Travis County Commissioners Court
January 2, 2007
Item 16
Number 16, consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature. And as far as we know the legislature is still headed to town when?
>> next Tuesday, January ninth. Disb morning, judge Biscoe and Commissioners. For all of you for the record, I am bob cam. We have one item coming from the judges this morning. I think they actually have two bills that they would like to discuss with you. And those are the only ones that we have set for this week. Next week we hope to bring back to you a bill from the sheriff's office on the misdemeanor citations. A second bill on what we call the toll violators' bill, setting up an administrative proceeding for toll violators. And then finally we'll bring back that early retiree issue next Tuesday, so we'll are three bills for you next tiew, but just the two for this week. And with that I think we have judge crane and debra hail. And someone from -- and jessica from budget and planning.
>>
>> morning. I'm debra hale, ienl the court administrator for the criminal courts. And we do have two bills we wanted to discuss. I had sent over some backup last week. I'm going to talk about the second bill in the backup, which is the one that it's really just a housekeeping bill. It has to do with the 147th grand jury terms. All this bill does is basically the original bill has the 147th having most of the grand jury term, which means all of the legal paperwork has to reflect 147th even though the other grand juries are held in some of the other courts as well. So this is really just a housekeeping issue. It just clarifies what actually goes on. It makes it easier for them with the paperwork and it has no fiscal impact at all.
>> on the original bill, the law now is Travis County specific to the 147th?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> so has that bill been drafted?
>> yes, we do have the bill drafted. It would be filed as a local bill which means we would have to publish notice for 30 days before the legislature could consider it. From what we've seen we're not anticipating any type of opposition to that bill.
>> now, the policy that we have used previously has been for the Commissioners court to actually vote on each bill that we support or do not support. I hate to use the word oppose, but do not support. So we don't see that one, but is socism that I guess we should go ahead and approve it and when you get it done, get it filed and hopefully it will sale right through.
>> that's what we're hoping.
>> I move approval of the 147th district court bill. We'll get a number and draft language to see soon. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> we have a draft and we will circulate that draft to you later this afternoon if that's okay, to each office that's available.
>> okay.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> the request is for a general jurisdiction court. I believe the discussions -- the result of the discussions were that we should have a preference for criminal cases, but the court would actually have the authority and the jd to hear all matters that are consistent with county court at new jurisdiction both civil and criminal.
>> can you all explain the numbers from page 1 to page 2 and show the total number of cases from fiscal year
>> [ inaudible ]. And I'm apparently not reading the chart correctly. On the second page it shows fiscal year '06 at 16,492. What's the difference between those two numbers? I imagine one is the total number of cases filed and the average caseload --
>> I see what you're talking about. If you look at -- we have the same number of cases filed. If you look at page 2, the second bullet, that has the number of cases filed. The average caseload size, new case filings are like all the new cases, people who are newly arrested, that would be a new case filed. A new motion to revoke filed would be a new case filed. But the caseload size has to do with the number of cases that are pending on the court docket. So, for example, a case could be filed in one year, but could still be pending if it was on a jury docket, for example, for several months, so that's why that number is not the same it's just the new cases filed.
>> so the 16,492 cases are pending cases on the court docket in fiscal year '06?
>> that's correct.
>> and opposed to the total number of cases file, which is 28,909.
>> that's correct.
>> and I take it that's an average, new cases come in, old cases go out. And basically that's an important statistic because if you divide that by five. If you look at the whole docket, each court has around roughly 3,000 cases, compared to five or 10 years ago when we had roughly between 1800 and 2200 cases. So the pending caseload has gone way up over the last five years and that's in response or that's as a result of more cases being filed, mostly d.w.i. Cases, which as you know when you worked over there, are the most time con such active in terms of jury time, trial before the court, pleas and all courts of cases that come up. So that's what's really caused the increase in the caseload.
>> on the d.w.i. Bullet on page 2, does that 135 percent increase, how does that compare to the population increase between '95 and 2005?
>> the population growth has been about 94% over the past 20 years.
>> over the past 20.
>> I think it's disproportionately large compared to the population growth and those are just trends in law enforcement and those are not something that judges are responsible for. That's the police department, all the jurisdictions. And Travis County, they've just prioritized that as where they concentrate they're law enforcement function. And there's never any shortage of clients.
>> that's true.
>> if you were to say something to the voters out there as far as looking at this new county court at law court, in comparing other urban counties, you can see that significantly the work load for Travis County is pretty significant. So how would you explain that to a voter, taxpayer out there. Say, well, Commissioner Davis, why are you even dealing with something like that? What would you say to those persons out there?
>> in that our numbers are greater compared to the other urban counties?
>> how would you explain that to them?
>> one of the things I would say is that, for example, bexar county has I believe nine county courts, so some of it is a function of we haven't added courts probably as frequently as we may have needed to. They have twice the number practically that we do. And I think that's part of it. I can't say whether we do more arrests for s for d.w.i. Or other types of offenses, but I do think wuf an added court system as with the other systems.
>> Travis County picks up 100% of the cost of a county court at law? And how much is that today? Approximately how much does each court cost?
>> we have a range. We don't have a pinpointed number yet, but the last time this was before you in 2004, the preliminary cost estimate was including about $200,000 of one time, which was approximately 1.5 million. So the range that we would put out there from planning and budget at this time is 1.5 million to two million.
>> bob, the legislature will want to know whether Travis County is committed to continue to pick up 100% of that cost, not that they would pick up any in we said no, so by approving this basically we're saying we understand our commitment to pick up 100% of it?
>> judge, this also would be filed as a local bill.
>> have we formally voted to approve this one?
>> I think we have.
>> let's do it again just in case. I know we had the discussion and everybody seemed to be supportive. Clearly we need another county court at large.
>> a general jurisdiction.
>> I second your motion.
>> discussion of the motion? Yes, sir.
>> so we have to go to the legislature to ask for the creation of this, but asking for that doesn't necessarily mean when we will do it. In other words accounts we need to say we're going to ask for this, but if we find that budgetarywise that we cannot do this, does that hold that in place so that maybe it's 2010, maybe it's 2011? I mean, when --
>> the way the bill is drafted right now, Commissioner Daugherty, I don't think there would be any restriction. I know the last time we made the district judge or district court, we put an effective date in there that was in the future so that you could not have established the court for I think it was two or three years out. But in terms of once you have approval I think it would be indefinite authority to do that as far as the legislature was concerned. I saw christian jump up here. Do you have anything on that?
>> while you would have the ability not to fund, in terms of developing the preliminary budget, we would assume that the will of the court is to fund and that when you solve the preliminary budget you would see the one and a half million to two million dollars budget in the expenditures in fy '08 that you will see in July. Should you wish to remove it then that's your prerogative to remove. It would have to be like a negative checkoff. We would assume that you want it in or else you would not be voting to ask for the legislature for the authority to put it in. That would be our logic.
>> my vote would be to include it in this next year's budget.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> if you vote for it you are saying we are going to fund it.
>> but what I'm hearing, though, I don't think that
>> [indiscernible] I think that the bill goes to the interlocal initiative. Here it is, this is what the will of the court is. But -- but we would like to wait and see as far as when the budget process come up as far as funding. That's what I'm hearing from you, is that correct, chris?
>> what you are hearing from me that is we will assume that it is an expenditure in the adopted budget, therefore putting it in the preliminary budget, there be putting the Commissioners court to take it out. Unless you so instruct the planning and budget office not to put it. Which of course we would not. With respect to revenue caps, my sense that is the budget building process is made up of if not hundreds dozens of individual decisions, some of which we call no brainers, some of which require some judgment and consternation. If you vote to request the legislature, to approve a new county court and there are six offices surrounding that -- that expenditures to make that county court work, we would assume that's a no brainer. Then everything -- there would be other issues that then you might have to modify, whether that's other staff, other programmatic expansions, compensation increases, et cetera. That's our assumption that we would make. One of the reasons why I wanted to put that on the table. So that you know of our expectation as a result of your behavior on that vote.
>> there's no doubt about it. There's a need for it. We have been kicking this around for a while. There's nothing new. As far as -- as far as the issue itself is concerned and the workload, definitely there. We need to do something about it. If this is the first step of the process, let me ask this question. Of -- of our -- our consultants. Legislative consultant. If the local bill -- if the court vote to send the local initiative to the legislature, how long would that take them to look at this and process it and say okay everything is a-okay with the county they want to go ahead and do this, we are going to let them do it. What is the process?
>> well, if we file it as a local bill, which we have -- first of all we would have to get sponsors in the house and senate, then we would have to publish notice for 30 days. Once that notice was published then the committee would be willing to set the bill for hearing. We would have to set the bill for hearing, for example we start in the house, get it out of the house committee, then pass the full house, go over to the senate, go through the same process. Go through the committee and then to the full senate and then we would go to the governor for signature. So we could -- we could -- the effective date, it could either be effective immediately depending on how -- how the bill read or it would be effective in September. But -- but what that bill would do would be to give Travis County the authority to establish a court. It wouldn't have anything to do with funding at all.
>> no, no.
>> so once passed, I think that you would have authority until it was repealed by another bill to establish that county court.
>> I just wanted to make sure what the funding needs are available to -- to fund the actual court, so I wanted to make sure whatever we end up doing here, we are in the budgetary time frame to take care of it when it comes about. That's my concern and I want to make sure that everybody is in tune and in step.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. I was about to say that you were temporarily away.
>> I'm sorry. I'm back.
>> opposition?
>> yes.
>> so Commissioner Daugherty voting against.
>> just a question of clarification. The judges requested that language be added to the bill that would give a preference for criminal cases. Now I heard Commissioner Gomez has general jurisdiction. So I'm a little confused on what the final read of that bill should be.
>> it's the criminal, the criminal.
>> the criminal?
>> you want the language in the preference for criminal court?
>> sure.
>> the language would be such that -- that the court would be able to handle domestic violence cases?
>> yeah.
>> in all matters.
>> all matters in criminal court.
>> yes.
>> I'm hearing all matters civil or criminal; is that correct.
>> civil or criminal. But the whole need, the whole impetus for creating the court is on the criminal side.
>> yeah.
>> because of the increasing caseload. But you wouldn't want to create a court that couldn't also do civil.
>> and the increasing caseload what's driving is dwi, not family violence? Because I just heard family violence as well?
>> well, it can handle the criminal -- the domestic violence and the dwi and --
>> those the two biggest?
>> we have a work session discussion --
>> certainly dwi's have gone up what 135% in 10 years. I mean I can quote you the numbers just --
>> I'm not bringing it -- I'm just actually trying to wrap my brain around this discussion about whether general jurisdiction or criminal. Seems to me if it's dwi that's really driving this train that it would be perfectly crime if it were just criminal jurisdiction. Why would the civil jurisdiction be paramount at this point as well? Are we also seeing an overload in county courts one and two?
>> I don't know I haven't heard that. I'm -- I don't have personal experience to it. But when you create a court I think that you just wants to have one that could do civil as well so if the need arise at some point in the future. Now, we think currently the real need is for the criminal caseload that's been increasing exponentially over the last five or 10 years. But if you just said we want to create a court specifically and solely for criminal matters, then that sort of -- sort of leads some -- leaves some future options off the table. You have to go back to the legislature to authorize that.
>> county court 4 was created as either criminal or civil, weren't they general jurisdiction?
>> well, I haven't read the statute in a while, but I --
>> I know it's a protective order so --
>> I believe all of the county courts, including the one -- by local rule we bifurcated the courts to do criminal and civil. Courts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, do criminal matters by preference by local rule, but we are authorized, I can have a civil trial if I wanted to and if we provided for that. But let's say in the late '80s that the decision was made that the caseloads were specialized enough to where we needed people, judges, a couple of judges solely designated to hear civil cases and the others specifically designated to do criminal. Prior to that they did both. That was done by local rule. Now, the -- the family violence court, I'm not an expert there on what the language says, but there is a preference for family violence in cases. And the -- because it's a general jurisdiction court, they also have the authority to do civil matters as well.
>> so we are looking at whether to just leave it general jurisdiction or add in some language about a preference --
>> my support is for general jurisdiction, because the judges told me that was a -- an adequate compromise at this time. To obviate having asking for two, more than one court. One court would the flexibility to handle all of the cases. Otherwise they needed, they may need a second court at this time.
>> uh-huh.
>> and so that's why -- I just want to make clear that it was the court of general jurisdiction, but the court ought to meet the Travis County needs. The way we do that is to make sure that the court has the flexibility to do so.
>> right.
>> in the end it will be the judge's call anyway. Clearly that will be enough cases to keep this court busy.
>> sure.
>> unless there's a dramatic downturn in the number and I would be the first one to move that we -- do we have to ask the state to eliminate a court? We don't foresee that happening, but I will leave that up --
>> [laughter]
>> good point, judge.
>> general jurisdiction. That was the thing. You have a lot more flexibility. We were told that you have got different kinds of needs and you have got increasing caseloads.
>> yeah.
>> but even if they are not increasing today, that's not to say they won't be creationing 18 months from -- increasing 18 months from now. With general jurisdiction, you would be able to use that courted to meet your needs basically was the strategy that the judges explained to us in work session and thereafter in e-mail and phone conversations. During the work session the need for a second court came up. I think the judges huddled after that, said let's do general jurisdiction for now. Try to cover the needs. If there's a need later we will come back, lay out the numbers for you, let you make a call at that time.
>> right.
>> I kind of told the ones that I conversed with, let's do one now, general jurisdiction, make the call in the future.
>> the legislature comes to town every two years, the next opportunity would be two years from now. You are talking about two year intervals, basically.
>> right? This is -- there were a lot of discussions --
>> sorry
>> [laughter]
>> yeah. Varying ideas about if you specified a jurisdiction exactly what -- yeah.
>> exactly.
>> now, we did vote on that session, 4-1, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> just to -- more about this?
>> I just -- I think judge and I are not completely understanding the final draft. The bill right now as drafted does not have language that says preference for criminal courts. It was my conclusion from the discussion that you do not want the bill to have language in there saying preference for criminal courts. Did I misunderstand that? It should just have to be a court of general jurisdiction.
>> when you say general jurisdiction, you mean general jurisdiction and new criminal cases? Do criminal cases?
>> I meant exactly what the judges told me, I think. If we need that clarified, though, then I think judge crane and ms. Hail needs to huddle with the judges and make sure, but the commitment was general jurisdiction meaning the ability to handle more kinds of cases.
>> I understand that. We will make sure that the language -- we will make sure that the language allows you to do that. Whatever -- whatever bill we bring back to you.
>> last time, judge perkins as in the audience and I just asked him, I said is this still general jurisdiction and he said yes.
>> he's the one that I -- one of the ones that I've been chatting with.
>> he's the one that I was going back to.
>> I understand.
>> okay. If there's an issue about exactly what we mean, we need to get with the judges and clear that up.
>> clarify it.
>> the question that I had was in the backup, though, was the constable's bill.
>> yes. The where it of executions.
>> which is very long and complicated. I read it and -- my question was what in the world is going on here. But at the -- if the lawyers for the different jurisdictions are convinced that is what we need, I'm happy with it. But I'm just thinking the average legislator has to wonder what's going on. I'm not sure that the bill really clearly indicates what the problem is or is that -- will there be like an accompanying memo that does that?
>> well, there will be a memo. But I agree with you, little the bill was much longer than what I had expected. I think it was 10 or 12 pages as it turned out. So it is a comprehensive, in my view, a comprehensive reform of that writ of execution statute, vis-a-vis the liability of the constable and the county. I understand they have been goarngt the past nine months with harris county and other counties. This is a bill that we will take to the conference of urban counties. We will not do it as a Travis County bill. In fact I think harris county still wants to take the lead in terms of getting the authors and sponsors in the house and senate. So -- so, yes, I think your impression is -- is the same as mine. It's a -- it's a complicated bill, it's a comprehensive, very comprehensive reform and there will probably be other folks that have -- that you know that are going to be opposed to that and want to change the language.
>> we clearly need a one pager. That outlines the problem.
>> okay.
>> otherwise I don't think this bill has any change.
>> the proposed bill summary, perhaps?
>> I think it's got to be more than that. I think it's got to be a description of the problem. It is a real serious problem that all of the urban counties have experienced over the last two or three years and the bill is designed basically to address that problem. So I -- by reading the bill alone, though, you don't really get that. And only because Travis County has -- has paid out a substantial amount of money as a result of a problem, that I know about.
>> exactly.
>> I'm just thinking probably the Commissioners court and different counties will appreciate it. But I'm not sure that the legislators will and I fear that when they get over there and are hit with hundreds of pieces of legislation, this won't come through as being a major problem but it really is.
>> yeah.
>> so --
>> okay.
>> judge --
>> may we bring that back to you all next Tuesday? We have-- there's three other bills that we would like to bring back, but can we bring that as well?
>> that's fine. If -- if several counties are listed here as being supportive. We make sure there's a strategy where each of these counties meets its legislative delegation, we need to do ours.
>> are there other counties -- that's a good suggestion that you brought up, judge. As far as really what we have experienced I guess as far as the problem is concerned. But there's -- I guess would the other counties do the same thing or would they end up --
>> I think they are.
>> I mean as far as what the judge suggested this morning because it's not a part of what we got here today.
>> right.
>> it will be good I think we can be consistent all across the board where the other delegations won't have a similar conflict or confusion as far as all of the ambiguity as far as looking at the bill itself. Appears to me that this particular revision as far as the summary is concerned should be shared with the cuc of those urban counties that have been in the
>> [indiscernible] harris county has been.
>> three listed here in addition to us. If you have not been hit by this yet, that is not to say you will not.
>> right.
>> so you should be interesting in changing this as well as -- as much as Travis County and the harris, tarrant and dallas.
>> yeah.
>> I mean, it's easy to get that message out. But if it's got to be more simply presented I think then this -- you know, this comprehensive bill, which is -- I'm not saying the bill is bad, I'm just saying that it is comprehensive. And if you are not aware of this problem before you read the build, you don't know why it's necessary. Next week.
>> yes, sir.
>> and if I can just take a quick moment and introduce to you talia gaster, she will be working on behalf of Travis County. And other clients this session. But she just joined us -- last week.
>> what's her name?
>> talia gaster. She's a u.t. Grad, honors grad from u.t. And has worked in the Texas house as well with other legislative consulting firms. So she's well prepared and ready to help the county out this session.
>> welcome.
>> happy new year.
>> thank you.
>> any words of advice to the people of Travis County, ms. Gas ter.
>> I think we are looking at a good year.
>> I asked her to shorten her 30 minute speech
>> [laughter]
>> very good.
>> thank you.
>> thank you so much.
>> thank you.
>> thanks.
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:
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 6:14 PM