Travis County Commissioners Court
September 12, 2006
Item 12
Number 12 is to consider and take appropriate actions received to name the precinct four building at 40 4011 mckinney falls parkway.
>> yes, sir, good afternoon. Executive manager for administrative operations. In accordance with your policy, the court has received about 12 names that are a nomination to name the precinct 4 building, as you stated, at 4011 mckinney falls parkway. In your backup you have a list of names that were nominated. And the process calls for a public hearing to be called by the Commissioners court. After the public hearing, the nominations and all the information on the candidates goes to the historical commission. Then the historical commission provides comment and the final determination is made by the Commissioners court on naming any building.
>> does our policy require that a a biography be submitted or sort of request one?
>> the way that the policy reads, if a recommendation to name an individual, that the following criteria must be met . And that includes that the person have a significant contribution. And let me just double-check on the biography, a private citizen and group making the recommendation must provide a written biographical sketch of the individual, whether living or deceased, to the Commissioners court.
>> the reason I ask the question, six did not submit a biographical sketch.
>> I see what you're saying.
>> so the question is if that's like a mandatory requirement, violation of which means you are dropped out, it's a big question. I guess--
>> it does say must provide a written biographical sketch of the individual. The word is must.
>> the other thing that I noticed here, meaning no dis disrespect to any of the 12 people who are on here, there seems to be two names in particular that stick out out. One was the one that originally led to this open opening up of this building in term of nomination of names. And another stellar recommendation. And what struck me is that one of these persons spent their entire life and career working for the sheriff's office. And we have a building that I'm getting tired of calling the haverty building because it's not going to be furniture, it's going to be central command of tcso. My thought was that rather than having to pick one and perhaps mismatching a name to a building, that if we put on a new item for next week to open up the naming of 5555 airport, we might have two excellent naming opportunities for law enforcement related things and we could have these things running parallel. Rather than one time going to two separate things going to the historical commission which only meets once a month, we could have on parallel paths and start assigning a real name to 555 5555 airport as opposed to the haverty's building. Seems like, and I took the opportunity to talk to some of the folks who put in for keith ruiz and I said, if something better were to come available would you have issues with that? And they were like, oh, no, we meant it that this is a person worthy of recognition recognition. If there is a better opportunity than what's here certainly that is something that they would want to not miss out on that opportunity as well. But the sheriff's central command is one that is just blatantly sticking out there as a building that will need a name other than the havert haverty's building.
>> how long did we allow for the submission of names on this building?
>> on this one, about six weeks. That's what we would allow.
>> we are close to deciding what to do with the names. You are talking about waiting another seven or eight weeks. I am not, I assume that these names were submitted for this project. You throw out another name, I don't know whether we get 12 more or not.
>> judge, the thing, no, let me--let me just finish.
>> --
>> let me just finish.
>> sorry.
>> on this item, the question today is what do we want to do. If somebody wants to consider another name for another building, let's post it for next week.
>> that's what I want.
>> do we want to delay this seven or eight weeks? The other thing, I am not advertising the availability of a building name folk after. At the same time, I guess it makes sense. To the extent that we want to name them after different people, we throw out the opportunity and see what names are submitted, et cetera. I personally would feel a whole lot better doing these one at a time rather than leaving somebody with the impression that if we don't choose them for this one, we will chose for another one. Unfortunately, I don't know a lot of these people here. You know, victor flor, o--fl o--flores jury, once the--j one the facts are in. The ones that didn't submit biography, it's going to be hard to choose. One, it didn't meet the requirement and two I personally don't know them. Just as a matter of procedure, I don't know why we ought to invite the opportunity to be inundated with people wanting us to name two buildings when let's let this run its course. If we start another one, everybody interested in this one will see the other opportunity. We ought to allow some time for to be submitted for-- for--names to be submitted for public hearing. Has this one gone to the historical submission? That's where--commission?
>> that's where we're at.
>> here is the tell case on this one--tell casty on this one . There are a lot of folks when I let them know, were you told that there were a sheriff's central command building that was going to be coming up at some point in the next month, the up upcoming month, and they were told, no.
>> is that true?
>> yes.
>> the only thing that make that true is for us to vote to do so.
>> I'm sorry.
>> announcement just then is news to me.
>> there are folks who have not been told that the sheriff's command building is one that is out there un unnamed and would be a naming opportunity from this Commissioners court.
>> that's what I'm saying.
>> they are very disappointed to find out that was not the case, that they were not told.
>> but it's only a naming opportunity if we vote for it to be one.
>> that's what I'm saying. It need to be a naming opportunity. We're not going to call it the haverty's building.
>> I don't know.
>> east command is named after chief col year. I don't remember the fallen officer's name. We have put names on east and west command and this would be central command. And it is an amazing opportunity to put a name on a building. And folks that I visit with here said they would hate to see that they would have a missed opportunity to reel really attach their recommendation to the appropriate building. This is what they were told was the only thing available available. I think--
>> what if another name is submitted by others and we think that name is better than any of these? Do you then go back and tell the people here? I don't tell them anything except see Commissioner Sonleitner. What they ought to know is that this court acts as a matter of public record by a majority vote. And so however we want to proceed is fine with me. We have a written procedure. The next step for is what?
>> to set a public hearing?
>> I think we ought to do that. If a member of this court wants to name the airport buildinging, I think that's fine. I don't know whether we get 12 names or 20. I'm just saying, that starts us down another road. Wherever that road leads us is fine with me. I don't think these people ought to be told, if we don't name the precinct 4 building after you, we will name the airport boulevard. I don't think that's fair. It locks in other members of the court.
>> what I'm telling you, judge, is that these folks were not told that central command was going to be an availability at some point in the future.
>> because the court has not voted. They should not have been told anyway.
>> that's not what they were told. They were told that somebody already decided what the name was going to be and it wasn't the Travis County Commissioners court.
>> they should have been told the Commissioners court is the only authority of Travis County that can name a building.
>> they have now been told that. And that's why--
>> it's the Commissioners court decision, not anyone else.
>> .
>> where it ought to be and that's where we should leave it. We are about ready to discussion the pharmacy.
>> I have a feeling mr. Sylvester could be helpful on this particular itemwould are supposed to--
>> we are supposed to discuss the precinct build building. You are here on the airport boulevard item.
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner opened it up of let's hear it.
>> the sheriff and I have our own selection process. I'm a little winded from getting over here in a hurry hurry. The gorge matthews, a sheriff in Travis County for 18 years, county commission Commissioner for a few years and deputy sheriff and county judge for about 25 years.
>> I was supportive until you mentioned that part, that he was county junk.
>> he was responsible for the courthouse we now have today. His name is on the corner stone. And the sheriff and I are want to go pursue that avenue, to have the building named after him.
>> are you under the impression that the haverty haverty's building is any different than east and west command, that the naming, including the one across the street, is the job of the Travis County Commissioners court and that is precisely what I'm talking about here, people were erroneously told that someone else had already decided this and paid zero attention to what is our stated policy. You guys don't get to name the building. In the same way that east command and west command that was a vote of the Travis County Commissioners court with.
>> correct.
>> --with all suggestions that came in. But it is not you all's naming and you don't get to tell people, we have already decided what the building is being named. It is a disservice to people.
>> I'm not trying the run that at all. I'm trying to tell that you we decided that's the avenue we which to pursue and we will go through the proper channels and file the appropriate paper work for recommendations to the court court. That's with a we would like to have the building named after. I'm not trying to say that we're trying to push you all into a corner and stomping our feet. We're going to go through the process like everyone else.
>> I appreciate that. That's not what people have been told in terms of what the process was. They were flat out told, that is not an option. And if you don't grab the precinct four building, you are out of luck on this thing. Is judge matthews a relation of yours?
>> none whatsoever.
>> we have gotten way off track here. Now, we don't, wait, let me finish. Let me play judge.
>> sorry.
>> we don't have to act a 12 12. In order for us to discuss all this other stuff we really ought to have a prep preply worded agenda item. Do we want to post on this and let you submit another agenda item on the other one that's fine with me. Now, my advice next week will be, if you submitted a name on this building, you ought to be in there to fight and get the building named after you. If you don't and the other opportunity becomes available if and when it does, submit your name on that one. I don't have any preferences except to get this behind us.
>> the only thing is that one of the people who was told that the haverty's building was not an option for her was bernadette ruiz. I think we oh her a tremendous amount of respect for just the tremendous sacrifice of losing keith. While on the job. Carrying out the sheriff's orders on the job. We oh owe her a--owe her a lot more respect than that.
>> I realize that. Keith and I went to college together and worked on the streets together. I'm were well aware of the emotional attachment.
>> she should not have been told this was not an option.
>> she was not told that from me. What was conveyed to her and her family was that we were committed to wanting to name the range after keith ruiz, the swat team and bernadette herself came to us earlier on and we said whenever the range gets built we want to make that the keith memorial range. I talked to her about that and she said we're tired of that process ice never going to be here. I said it is going to be here. We're getting ready to break ground and move forward. I understands her position. She her husband name on a build--wands her husband-- husband--wants her husband's names on a building of she has gone through several different buildings. But the range is a guarantee guarantee. And she didn't, I guess, she felt that the guarantee was not a guarantee and was going to try to find other avenues to have a building named after her husband. I'm fine with that. She also was told that the sheriff's office is moving forward to have the haverty haverty's building go through the proper procedure and paperwork to name after george matthews.
>> it's named here.
>> see, since he worked for the sheriff's office, she thought that the proper building to name would be one with the sheriff's department. And that was even before margo left. I don't know what happened to those discussions. I mean, he clearly gave his life for the sheriff's department following their orders. And I think that's really appropriate. But she is not interested in the precinct four building. She just submitted it because it was after she was told that the sheriff had not options open to her.
>> okay.
>> I think if we do the call for the haverty's building, I think she will--
>> withdraw.
>> and put in her paperwork for that one.
>> all right. We cannot guarantee that it will be selected.
>> she knows that.
>> she would--
>> two bites at the apple, why would you not take two rather than just one? During my biting days--
>> when I mentioned--
>> this item will be back on next week for a discussion and action. We will have them together. How that is?
>> excellent.
>> now, the recommendation is submit ano indicating what you recommend--memo indicating what you recommend. And to the extent that a recommendation for airport impacts precinct four, if we know what it is, that will be fine.
>> yes.
>> number 1 will be back on next week--12 will be back on next week.
>> and submit language for part b or whatever you like.
>> separate item. We'll put one right after the othernot a problem, judge--
>> not a problem, judge. We will do that. 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, September 13, 2006 10:11 AM