.
>> it just makes more sense. If we've got at least five hours before we would do this today if we do it. And what I知 saying is to use that five hours most product I feel, we try to notify people we think are interested in coming down on this. And if we want to send e-mails to those who e-mailed us, I can get one or two in my -- on my staff to assist with the effort. If that's what a majority of the court wants to do.
>> well, i'll yield to what the majority of the court decides to do, but i'd also like to say this. This has been out since March -- this particular advertisement on this particular date to have a public meeting on naming the old Travis County courthouse building at 1090 guadalupe street has been out since March 15th of '05. And to have it intertwined with other things on the agenda on this date I think is unfair to the process. And so from that standpoint I think it should have been given the recognition or the priority as the agenda has been set here for today, which I have no control over the agenda. The judge is the one that has responsibility of setting up this agenda. But since that time has been out since March 15th, knowing this date was coming may 3rd, I think the priority has been diluted to the point whereby whenever the court wishes to do.
>> is there any way that we can find -- because if somebody wants to come and speak to us, maybe we won't have 30 people that want to speak to us today, but maybe there are five people that would like to weigh in on this. And if that's the case, I mean I don't -- mr. Davis, I certainly don't have a problem with people feeling like they've got to talk. I think that you would agree we don't want to cut people short and given that we're going to have a majority -- or at least some members of the court that aren't going to be here, but if somebody has to come down because they set it in a schedule and that's what they want to do, I知 happy to hear them today.
>> I agree with you, Commissioner, but, again, three votes rules what the court decides to do. And it is a motion on the floor regardless of what we say or what I say or anybody else, the three votes will -- and i'll yield to whatever the court decides to do. So that's where it is right now. It's a motion.
>> I never thought this would jump ahead of things that really did get a time certain and that's the process that occurs every Wednesday. We have our folks from the hospital district who are now waiting 17 minutes. I see some really big boxes that harvey and the gang have brought in for stuff for a 10:30 and then there's that good old 11:00 legislative item that always seems to take its full amount and then some. I知 just kind of going it can't jump in the queue before things where people really have arrived here expecting --
>> I知 ready to vote.
>> now, for those inclined to think that the county judge is being arbitrary, Commissioner Davis and I did have four or five discussions about this. And the last one was worst than the first one. I tried to work this out as best I could. This is how we've conducted business during the 15 or 16 years that i've been associated with county government and certainly the six and a half years i've been county judge. All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Davis.
>> I知 not voting against. I知 in support of this but with reservations.
>> all in favor of the motion?
>> i'll make a comment.
>> Commissioner Davis present but not voting.
>> no, no, you can't dictate that. What I知 saying, I知 going to support it because there's no choice. I mean you rule by the majority. And of course but I just think the particular process has been diluted. March 15th bass the date. As far as advertising that went out with the date of may 3rd for the public meeting. I'll yield as I said I知 going to do to the wishes of the court. So i'll have to support this because we want the process to go forward.
>> we will send out the notices and also try to get something in the paper.
>> we need to get a time certain on that for sure.
>> 17th at 9:30.
>> that would be a better time.
>> thank you.
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:
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 10:33 AM