Travis County Commissioners Court
November 21, 2006
Item 28
28 is to discuss feasibility of position to perform intergovernmental relations and legislative disputes doouts for Travis County and take appropriate action. We had a dismution work session on this. I think it bielz boilz down to two things. One is whether we cover the legislative responsibilities that are about to hit us or whether we think in terms of could having those responsibilities plus the intergovernmental stuff that comes up after the session. If we do the first one, then legitimate bob and chris do their thing probably makes as much sense as anything. If we are a little bit more comprehensive, then I think we're looking at working with them and trying to post it and get a person in to work with them during the session and afterwards, though we would just do county intergovernmental relations stuff.
>> judge, I spoke with bob yesterday and asked him what he thought about the discussion that we had a work session with regards to $4,000 a month January through may. He said that he felt like they could do that and what they would like to do is take three-quarters of that, which would mean that we could have a contract with them for $3,000 a month. They will probably have to pay $4,000 a month, but they want that person there at $4,000 a month because they will use them part of the time for other things. And so I would think that the most prudent thing for to us do is to move quickly with them and cut -- if we've got five, six months at three thousand dollars a month, that's $18,000, and let's revisit as to what we're going to do with the combination of these two positions or one position or whatever we're going to do after the session, but I think that they know what they need from us. I told them if we're going to do that, you need to understand that we really need for this person to be sort of at our beck and call, and he said with that person, that's precisely what they would bring on. But that would sure allow us to move forward with this thing so we get it behind us and they are willing to do that if they gave us that direction that they would immediately start trying to find the person.
>> so basically 3,000 times six because that's including December, basically $18,000 and to add $18,000, come forward with an appropriate budget amendment -- contract amendment to bob and chris' contract and make them make it happen.
>> I know we discussed this in work session also, but we want to continue to take place, and my question is would that person that we're looking at, when would it be appropriate to let them know that what we're interested in is making it whole? I know this is kind of a situation where we're just dealing with right now, but then again the other attributes that we would like that person to have, we need to have it. And maybe that person is here or it may be somebody outside. I don't really know. But the bottom line is that there has to be some kind of time mechanism that triggers the other attribute that I think should be required of this person that we bring on board. I'm just wondering what is your thinking on that?
>> I would do a disircht approach. I would -- a different approach. I would bring in a county imeevment I would expect this person to work full time for the county in the legislative session and full time for the county ardz. There's a slightly different focus there. I think. Because I think our major thing right now is making sure that county elected officials, managers, etcetera, have a legislative person that they can pick up the phone and talk to. And I'm seeing this as more a permanent need, part of which is this legislative thing. It doesn't bother me try the other approach. It's not my pref refnlts.
>> jurjs I agree that -- judge, I agree that this needs to be -- both with you and Commissioner Davis, this needs to be a permanent deal. I'm just afraid that we can't find -- I don't think that we can find a person that could adequately take on this responsibility for us right now, but I think that they probably can find a person to do that. But I am wholeheartedly behind bringing somebody on that this will be their job from this point forward. If we don't think that they are --
>> if they want to hire somebody who will just work for the county and do the same thing, working out of their offices doesn't bother me. It's just that I would hate to think that I'm trying to find a person to deliver a message from one of our managers that's come to the court and this person is workogsome other legislation, which may well be important to the other entity. The other thing is that if -- we may as well use this four or five month fownt this person to -- month opportunity for this person to learn about Travis County. It will be greater after the session than before hire if in addition to the -- spending time at the legislature, the person spends time here with us.
>> the person that they bring on, that might very well be be the person that we want to sit down with and say, okay, now come to work for us and take a look. I just think that -- and they certainly understand it. They are bringing this person on that 99% of the time they are -- if judge Biscoe calls and says I need to see whoever it is, they're going to come over here rather than work out of their office. I suggested it, I said whoever it is, they need to be sitting in here the first Tuesday they can for the next three or four weeks in December and seeing what we do and how dwoa it and interact. I just don't -- I'm not comfortable, unless you've got somebody in mind that you think hey, I've talked to somebody and I think they can do the job. I know that they know the system so well over there that it would make me feel so comfortable unless you're going to dump somebody in our lap and say in person is wrl good, then I'm all ears.
>> if they will buy into our long-term need full session, then I don't have a problem.
>> why don't I have -- because I think what I discussed with them yesterday, I said I'm going to talk to the members and let me have them come up and talk to you. I think what -- their intentions with this, what they don't want to do is they don't want to take the whole $4,000 a month and then somebody say, do you know what, I saw that person at another committee hearing and we go, well, they're on our nickel and it wasn't even something that we're -- they said just to be safe, let us pay a little bit of this 4,000 -- which is why we would like to bill y'all $3,000 a month. I would say what we ought to do is a 20,000-dollar contract versus an 18 because I think we will need to have a couple of week in June for them to come in and brief us and say okay, this is what the deal is and that we have an understanding that we've got them until June so they can come in and brief us on everything that happened. I think that --
>> they can do that.
>> judge, if this were July I would say host it, let's -- post it, let's get it out there, but it is November 21st. There's no way. We should have had somebody on board six weeks ago because the demands have been there and we've had to say I'm sorry, we cannot help you. We're shutting down the office. We cannot assist you.
>> let's get bob in to talk to you and if you want to put an e-mail to all of us about what you discuss, but what I just basically said is what he said chris and I have talked about this and thtion what we would like to three throe at you. We could bring it back next week and ratify it.
>> it almost sounds too, because chris does work especially with san antonio, we're kind of looking for kind of a seth mitchell in terms of somebody in how seth works for the city of san antonio in terms of being more than just the legislative lobbyist. He is the governmental, external governmental officer. As opposed to something else. So I think if we say the kind of person with skills beyond just the liaison, legislative runner, we're looking for somebody that could potentially be trying to you for the permanent job and would compete at the appropriate time. But I just -- time is of the essence and I think the fastest way to make this happen is to work with bob and chris about making this happen.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> what was that motion?
>> changing some things. The thought is that --
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> judge, I seconded that motion.
>> [multiple voices]
>> we are trying to figure out what the motion is.
>> my motion will be we move to have bob and chris sheilds come in and talk to the judge with us about a contract for December through the end of June for a $20,000 contract for services through this legislative session.
>> in conjunction with that, bringing in to what the judge suggested as far as maybe this question --
>> absolutely.
>> that will come.
>> yeah but let's --
>> if the
>> [multiple voices]
>> I want the flavor of the discussion --
>> if there's a friendly I have no problem with that. I do think that we will be able to work with that and we will identify whether that's something that we need to do. At least have the flexibility of that being part of it.
>> with the idea that we are not just looking at a short term need, we are looking for long-term attributes.
>> friendly, yeah.
>> I support it.
>> is that friendly? That passed by unanimous vote?
>> yeah.
>> okay, jill?
>> okay.
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, November 22, 2006 12:38 PM