Travis County Commissioners Court
July 19, 2005
Item 7
Seven is to consider and take appropriate action on the following matters related to the Travis County hospital district board of managers. A is a process for appointing or reappointing individuals to the Travis County hospital district board of managers.
>> a real quick overlay before stacy and sherri show y'all the real work that actually got done on this. This was referred to a subcommittee that I served on along with sherri and stacy, and we were tasked with coming up with a process that related to the hospital board. While we had an excellent process in terms of how we picked the initial board, we didn't really have any policy in place related to reappointments or when a vacancy would occur. So we spent our time kind of talking through all the different scenarios, issues, what things we would need from a potential candidate. Also tried as best we could, given what it took for us to get through this process the first time, if we had a vacancy, how much we had to back-time the process to be able to get to a certain point so that this court had sufficient time to get its work done, whether it's a reappointment or we were just starting over from scratch so that we were not leaving the hospital district in the lunch. Now, certainly if somebody up and quits in the middle of their term, we obviously will have to deal with it when we have to deal with it, but this hopefully, what these guys are going to walk through, is time lines, etcetera, about how do we get to the desired result when we make our appointments to the hospital board on a timely basis. They did the real work.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. And I think Commissioner Sonleitner gave a wonderful synopsis of what our task was. And in your backup you have already an application process and time line, which that time line you notice is triggered by a notice to the court that there's an impending term ending, and at that point the Commissioners court would then direct staff accordingly to initiate the process that we're going to discuss today. And I will discuss it in as much detail or as little detail as you would like. Just so you know, it's primarily the process that we engaged in in appointing the initial board of managers. And the handout that you just received we sent to you in e-mail, but I wanted to make sure you had it with you today that describes the criteria that the initial transition team pulled together for the court in terms of what types of candidates and qualifications we might be looking for for persons to serve on the hospital district board of managers. So that would go along with the application, the notice to the community that we are seeking candidates, and then the accompanying document that the candidates would have to sign, which is the conflict of interest disclosure statements. So that's the general discussion of the packet, and I’m not sure how much detail you would like us to go into. The county attorney's office through ms. Wilson has reviewed all of these documents, so if there are any questions, she can answer them for us. We have learned since our last discussion with you that the reappointment of the manager would be a four-year term. As you are aware, the managers originally pulled lots for staggered terms and so we learned after we met with the court that this reappointment would actually be for a four-year term and each reappointment after that would be for a four-year term. So we would have manager's terms expiring every year now until we get through the initial staggered terms and then we'll be on that kind of four-year cycle. And I would submit that we would probably be back around mr. High drik again by the time we get through our remaining appointees. So i'll stop there and see if there are any questions, or if you would like me to be more detailed.
>> down at the next to last, the ability to collaborate with public officials and stafer. I would simply say public officials, staff and board colleagues because it has to go this way as well. Horizontally as well as vertically. It's not numbered, but next to the last.
>> yes, the second to the last bullet. We got it.
>> what are you suggesting, adding --
>> public officials, staff and board colleagues.
>> other board members?
>> other board members. However it makes it smoother.
>> other things we discussed, and I’m not sure we really honed in on this is that we do have a joint appointment with the city of Austin, and so do we have any clarification of how the city is going to proceed through it so that when we get to that magic slot, which is -- in terms of how we handle that assuming there is a reappointment or we have to start from scratch again because he chooses not to seek reappointment?
>> I think our intent would be to follow the process for each appointee. We would make note to the court that it is a joint appointee, so once we make notice, part of our notice would be to alert the court has to what the city's process might be or any questions or recommendations they might have that they want the court to consider as we move into the process. So I think that would be a part of our initial notice by April 30th that it would be in fact the joint appointee whose term is ending, we've contacted the city of Austin and either we have it on good authority that the appointee is interested in continuing or here is the proposed city process that would run parallel or in conjunction with our county process. So that would be our approach to it.
>> it was easy the first time because we simply appointed four by agreement with the city, and they chose one of them as a joint appointee. But if we have the joint appointees tenure expiring at a certain time, all of a sudden we have to focus on that one slot.
>> so we would like maybe an addendum to this that speaks specifically to the appointees.
>> maybe we can get it done, but we need to have an agreement before it happens.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. The other thing too is if we vote on this and mr. Hydrick is, are they not required to sign a new conflict of interest statement? Do they have to sign the whole document, stacy or just the conflict of interest updated that yes, that is still true and correct?
>> I believe with his appointment, we completed the entire document.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> yes, ma'am. And also these are going to be coming for your appointment so presumebly over four years you would want a new plan.
>> moim moim. [inaudible - no mic].
>> do we have the authority to make the reappointment of mr. Hydrick without following this process?
>> yes, sir.
>> and the authority for that is?
>> the authority for that is in the statute, section 281.021 of the health and safety code. It says that you shall appoint four managers to the board of managers.
>> can we make the reaappointment before we adopt this process? We expect this process to apply in every case after adoption, right?
>> yes.
>> it would be cleaner I think if -- it may be cleaner to make the reappointment before we adopt the process. Because I don't hear any objections to the process. It seems pretty straightforward. And it makes all the sense in the world to me.
>> clark would have met the terms of -- he just walked through the door.
>> he just walked in?
>> if we actually had this thing in place --
>> you're the subject matter of discussion here.
>> to a large degree we would have followed the policy, judge, on the short time track.
>> I understand. Hi clark, perfect timing.
>> excuse me. I would add to that, at the time that staff comes forward with the notice that's required by the time line, we would present you with your process, and correct me stacy if I’m wrong, but you could make any changes to the process at that time before we actually initiate it. So any pieces of the documents that would need to be changed, any tweaking that you would like to do you would still have an opportunity even though you would be adopting a framework today.
>> let me ask you this, is the city following the same process?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> because we both have the ability to appoint.
>> exactly.
>> so I just want to make sure whatever we do here is consistent because the whole board has got to be dealt with.
>> yes, sir. We did follow independent tracks the last time, though.
>> right, I remember that.
>> so we will consult. We've been asked to consult with them and we certainly will do so, Commissioners.
>> okay.
>> we have the same end results coming from the four excellent folks who sit on this board but we did get there in slightly different paths and it just reflects the city culture and county culture and the different process and we found our four excellent persons. With that suggestion would you consider a motion related to 7-b related to the reappointment?
>> as soon as we have it before us. 7-b is to reappoint -- reappointment of manager clark heidrick to a four-year term. What do we need to hear on this? Anything?
>> we would ask manager heidrick to come forward and basically remind you that that he was basically appointed during a process last year and served initially on the board of managers and is now acting as the chair of the board of managers.
>> serving as chair.
>> serving as chair. And I would ask if he had any comments that he would like the court to hear before they take action.
>> i'll be glad to take questions. I have enjoyed very much my service. I appreciate your confidence in me and in my colleagues and, more than that, all of your support through the year and your encouragement throughout the year. And i'll be glad to take questions.
>> we did get a letter indicating your willingness to continue this public service opportunity and the signed ethics statement. Conflict of interest statement. And we appreciate your past service and willingness to continue. It probably turned out to be a tougher job than some thought, really that I thought, and I was just sitting on the side line watching, but we appreciate it.
>> there's plenty of challenge left.
>> in fact, we have a list of them over here at the county that at some point we need to share with y'all.
>> judge, I would move the reappoint of clark to the board of managers.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> judge, your pleasure on a, do you want us to bring back those little lines or do you feel comfortable with the framework and we would certainly bring back a couple of lines talking about the city and the -- since we do have four years?
>> we need to work with the city more closely on that language also. I do think that whatever we approve today I would go ahead and approve it with Commissioner Gomez's recommended change is that we share with the city to the extent that our approval process can assist them, then so be it.
>> judge, that would be my motion is that we move -- approve the framework that we talked about today with Commissioner Gomez's suggestion about adding the line about collaboration with the board and colleagues, and that we share our framework with the city of Austin so that we come back with an addendum related to specifically how will we deal with joint aappointments.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and my sincere thanks to stacy and sherri since they were the ones that took our subcommittee work and made it real.
>> and I would add to that thanks, thank you to jackie cox in judge Biscoe's office because she had at hur fingertips a lot of documents from last year that made it helpful to those of us who didn't have to go look for the documents. We appreciate her.
>> keep having fun.
>> 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, July 20, 2005 11:18 AM