Travis County Commissioners Court
January 3, 2006
Item 16
Now, we did have our risk manager here a moment ago and I see him outside the door. 16, mr. Mansour, is to approve purchase of vehicles of off state contract from dallas dodge.
>> judge, my question is we've got two vehicles for purchase for the sheriff's office and we have not gotten any response from the last accident that occurred off duty, not within the course and scope of duty, in terms of that a kind letter was supposed to have been sent to the sheriff's office saying we really think you need to pay for this last wreck and for the cost of the damage done to our own vehicle. That letter unfortunately was not sent out until Friday. This is one of those things where we've many times tried to get the attention of folks related to accidents and how much this stuff winds up costing. And when I was discussing this with somebody else on the fifth floor, they said you know, you still always have another pressure point, and that is the next time these vehicles come up for purchase, you can ask that question again in terms of who should pay the cost of accidents, the department or the risk management fund when these things are outside course and scope of duty and really are troubling in terms of the circumstances. So that's why I brought this up, and I look forward to hearing the explanation from the sheriff's office as to whether they intend to respond to our letter or not.
>> I’m doyle bailey from the sheriff's office. I apologize because I haven't seen the letter that you're referring to. We haven't been able to discuss these things and the sheriff isn't here today. Perhaps we could listen to their comments and have a response for you next week.
>> I apologize to the court. There was some confusion as to where this letter was going to originate from, but the letter did get written, it did not go out until Friday afternoon as Commissioner Sonleitner said. So I did speak to the sheriff, so he was aware that the letter was delivered. I’m sure as chief bailey said, he's not had a chance to review this, so I apologize for the delay.
>> so the source of funding for these two vehicles right now is what?
>> are you speaking of the two new vehicles?
>> yes, sir.
>> probably stuck in tnr's budget.
>> the tnr budget. That's where all the vehicles would be placed, out of the risk management fund.
>> do we need these two vehicles or what? Is another week disadvantage disadvantageious or has business been -- is necessary business being conducted without these?
>> these are part of the monies and cars that were approved for fy '06, not risk management. I think risk management cars come to you in another couple of weeks. These are just part of the replacement cars for -- that were identified last April.
>> why don't we do this. Why don't we agendaize this letter and the two vehicles, and when it seems like everything is crystallized, let's deal with it. I don't know that I would hold these two cars up until we do that. We can always -- there are a lot of things we can do if we think the sheriff ought to pick up the cost of two cars that we're paying for.
>> I think rick may have just had the answer right there. Did you say that the risk management related replacement purchases are coming up in a couple of weeks?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I am happy to defer this item and we can have a full discussion then. Is that accurate.
>> that's correct. The two vehicles being discussed are new vehicles, but we'll be bringing back to you in a couple of weeks the total loss replacement vehicles.
>> I think that would be a good avenue for us to do that and I would be happy for it would give the sheriff time to take a look at the letter and we'll have it more appropriately tied to risk management. And if that's the case, I would move approval of these two purchases.
>> second.
>> let's have that item set out in an eegd where we know -- agenda where we know exactly what's going on. I just saw these two vehicles and it apparently is not quite as routine as we thought.
>> well, it's a platform for us to have a follow-up discussion and unfortunately, we found out there wasn't some follow-up.
>> but at the same time I would tell the staff, please try to minimize the confusion. We need to send these letters out on a timely basis so we don't -- everything is dependent on every action. So let's be careful about that toovment.
>> there's no intent to hold things up, but it was discussed a couple of months ago.
>> and purchasing wasn't aware of any of these issues.
>> any more discussion of the motion to approve this item, to approve number 16?
>> I think that's --
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We did get on a-1, we did get a corrected version. Our intention here really is just to congratulate mansour, tell him what we did here in Travis County is similar, and basically to wish him well.
>> I think we're still missing a word, judge.
>> where is that?
>> third line, it says, by the government of the republic of -- and. Sorry, I’m a copy editor.
>> that's all right. Was that one of the --
>> I think we lost a word in the translation here. It was missing in the original.
>> let me move approval of this, unless there's objection, and what we'll do is go ahead and -- and make sure that every word is in place.
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, January 4, 2006 10:36 AM