Travis County Commissioners Court
December 5, 2006
Item 9
Number 9 to discuss two proposals for mental health public defenders grant program. Receive recommendation from committee and give any necessary directions for court action on December 12th, 2005. I posted this item for discussion today. Give us a week to pull mull over it, take action next week.
>> marvin brice, assistant purchasing ago. I have with me jorge, in charge of the procurement and coordinated it, I must say did an excellent job on it thanks to him.
>> Travis County received a multi-year discretionary grant to establish a mental health public defenders office. One of the requirements, also in accordance county Texas code of criminal procedures did those services feed to be procured through the competitive process via the issuance of an r.f.p. On September of this year the court did authorize such issuance. Proposals were requested from governmental entities as well as non-profit corporations only. Two
>> [indiscernible] were received one from the Travis County criminal justice department the other from the non-profit agency Texas legal aid. An evaluation committee reviewed those. It consisted of two county Commissioners, one criminal defense attorney, no on the mental health wheel, one not on, one mental health advocate.
>> how did this go out.
>> as an r.f.p.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> the results of the committee's scoring is contained in your backup, the last page, the evaluation matrix there. This morning was such criminal justice planning department received 4,752 points. Texas rio grande legal aid received 4,465 points. And I think was that out of a total of how many points that were made?
>> that was a total of 5,000.
>> a total of 5,000 points. Which brings us to -- to the point that we are at now, which -- which in accordance with the Texas code of criminal procedures, after considering each proposal for the public defender, submitted by
>> [indiscernibleent tear or non-profit corporation the --the ...
>> [reading] and this is -- this issue is now before the court for your consideration, discussion and possible action.
>> questions? My intention really was to put it on the court's radar, give us a chance to discuss it. And then one week later post it for action.
>> yes. We can do that. I will bring it back. Roll over. Any questions about this item.
>> when do we expect to take action? Next week.
>> the only thing that really jumped out at me was, you know, when you look at the scoring anything that jumps out like that, you take that out, I guess that was the reason why most of the time when you see scoring you see the low dropped out and the hydropped out. If this were going to be predicated strictly on the --
>> exactly.
>> I suggested throwing out maybe the high and low score. Since it's not totally predicated on scoring, we didn't think that was necessary.
>> for the viewing public, can you just basically describe how this process works? Real brief like. Before --
>> brief explanation of --
>> very, very brief.
>> the r.f.p. Was issued in early September. And essentially we opened it only to non-profit corporations. And governmental entities. As a result we put together the evaluation committee. Which -- which was mandated by the Texas task force on indigent defense and the criminal code of procedure. And -- and as a result we received two proposals, one internal, one external. And now we are tasked with -- with deciding whether it is going to be in the county's best interests to go internal and set it up as a county department or -- or establish and pursue contracting with an external agency.
>> the purpose of the contracting -- the purpose of the intent is to do what?
>> ultimately to -- to establish this mental health public defenders office.
>> right. To serve the -- in Travis County area or --
>> Travis County area.
>> only?
>> and possibly extend it further to --
>> surrounding counties?
>> yes.
>> a little problem with that is that each year, according to the grant, the county has to -- has to -- to allocate $125,000 more. So the first year 125,000. Next year 250, next year 375. So I don't see us enthusiastically serving residents from other counties with Travis County picking up the pieces.
>> that's what I was getting to, judge. If we end up doing that, what are the other counties willing to share in the cost. If we actually bring it in personally in that area to serve.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> yeah, that was kind of my concern was that just -- just that. Was there any way to address that if Travis County's match has to be shared -- any way to cost share -- I'm sorry.
>> I apologize, as part of the grant application process, essentially the county agreed to pursue alternative funding sources and I don't know for certain whether or not that would entail cost sharing with other counties. But -- but it does involve pursuing federal funding, et cetera. This is one of those areas I think if you get in there, come up with an incredibly successful program, other counties can learn, can kind of piggyback your efforts without spending Travis County dollars there. See what I'm saying. So if you do a regional perspective, regional approach from the beginning, my guess is that the contribution from the other counties would be a lot more realistic. The other thing is -- is that we would be in the driver's seat and if we didn't like your contribution we would expand to them would be my thinking.
>> I think, too, though -- that -- that the only way for this to work really is for the legal arm to be end twined with the social services part where we really deliver mental health service, do it in house, legal aid, that's what we have learned from our inmates is for us to do the right thing. Get them at least if not a whole lot, f they are not released for a situation where they have management, medication, et cetera, that's -- that's putting it altogether is a challenge.
>> we will have it back on next week for further discussion and action.
>> judge, do you just want to leave it on as is, just roll it a week.
>> we have to explaining it a little bit because I recall myself wording it that way so we could not take action. But consider and take appropriate action, typical language would be fine.
>> okay. We will get it changed. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I guess we ought to recess until 1:30, huh?
>> second.
>> 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, December 6, 2006 9:34 PM