Travis County Commissioners Court
January 24, 2006
Item 17
17 discuss recommendations regarding Travis County indigent burial services program. Just a few introductory comments if I might, ms. Fleming. We discussed this a few weeks back and the court made specific recommendations. And the draft we have before us is supposed to contain the recommendations that the court gave, and what I知 hoping they can do today is discuss the latest draft and see if we have additional changes, and if so, make them. If not, basically post this for public hearing. And action next week.
>> sherri fleming. The draft that you all have before you was the most recent draft prepared by legal, and so I will depend on legal to jump in at any point that they want to clarify any of the -- most of the overall intent, I believe, that we have discussed on previous occasions with the court remains the same. We have just reduced it to the legal language that makes this more fitting to move into our policies, but I will point out just a few things that I think will be critical for the court to know. The first is the addition of department discretion in the policy. And I think that we talked about in certain cases where the executive manager would have certain discretion with the policy, but there is specific legal language that speaks to department discretion. And that discretion would allow the executive manager with appropriate notice to the court to make certain policy waivers as unique situations present themselves. So I wanted to point that particular discretion out to the court because that is --
>> do you believe that's legal? That's a great responsibility. Waiving the court policies. But you welcome the opportunity?
>> we welcome the opportunity, yes, sir? Absolutely. Another point that we have made in each of our visits with you on this issue is the clarification around residency and the fact that our policies did not address previously that not only was the person eligible to make application to this program if they were a resident of Travis County, but if they died in Travis County. So that change is in the policy. Also at the department's request we've added to the policy a provision that allows nursing home residents who are out of our county, simply because of insurance requirements or some third-party payer source, and that placement has existed for less than 90 days that we would extend the residency to those folks under those specific circumstances. And so those -- that is also a new part of the policy that we wanted to highlight.
>> ms. Fleming?
>> yes.
>> I know that from time to time a lot of veterans go to the hospital in temple for medical attention. And unfortunately, some expire there. A couple of examples come to mind. I don't know that they were indigent, but if they had been indigent, would they be covered by that also?
>> I think that would be appropriate, judge, and that would probably speak to one of the discretion type issues that we're alluding to. Ms. Moffett, do you have any examples of that?
>> christie moffett, the social services manager for Travis County community center. Actually, if they were hospitalized and a Travis County resident prior to the hospitalization we wouldn't even have to work under that nursing home clause. It would be a situation where we would just consider them hospitalized at the va and that's where they died. And at that point we would have our funeral home go and pick them up and pay for that out of county transportation cost.
>> okay.
>> as the court is aware, a couple of weeks ago when we were here, you all have already approved the increase in the funeral home reimbursement that is also outlined in attachment a to the policy. And you also approved the addition of a mileage reimbursement that will follow the irs reimbursement that we do here with county staff. So each year as that's set, they will be subject to that as well. So those are the major changes in the policy. I think that marietta's work has addressed one of the concerns that the court expressed about the length of the policy, so I think that we have eliminated several pages in terms of how long the policy is, but still covering those things that we feel would be necessary for staff to work with your constituents on this particular service.
>> can you tell me where is addressed in the policy, a couple of points that were brought up during the discussion when the funeral directors were here and one question came up to the point about having some chapel service for those indigent persons. My question is you have some funeral directors that say we don't have room to have the chapel service. I think Commissioner Gomez even brought up a point about what about the roseries? And I think on the other hand we had the director from one funeral home suggested that we have that type of room whereby you can have chapel services in that -- viewing the body and stuff like that as far as the family is concerned and I guess the question then is, if we find persons that -- family members of the person that would like to have these and the rotating list that we're using does not offer chapel services, will that bump down to the next provider that do have chapel services or rosery? How does that work?
>> well, if there's an identified next of kin, then the identified next of kin would select the funeral home because of course at that point we wouldn't know whether they were able to pay for services or not. So the funeral -- the family members would have selection. The rotation of the funeral home comes into play when there is no next of kin available to make a selection. Often times maybe folks are here in a hospice type situation or in the nursing home maybe from another county, but that there might not be a person to make a selection, then that's when the rotation comes into play.
>> that would be correct.
>> so the policy does cover that?
>> yes.
>> go ahead, I知 sorry.
>> in terms of the viewing, we do have a definition of the viewing, and I believe that we've been advised by legal to clarify that more in our practices or our procedures that we'll go along with the policy. But we do have a definition of a viewing which basically speaks to the fact that no service is required. And those funeral homes that might want to offer some type of service, what we have just asked is that they would offer that to any family that was receiving indigent burial through their business.
>> okay, okay. That explains it. All right.
>> if we say view the casket, do we think that the implication that there is a body inside the casket is strong enough for us not to worry about it? What I saw our language, it said view the casket. We mean view the casket with the body in it or view the body in the casket?
>> and I believe we've allowed for a newt moout actual decision between the family member and the funeral home as to whether the casket would be open or close.
>> so it would need the definition of open casket as appropriate.
>> but it's not. Whether it's open or closed --
>> I see your point, though.
>> -- really goes to the casket. My point is the remains of the deceased should be in the casket.
>> yes, sir.
>> so we believe we don't need to say that.
>> I would hope not.
>> under which number?
>> and when you define viewing, you say viewing the casket --
>> we can work on that.
>> I see your point, judge.
>> since we have so many words there, we may as well clarify that. I know that's the intention. Right.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we did also have -- and thanks to Commissioner Daugherty's staff, we did have a numbering issue that we do need to correct, and we will get that corrected. And just for the record, the policies, we're posted for 30 days on the county's website. We also have provided at each time that the policies have been changed to our funeral home partners and requested their comments. And as appropriate they have provided those. I would also like to make a point that these current policies that we are reviewing today do not include the cremation language. I know that many of your staff have received some e-mails about cremation. We are still moving in that direction, but we don't have the language for you to approve. So as you go forward to approve these changes, it will not yet include cre cremation. That will be a separate policy that we'll bring back to you at some point in the future.
>> judge, when is this probably going to come before the court as far as the public?
>> I知 hoping that we have a public hearing next Tuesday and post it for action also.
>> next Tuesday?
>> next Tuesday. It seems that the people most concerned are partners, and I know representatives for the homeless work are concerned about the cremation language or the practice, so I think we need to know what the legal requirements are, what the other urban counties in Texas do, if anything, and stuff like that before we have the -- have that posted, plus give them an opportunity to see the precise language and explanation of why that's the language that's recommended.
>> absolutely. And I think we've tried to clarify our intent. I know that there are some counties who cremate within 72 hours with or without the appropriate kinship approval; however, that is not the intent, that is not what staff have heard from the court in terms of your interest in reviewing such a policy, and I think that our partners share with you that they have guidelines that will prevent them from an immediate cremation.
>> mr. Troxell who represents the homeless in this community, should be contacted. And let him take a look at the language and if he has concerns, to come down here and voice them. So answer your question, hopefully we can post it for action next week. And unless there are reasons not to acted, we will act on it.
>> and I want to make sure that we drill down in the comment. If you say, well, the family might object, then the family needs to take responsibility for the decedent, so it's one of those things of trying to drill down as to what the comment is on cremation. If the family feels strongly about cremation, the family needs to be taking responsibility for arrangements. And it's not even our concern and it goes off to them and peace be with you.
>> I have a question. Is it okay?
>> this is cheryl brown with judge Sam Biscoe's office. The funeral homes that we're using now, they're still under contract, correct? So these are new policies and eventually they'll be accepted and possibly hopefully next week. The contracts, would they be -- will a new contract be ready on the 24th?
>> no. That will be the next step. What we're doing is sending out a letter to the funeral homes, purchasing is, which will allow us to go ahead with the rate increases that the court has approved. So that will be taken care of first. Then we will draft new contracts for each funeral home and bring that back to court separately.
>> my concern with that is we have a funeral director in our audience, richard gardener, and he is not currently -- he does not have a contract with us right now. He's relatively new to Austin and to the funeral, but the business has been here awhile. So can he sign the contract that all other funeral homes are under right now and then when a new contract comes up he'll sign that?
>> I think he needs to contact the department in purchasing and we'll see what needs to be done on that.
>> let me ask it another way. What opportunities will we have for funeral homes that are not now contracting partners with us to become contracting partners?
>> I believe the court can direct us to have an open process to determine those businesses in our community who will be able, eligible and willing to provide this service for the county under the contracted rates.
>> is there any reason why we should not do that next week?
>> none that I know of. Marietta?
>> I think the reason might be preparation, getting with purchasing and having that ready to go by next week.
>> not necessarily to do everything, but to give direction to do it.
>> yeah. That would be fine.
>> there is this one potential partner, perhaps there are others, so I think we need to publicize the opportunity. Not that I知 expecting just a whole lot of funeral homes because we've had like a core group that have worked with us consistently, though, right?
>> yes. And I don't believe we've opened this process for 10 years.
>> it's timely.
>> that would be the number one question, right? Yeah. Okay. So we think fa the funeral homes that have been working with us have had an opportunity to review our latest draft, and those that had comments have submitted them.
>> yes, sir.
>> to our knowledge.
>> okay. And when we do the posting for public hearing next week, do we normally do anything other than put it on the agenda? And just publicize it as we generally publicize agenda items?
>> yes, there's no statutory requirement as far as newspaper postings and stuff like that. This is a matter of the court's policy for setting public hearings any time that they have a policy change like this one. So the court can do that at its discretion however they want to approach it. And so setting the public hearing, scheduling it, the regular notice through the agenda posting, if the department wants to send special notices, e-mails to the funeral homes that we have and to any other funeral homes that they know of, they could certainly do that also. And to any other special interest groups that we know of. There's no problem with the department providing them with special notice.
>> do we know about how many funeral homes we have in Travis County?
>> I actually don't. I know that we're currently contracted with about 10.
>> and we've been working off the red line version, but we need to have a clean whatever so that if somebody says what is it, I値l go this is the current thing, because I see on the bottom here we're working on a version 3 and I知 just hopeful that version 3 is the last one that we've got here. Just making sure we get the right copy.
>> one of our former county judges was real finishky about numbering the pages.
>> I had just written that down on my notes. [ laughter ] put the page numbers in. It helps when we're discussing. I致e already added that note.
>> anything else?
>> I would just like to extend thanks to the county attorney's office, the medical examiner's office, tnr, several community partners and the advocacy group for the funeral homes and all of our funeral home partners who have been very helpful to us during this process.
>> we did tell that and I also thank y'all for your fine work.
>> if I could say thank you as well to judge Biscoe's office and especially cheryl brown, there's a whole lot of this that the rest of us never get to see. And clearly there are some personal arrangements and personal involvement, and that's very much appreciated.
>> cheryl may be thinking of a second career. [ laughter ]
>> she's got the office with the window. Wait a minute, everybody in that office has a window. [ laughter ]
>> we'll post it for action and public hearing next week, okay?
>> thank you.
>> thank thank you very. Thank marietta too for the fine work in the county attorney's office.
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 25, 2006 9:19 AM