Travis County Commissioners Court
February 28, 2006
Item 20
20. A. Discuss and take appropriate action on revised Travis County purchasing policy and procedure manual, to replace chapter 32 of the Travis County code; and b. Discuss and take appropriate action on revised Travis County fixed asset policy and procedure manual, to replace chapter 33 of the Travis County code.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Last -- last week we had a work session -- well, two weeks ago we had a work session on the purchasing manual updates and I believe back in January we had a work session on the fixed assets manual. We have now gotten comments from -- from everyone on the purchasing manual. The only issue that was outstanding was on the dollar amount that we would increase congratulate tooth gratuities, what we had written in here were -- some other counties were 50's 25, 75. Being one of the most scplensive places to live in Texas, we put $75. Of course we discussed other major changes, which was approval to allow the purchasing agent to approve modifications up to $50,000. And also allowing me to -- to go ahead and buy things off state contracts and interlocal agreements, even in excess of the $25,000 as long as they had been approved by the Commissioners court in the budget process.
>> cyd, I apologize but I wasn't at the work session when this may have been discussed. But walk me through just a little bit in terms of what this 75 is meant to -- to cover. Because I know in terms of just dealing with all of us, there is something that's considered a gift which there's a very specific limit, I think it's $50 or less. But there is an exclusion for things that are considered entertainment. Taking somebody out to dinner, doing something where a person is directly with the person who is receiving that dinner. As opposed to hi, here are two tickets to a game, your host is not with you, that is considered a gift, it has to be reported as such, there are very strict limits. But if you are -- if your host is going with you to that same game, that is considered entertainment, is not subject to those same kind of things because somebody directly is there as your host and you don't have that. So walk me through this thing because I知 reading leroy's e-mail about like this -- like this -- the question of weather golf or something else, whether this is something separate and that's a number that we need to be concerned about or it's considered an exclusion under what generally on all of the ethics disclosures is considered entertainment and you do not have that kind of limit, although we need to be concerned about appearances at all times.
>> well, I think that you have several ethics laws that you all have to comply with. I would have to defer to barbara, you have the campaign finance stuff that you have to deal with, you have the Texas ethics rules that you have to abide by. This is our purchasing code of ethics. Basically this says that if you are -- if you have any influence on the key contracting list, which all of you do, that you are not to accept gifts or gratuities or anything in value greater than $75. If it's with the intent to influence your decision. What it also says that if you disclose that, and this -- one of the concerns was we left it at -- we had at $25 for years and years and years because basically from a purchasing standpoint people shouldn't be giving you gifts anyway. Like leroy brings up, even when my officings to meetings, seminars, there are vendor there who are sponsoring, they might sponsor a dinner -- for an individual group would could well be over $25 now, they might be giving out pens, balls, [indiscernible], lights, those sort of thing, but it's not someone coming into my office giving me cyd here's a $30 gift, I want you to vote this way. I mean it's -- when you go to these conferences it's not -- to me those things are -- are inconsequential, cannot influence this, spread out among the association so those things are just part of going to conferences. If someone to come into my office and give me a gift and ask me to vote a certain way or do something inappropriately, I shouldn't be doing that. So -- so this is just a -- to discourage folks from trying to ask -- ask people who were on the committees to do something that they are not supposed to do with some sort of a bribe or gift or something to try to influence them. And as we talk about ethics, I think that it's -- I think we know when someone is trying to buy us lunch, have a conversation about an idea, or when they might be trying to influence us. I don't think $25 or $75 is going to influence any of us to do something illegal.
>> well, I think that it ought to be. I think 75 is high. I think if we go back to -- to what you had before, probably, you know, really close the door on that sort of a thing, but what if it's a person who can be influenced with a dollar? You know? Really doesn't matter what the amount is, if a person can be influenced they are going to be influenced by anything. So --
>> in the new -- in the new house bill 914, with the whole new -- which was supposed to get at -- at the ethics and you know influencing public officials, it's specifically -- it specifically exempts entertainment, travel and lodging. Which doesn't make sense to a purchasing person. But -- but this policy that you are approving that I知 asking you to approve is for -- is for our rules, our ethics policy and it's all about disclosure, avoiding those sorts of appearances and things --
>> entertainment, travel and longing.
>> it would cover those things.
>> entertainment would include a meal.
>> yes, it would.
>> okay. Cyd said money given with the intent. The way it's written into the policy is much stricter than that. It just said that -- said that anything that might influence or appear to influence. And when it brings up the dollar value, it doesn't say that -- that this -- that this isn't included, it says this isn't included unless whatever is given to you does in fact influence or does appear to influence a specific purchasing decision. So -- so that -- so that -- so that your one dollar issue is covered. If a person can be influenced by one dollar, then that's prohibited. If -- if it -- if it relates to a specific thing. Now, it kind of says $75 or $25 whatever number you put in there is okay in the context that cyd was talking about where it was at a convention and everybody is getting it, everybody is getting it, nobody is in the process of purchasing any particular item. But it -- it is considerablablely stricter than just did that person intend to influence you. Might it appear that they intended to.
>> this covers a vendor?
>> uh-huh.
>> so if a law school classmate of mine remembers me while reviewing the old law school year book, and sent something of value, out of the clear blue, one is that I知 not sure that I would know the value of it, let's say the value is more than $75 or $25, currently, this would not be a vendor, it would be an old law school classmate of mine. If he were doing business with the county, not likely to do so, would I not have reason to worry?
>> okay.
>> vendor is here for a reason, doing business with the county, likely to do business with the county, trying to do business with the county, that would pick all of that up.
>> it says [indiscernible] potential contractors in the second line.
>> potential, yeah.
>> gee, I wish we could put in here potential vendors would not set up political action committees to try to influence a purchasing decision, but that's just me.
>> I知 the one that suggested increasing it. [laughter] and the reason for that was as I said, you know, I致e -- I致e gone to search fraud conferences and they really recommend, these are anti-fraud people, that it be a reasonable amount and then it's enforced. And you know I think 75 probably is reasonable. That's a value judgment. Part of the reason that you send your people there is to get ideas and talk with other people and it doesn't mean that that dinner is going to buy you, but by the same token you get in a major hotel, that dinner is going to cost, including tip and everything, and we are not talking alcohol here, we are talking in coffee, more than $25. And a lot of business and innovative ideas do take place. Having lunch, or in a social situation. I think what this just says is you know you are right, you could be bought I guess for less than that. But this is a reasonable amount and we are serious about it. You know, you go to -- you go someplace and you sit there and you have dinner for $37 or $40 or whatever, they are handing out canvas totes for your material, you know, that's all right. I mean that's under $75. You go there and the -- giving you a leather briefcase that's $250, that is not appropriate because that really starts bringing it in question and they are taking you to -- to a restaurant where dinner is $100, that the not what -- that's not what we see as appropriate. There's not a particular line, but I think that when you say don't take anything, people pick up stuff, they do. This is just kind of a -- I知 not sold on one number over the other, but I think it ought to be reasonable, then it ought to be enforced. The other thing is I don't think in your case, judge, the example that you used, I mean, you know, you are a lawyer. You associate with lawyers. Your friends are lawyers. They do lawyer business. There's nothing to say that -- down the road that one of those lawyers might be interested in doing -- there's nothing wrong with that. You know, I知 an accountant, you would expect I might hang out with accountants -- not as exciting as lawyers [indiscernible]
>> I knew that you all were going to say it. I might as well. You can't predict with certainty down the road who is going to do business with the county. Ethics is -- these ought to be arm's length transactions. So that's kind of my take on it.
>> I hear your example, here's what I would like to probably get an answer to. Is this per event or either a per day, is it something --
>> this says per year, per year. So that's reasonable for a year.
>> for that one particular --
>> yeah for a year. If you went to like the judges, Commissioners meeting, there was a vendor taking everyone out and they were discussing new road materials, it was a vendor, it's probably worth our while for you to, even though the dinner that he's paying for you, although you don't -- you are not signing off, might be $30. That much.
>> I like having the excuse to turn down the lunch people at the conferences, but that's also just me.
>> but one can also do that.
>> exactly. It comes down to the person, you know. You say well, you know, a $10 lunch is okay, but I don't need a $75 lunch.
>> this is a year.
>> I know. But let's say that I just go that once and that blow it all at one conference. I just don't see myself getting, you know, expensive lunches, I really don't. If our friend, we had friends who want to go to a nice restaurant. Even if you order the lowest priced one, it's still up there because you are in this very nice expensive restaurant.
>> in the city.
>> and it -- you know, I don't go to those expensive restaurants here. I go home sometimes to eat. But to me it's really in the person, the person will determine how -- the -- the ethics for themselves and so -- so if we are trying to get people to be more responsible for their own expenditures, then should we make this kind of low? A low item? That would encourage people to kind of keep in mind really, you know, I need to buy my own lunch or I need to accept a lunch that is $10 or, you know, and not -- not a real expensive lunch.
>> my e-mail to the court was an attempt to identify what I could see or potential times in -- that's going on right now. If in fact we do not explain in our ethics policy that a luncheon that is sponsored by a vendor, a currents or a potential vendor, and all of these -- these lunches when you go to -- to gtot, I mean we invest millions of dollars every single year here, cash investment management, including harvey, mary, myself, leann, I will tell you, we get that information at these conferences and j.p. Morgan chase, wells fargo, bank of america, they all sponsor things. My e-mail was an attempt to get the policy to specify what's in and out of the $75. Because I can tell you, that our current vendor, j.p. Morgan chase sponsors a lunch and you may want to pay $10 for lunch, but I値l tell you when the conference is held at the westin, I bet j.p. Morgan chase is paying $35 or $40 for each one of those. We go to numerous conferences, mary is an officer in gtot, she speaks at various conferences during the year as an officer, and I know that her, the cost, if you include these sponsored luncheons exceeds $75. That was my point of the e-mail. The last thing we want to be is in conflict much I asked the county attorney on one occasion, when I asked the vendor it was underneath the amount that I was indicating, I asked the vendor how do I pay for a portion if it's over it. They laughed. I mean they absolutely laughed it was the chairman of the board for this area. I知 telling you we shouldn't get ourselves into a definition that is to restrictive and not the same as what other counties and cities do. I知 not saying we ought to be having $75 lunches, that is too much. If in fact we cumulative over a 12 month period of time are doing normal business transactions, I mean, mary, harvey and I go quarterly to a luncheon to discuss or banking contract, the services they give us. You know, I don't mind picking up every single lunch, I think that I made that clear in the e-mail. If the court wants I will guarantee you, I will not be in violation of an ethics policy. But my attempt was for us not to get a definition that we inadvertently didn't do normal business practices and we were in violation. That's my intent. For example, if any of you golf playing people --
>> I knew there as much as a reason I don't play golf.
>> if j.p. Morgan chase wanted to pay the entry in a charity golf thing, this would preclude it because I値l tell you the ones that I have personally purchased and people have played in, have cost $250. I知 just telling ya. That's okay. , you know,, I知 saying we ought to go into this thing with our eyes open and -- and myself and my staff will abide by whatever you approve. But I can tell you other people do not include in their -- I think, in their $75 or whatever, when you have 300 people attend a luncheon and j.p. Morgan chase pays for the bill, those aren't the type of expenditures that are included normally. I know gtot excludes those from their ethics. All I知 saying is, if we don't want to include some expenses then we ought to say what it is that we want to include in the $75. That I -- I think that's what we need.
>> I think that the policy is clear in that it says employees shall not solicit or accept money, loans, gifts, favors, anything of vietnam from present or potential contractors that might influence or appear to influence a person's decision. It goes on to talk about it being a specific purchasing decision. If we have a proposal or a bid out on the street, someone wants to take one of you to golf on 150 or $200 lunch, that's inappropriate and it shouldn't be done. If you are going to -- if you are going to a -- to a general accounting conference or you are going to a county judge's continuing education, they are giving away a lunch, which is usually included in the tuition anyway, they are giving it away, samples of discs, stuff like that, that's not influencing a specific purchasing decision. So in my mind it's clear. I think some of the other ethics rules that you all have to comply with are much more specific, much more defined. So this is in a specific purchasing decision and I think we all know when someone is trying to influence a vote. I think susan said it. We have a very arm's length, very controlled situation. None of you can go out and make a decision about a contract on your own. You have a purchasing agent that supervises that process, makes sure that it's done in accordance with the law, then the five of you vote. So -- so I think the policies are clear. If you want to make it less, that's your decision, too. I think susan is correct in that nowadays, $25 hardly pays for a lunch. So I -- I think the intent of the policy is clear and that is -- like Margaret said, I mean, if you are going to be influenced, you are going to be influenced.
>> I asked the question earlier, and I think that you answered it appropriately and -- and the question was that -- that -- to the vendor that would be apt to purchase a person's lunch, there's a $75 limit on it. I asked the question was that cumulative, how much -- you said that's for a whole year. That it can't exceed $75 for a whole year. In other words if you have three lunches that cost $25, the fourth lunch you can't have. And I want to make sure that that's understood as far as cumulative amount for a vendor and also the amount that it can be spent in as far as time is concerned which is a year. Now is that correct? Is that incorrect.
>> a year.
>> so that's correct? What I just stated?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. I just wanted to make sure that's clear. Because -- okay.
>> what does gtot stand for.
>> it's a treasurer organization of Texas.
>> I thought there was some illegal -- [laughter]
>> [multiple voices]
>> it's basically where we go to get updated on -- by the feds and the federal reserve, deputy governor. Yeah.
>> mr. Harlow.
>> I was curious as to for on leroy's discussion, the tiburon compudine a lot of people in the county go to, there are at least two lunches that are covered in that conference and one dinner outing. That's all paid for by tiburon. So there's a lot of folks that go to those conferences. I would say probably 30 or 40 people at one time or another, out of the county, that have gone to those conferences.
>> that's okay with me as long as when we're considering a contract in which tiburon is one of the bidders, then people would say I need to stay out of this, not talk to anybody about or certainly not a member of the court to say you really need to rote for tiburon because I just like them. We just need to take it upon ourselves to leave ourselves out of it not try to talk to any member of the court about when that's up. When it is not up, for any request of bid or awarding of a bid, to me it's education, you go there for those conferences and there isn't a bid out here, you know, waiting to be awarded.
>> right. In that situation we are trying to influence how they update our system. So I mean we are already in a contract at that point and [multiple voices] it's a benefit. It's to influence your vote. And to me that's --
>> when it's up to be awarded.
>> > right.
>> specifically.
>> when we are in the process and you need to be careful we are in the process. When we have got a bid out on the street and people start calling and that's when you need to say we have a process, contact the purchasing agent.
>> did we look at the other urban counties of Texas, if we looked at them, would we find more of them near $25 or 75?
>> I would say $50. The responses that I got back were between 25 and 50 -- and 75. I can do a more thorough query on that.
>> seems to me that we have enough qualifiers here, the language on the tail end to influence a specific purchasing decision, when you think about that, that's -- the educational stuff it seems to me is excluded if you do that. If there are 300 people there, everybody gets lunch, if there are 300 people there and 299 eat one meal, yours is kind of special. Then I would wonder about that. [laughter] so -- so I --
>> you don't mean the vegetarian plate.
>> my motion is to set it at $50.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. My motion is to approve the language recommended by the purchasing agent.
>> second.
>> discussion? This has been probably the most controversial provision in the recommended changes, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, does that include a and b or are we just doing a section under a and we still have to do the --
>> I think we ought to do the whole thing [multiple voices] the other big deal is just to increase the purchasing agents ability to award contracts up to 50 thowsm what's the language on that?
>> the language -- right now 25,000, right?
>> right now I can approve contract modifications only on construction, some construction projects up to 50. This will allow me to do contract modifications on anything.
>> okay. These are modifications which means basically the Commissioners court has approved the contract, but there is reason to modify it. And this authorization is important because it enables us to expedite.
>> why don't we put it in place for one year. If there are issues with it, one year from now, we will basically look at revisiting it. How is that?
>> that's fine.
>> I know that I do not support when it comes to some of the contracts. I think in discussing that with cyd, those kind of things, I would still have an opportunity to -- to deal with this. To come before the court.
>> I think that I -- our understanding will be if there is something a little out of the ordinary, that -- that you believe the Commissioners court will want to -- to receive input on, you would simply bring it to the court. I think --
>> yes, sir.
>> if you tried to work it that way, we can --
>> I know some of the Commissioner Davis -- I know his concerns on some of our landfill issues, I would bring those back to court. You know, any time there's an item that I don't necessarily agree with, I would probably bring it to Commissioners court. And let you all make that decision. Anything controversial I would bring to como you are the.
>> not routine.
>> the other thing is many of the major big contracts are with departments that you already manage. T.n.r., facilities, health and human services, so you always have a management right to -- to say to joe gieselman, look, if you are going to do this, I -- I want you to discuss it with me ahead of time. So, you know, you don't -- this does not override your management ability for these departments that -- that report to you.
>> it's sort of the same thing now that we have with the r.f.p., r.f.b., r.i.b. Process. Commissioner Sonleitner asked last week I think on the collection thing that r.f.p. Be brought back to court before I issue it. And any time -- I知 already having the authority to issue those things, but when I know that you have issues, I bring it to you. There's certain ones high dollar one, controversial ones we bring those to you prior to even issuing the solicitation. Because I know that it's important to you all.
>> this is also --
>> [indiscernible]
>> 19.1.
>> this is also subject to budgetary controls that are out there, too. Cyd can't go and authorize something up to $50,000 if the authorized budget is 20. So there are protections in there as well in terms of the auditor and p.b.o. Certifying that there is sufficient dollars in that line item for cyd to even make that kind of call.
>> we have an issue on the agenda, which we haven't gotten to, that is just like that. We have a funding issue that we will talk about when we get to it. Those kind of issues, if it's not -- if I知 not totally comfortable with it, certainly I知 not going to approve it if the money is not there. I would bring that back to court.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? Can of cav yets -- with the caveats that we mentioned.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> just with Commissioner Gomez, I spoke with her and Commissioner Sonleitner this is going to reduce tremendously a lot of workload that comes to Commissioners court and we did a survey, about 87% of our items on consent anyway. So this is an efficiency in time and dollars to the court. So thank you very much.
>> any other issue that's we need to surface specifically? Then I move approval of a and b, the rest of a and b.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor that passes by unanimous vote.
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, March 1, 2006 7:37 AM