Travis County Commissioners Court
April 17, 2007
Item 10
Now, number 10 is to consider and take appropriate action on addition of full-time employee in the information and telecommunications systems department, its, to support the medical examiner's office windows application.
>> thank you very much. I'm danny hobby, executive manager of emergency services. I'm here today with joe harlow and dr. Dull in that case with the medical kxan examiner's office. And what you have before you is a request to consider and take appropriate action to approve in addition after critically needed f.t.e. In the its department to support the medical examiner's office new windows application. The medical examiner's office is currently in the process of conversion and upgrade to the new windows based coroner and medical examiner application, which is call cme. And so that particular application is scheduled to go live within the next 30 to 60 days. What we are finding is that a person, a dedicated person with specific skills is needed for this new application. In the past we have used a vendor. We've also used in-house staff, but with this upgrade we are no longer desiring to use the vendor because that's costly. And we no longer have the people that are qualified we feel to do the in-house work. So joe has requested that we come to you and that we ask you at this time to consider bringing on board this specialized person. It's a business analyst ii position. We can explain to you today -- I think you've seen it in the backup. The reason why this is important to the medical examiner's office last year. You approved positions, you approved equipment, you approved all the things that are necessary for them to head toward name accreditation, and so we feel like that this particular piece, the computer piece, is very, very important in that process, but also for the daily needs and work. You also will find that there are two sections to this, two segments of this that apply in regards to funding. One would be how will we pay for this this year, and we would be able to pay for that out of the medical examiner's office through salary savings. Where the funding would be requested from you would be for fiscal year '08 and following years because there would not be permanent salary savings in that particular division for to pay for this person. So I'm introducing this to you and we now would like to -- unless joe or the doctor would like to make any comment, we are ready to receive any questions that you may have.
>> we have several resumes that we've looked at, so we think we could fill this position fairly quickly, and we'd like to do this so that the person would be to board at the time this conversion to the new system takes place, otherwise we would probably have to hire them, a vendor to come back and do some more training. That's the reason for coming forward now is this conversion is imminent and we have some candidates that we think we can fill the slot with.
>> we clearly need this person, though?
>> absolutely.
>> dedicated to the m.e.'s office?
>> right.
>> I've got a couple of questions I need to ask. I guess my concern is we have -- here we are -- when we went through this accreditation process and we looked at the necessary thing that we thought we'd have to have in place to deal with the shortcoming of accreditation, my question is is this particular position, is it letter for accreditation purposes. In other words, I just can't recall this position being associated or contingent upon the m.e.'s office receiving accreditation. So is that an accurate statement or not? I just don't recall.
>> I think I can answer it this way. There are a lot of reports that ha to be done for the accreditation and you will need some technical assistance to do that.
>> but I guess my question still is contingent on is this an accreditation piece? In other words, we don't do this and we elect another way to become network capable as far as being similar to other m.e.'s that have received accreditation, my question still comes back to is there another way that we can look at this as far as dealing with the shortfall as far as the its connection here. And that's my question, is it really accreditation contingent? In other words frks we don't do it, do we not receive accreditation, especially if we flook an alternative situation?
>> Commissioner, I've got a response to that, but I think it might be better to let the doctor give you that response since he's dealing directly with that process.
>> the position itself is not a requirement for the name accreditation, but the data and other computer generated information of which there's a lot that is required for name accreditation, that is various statistics and reports that we need to generate from our data at our office are required for us to attain the name accreditation. And currently we're not able to generate the statistics that they would require.
>> at one time it was discussed about being similar to other m.e.'s as far as this same type of reporting mechanism that you just related. And, of course, looking at that, I even posed the question at that time, well, why can't we all be using the same thing, I think it's a certain type of software, certain type of application or certain type of system that was required to -- that's a standard, I guess, as far as what's out there as far as dealing with a lot of the concerns that the m.e. Has when it comes to this type of computer-related data entry and all these other kind of things, subjectivity, I guess. But my question still hings on the fact that -- still hinges on the fact that is there any way we can do this in-house -- we'll have an f.t.e., the money's there today that won't be there next time around for the next budget cycle, so that mean we have to come up with it. My concern is that in all of Travis County we need to have person that are housed in my opinion that has cross-training and we have a lot of staff in its that has cross-training capabilities and are able to fit in any setting to deal with computer-related stuff. We'll have one f.t.e. That's the only person that will appear to have knowledge of what's going on here, and that information would be with just one f.t.e. That's the way it appear. So my concern is how and what is its going to do to integrate that type of cross-training I think that's going to be necessary to make sure. If this person stays with us a year and they're gone, then who's going to pick up the slack? I'm looking for other solutions to make sure that its is involved in this thing all across the board and just not relying on one f.t.e. That has a specialized skill or specialized knowledge and nobody else has the sharing of that type of knowledge. That's not -- in my opinion that's not the way to do it.
>> I understand what you're saying. I think that's one of the purposes of having the position in its is that we will provide that cross-training with other members of our staff. So that we don't run into that problem.
>> so we don't have anybody right now that can -- that's not capable of dealing and delivering the type of -- because the software is a driving mechanism in this thing. That's what drives a lot of this stuff that you need to have, and we don't have anyone that can deal with that type of software on this system to deal with the m.e.?
>> we have people that deal with various kinds of software like this, but it's a new piece of work that somebody has to do. If we have this be somebody on our staff that's going to be cross trained, they have to give up doing something for somebody else.
>> I might speak to that. I think I understand what your issue; and that is that what you're saying is we have staff that know pc software, and we do. And they're all assigned to other applications. We asked for two staff members to be added to our support division last year and didn't get them. So we can take a staff number mb that has that skill and take them off of a current application, but then that application would not have adequate support. So what we're trying to do, we have a group that we've formed called production support, and those consultants work on installed applications. And I appreciate your comment because we need some depth. And to be honest with you, its was not staffed for pc application support. We were staffed for large legacy system support. So we have assumed responsibility -- and last year the court was very kind to us and gave the systems people the operating systems and the hardware people some additional help because our windows servers, remember that windows server growth we had, we have about 216 now. And this application will be a windows application. We're growing like rabbits in windows. And the reason being is that the industry is growing in windows applications. And it is a cost effective means sometimes to dress operating a business.
>> I guess my concern --
>> we just don't have a staff member be I can assign.
>> as far as adjustments and how to adjust with the change in -- the way things are changing right now. I don't like what you're doing, but I'm not convinced because I know that this particular year of all the years we really have to watch our f.t.e.'s as far as bringing on new f.t.e.'s and that's been echoed to us throughout the pbo department as far as the budget is concerned. So yes, I'm going to look at ways to notbly on new f.t.e.'s if we don't have to, especially if we can do some things maybe in-house to accommodate. And I just think if we've got staff and things that change out there in the computer world, what we need to be changing right along with those things. So that's my concern.
>> I think our staff -- I agree with you. I think our staff is changing. The largest system we have, preversion 7, will be moving to a windows platform. And we are growing and changing to that windows platform, but we still have these large main frames that are running the county today that we have to have support staff assigned to until we move to windows platforms.
>> every time we get a specialized -- it appear that every time we get a specialized thing we have to hire a new f.t.e. For that special lieped thing. I don't think that's the way we should do it. So I'm kind of stuck here and at least throwing out my concerns because the upgrades are going to come, the change in technology are going come, be and every time these changes in technology, do we have to hire a new foreign deal with with it? I don't think we should do that. Anyway, I'm concerned about this. And I think pbo will have some comments and have raised some issues about with a we're talk being here today. If it's not contingent on accreditation, in other words, I think we should go forward, but it's just who should be there to allow it to go forward and accreditation of course is very critical and important. So it's a staffing thing as far as I'm concerned, and the funding of it. And if we can do a little more in-house, more so than having to bring in a whole new f.t.e. Because of a change in technology.
>> if approved where would this person be located physically?
>> he would spend most of his time over at the m.e.'s office, but we have a facility or space available on our floor too.
>> actually, both facilities, judge. I think the doctor will tell you that he would make room for this person at the m.e.'s office as well as joe is willing to accommodate it as well. I think the person needs to be at the m.e.'s office and be dedicated tow to the m.e.'s office.
>> you're saying we don't have this person in-house now?
>> that's correct. This represents a new piece of work, like judy was saying, we have people assigned to take care of various applications. And when a new one comes along there's nobody to thr to do that.
>> let's say we approve this position and six months down the road you conclude that in fact 100% of this person's time not needed at the m.e.'s office, but 75% of it is. So would we have other Travis County work to occupy this person the other 25% of the time?
>> oh, absolutely. We have a list of thing that people are asking us for that on our development schedule and on our support schedule that we have to delay delivery on. And I think you could ask -- this is not a good statement for someone to make, but I think you could ask any department and they would tell you that they typically have a wait time for a piece of work from an application support person because it's in line.
>> two or quick ones and I'll be done. So what you're saying about the name accreditation is the data that we need to gather, analyze, summarize, report, etcetera, has to be provided by the accreditation. And you question our ability to do that with the f.t.e.'s we now have employed?
>> what we're saying is that's a new pies of work to do -- that's a new piece of work to do. And we've got f.t.e.'s that do similar kind of things, which we will make sure we have some backup in our current staff with this person so that they're not out there by themselves all alone, but it's additional work to be done. And if we're going to perform these functions for the customer, in our point of view we need a person to do that.
>> you know, that question I'd like to answer. We have people that could create the reports to look at the database, look at the data fields and create the reports. But this position will do much more than just the name accreditation reports. This position, because it is a stand alone system that gets into toxicology type things and, as Commissioner Davis pointed out, it's a specialized application and every time we get a specialized application are we going to come and ask you for another f.t.e.? I would hope not, however, we have never supported the medical examiner. We have never had the industry, knowledge or skill to do that. So this person will do much more than those reports. They're going to manage that system. So they're going to make sure that the data that is entered has integrity. They're going to work with the doctor to make sure that we're capturing the correct kind of data. They're going on to look at interfaces. We would have to go back to the vendor every time we wanted to interface to any other application or any other module, and I think in the backup that we sent you there was a list of modules that are upcoming. And my understanding from the project lead thear we've assigned to the medical examine eers office is that those would be very costly. They would end up costing the county $7,000 a module for implementation. So we would expect that Travis County and its employees to become self-sufficient and be able to save the county the $7,000 per mood mod dual as the medical examiner finishes this I am plelttation over the next year. This person would also you be responsible for looking at other interfaces that would improve the operation at the medical examiner's office, working together with the user and danny to try to make thing better at the medical examiner's office.
>> and judge, I know your point was well taken in making sure that the person is working 100% of the time. From my discussions, as judy just gave you in troordz the duties -- in regards to the duties, this person -- I don't anticipate that person staying six months and looking for work. I look at this person as being 100% dedicated to the medical examiner's office and being dedicated for a long, long time.
>> we will make sure we know that.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir, we will.
>> if this is a full-time job f it turns out to be less than that, if we know, we can do something about it. If we don't know, we can't. My final question, and it may be for you or pbo. Looking at the mel examiner's office, what are the annual expenditures and what are the annual revenues. And I'm really looking at whether today there's a net deaf sthait the general fund subsidizes or whether there is a surplus. And don't mean to lease sprooiz you, but I just thought of that question because every time we talk about this we think of other counties and their contribution to the revenue picture down there. Do you know the answer?
>> I don't know -- I'm not quite sure exactly what their revenue eangs is for the -- anticipation is for the rest of the year. I do know they have temporary salary savings for this year to pay for the position, and it would come up to an fy '08 as a budget commission to decide as its would pay for it next year.
>> what about '06? Do we know then? Some reports I saw made the medical examiner's office look like the county cash cow. And I always thought we kind of set up fees that we charge right there to cover expenditures. I'm sort of looking at whether even at the beginning of next year the medical examiner's office can probably pick up this person, do you know what I'm saying? They've already said there are savings available to get through the rest of this fiscal year, which make me wonder about '08.
>> well, I can answer that one. I guess you're the budget person, though. Let me take a stab at it. We looked at every angle as to how we could utilize this person with new position that you gave the medical examiner's office. There was a record analyst, so we looked at that one and that didn't make it. So Commissioner Davis, we did look at every other avenue that we can before we actually asked for an f.t.e. Otherwise, well, why do we have to come if it looks like they've got unusual salary savings this year? The reason why they do is because of the fact that they haven't hired the fourth pathologist. So they do have salary savings. They're blessed this year with additional salary savings. But that's temporary as leroy was explaining to you today, there's permanent salary saving and there's temporary salary savings. And so when you start looking at the permanent salary savings, by looking at it, we've estimated that if you fill the position, the vacant positions which they're now advertising for and interviewing for, then there will not be permanent salary saving that will be able to pay for this position. That's our review of it. Am I telling that right?
>> my questions had nothing to did with salary savings: it had to did with the annual budget, annual expenditures and annual revenue. See, salary savings come from what we budgeted. We may well not budget to the medical examine eers office 100% of the revenue. I really don't know the answer. But I do know when we're going through the various reports and what other counties charge, what we charge for out of county autopsies, we do have a fairly steady revenue stream. So I was wondering for '08 --
>> in regards to the revenue, I did look at that. Just cut me off any time. I did look at that, and that is would they be generating perhaps more revenue than what they have estimated this year to be and therefore would they be estimating more revenue in '08 that might could pay for some of this position? In looking it at the revenue estimate, they made it, but barely made it last year. And they're right now on course to bear withly make ing it this year. So there wasn't any additional revenue that I saw that was going to be there, judge.
>> so the expenditures are off. But we do have that lever available during the budget process, but we ought to look at when wha our fees are, how much we've increased them, how they stand compared to our county fees it for other urban counties.
>> we did that in this process. However, the doctor will tell you he did an assessment of the other medical examiner's offices and where we stand with them. And it's his judgment, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if we were to try to raise our fee, then we would be out of balance. And I put them tha in memo. Out of alignment with the other medical examiner's offices. So therefore you would run the danger of doing two things. One is you would end up possibly with less revenues because if you're not competitive with the other -- not that we want to be be competitive, but if you're not in alignment with the other medical examiner's offices, and we're higher, then you would end up potentially having less revenue. Is that right? Am I telling that wrong here?
>> I wouldn't say it any differently.
>> thank you.
>> well, not knowing what that is right now and as far as look at that you do have some -- we do have money to take care of this situation right now, but I'm going to be very mindful, as I stated, because pbo even has questions about this. About this issue right here. And so I'm just trying to flush things out because when we start talking about f.t.e.'s, folks, we just might as well go ahead and start out early with everybody. We have said that we're going to look real close at new f.t.e.'s this year and how it's going to impact us during this budget cycle. So I'm coming from that angle if we're going to hold true to what we're trying to do here. Otherwise why even talk about this stuff? Why even mention it? If we're not going to hold true to what we're trying to deal with. And if revenue that's coming in from the medical examiner's office can help offset some of the expense for an f.t.e., that's another story and that is one of the things we looked at is will the revenue help pay for the f.t.e.'s that you are bringing in? That was another criteria we looked at when the budget stuff came to us early on. So either we're going to do what we're going to do or otherwise why are we even here? Again, I would still like to know this question, is that when we're looking at this amount of money here, it appears to me that cross-training as I stated earlier is very important and you said you would be able to deal with it. That means somebody can get a stand alone system, which is no real big deal. It's not a real big deal. A stand alone system, you've got your own software, you run your stuff, da, da. It's not a recommend big challenge. So I'm still trying to see -- if we've got staff here with its that will -- that can interface ordeal with the stand alone system, then we ought to utilize those persons or even look at a private person coming in and doing it. I'm trying to look at the situation to not increase our f.t.e.'s for Travis County. And I just don't see this, and especially if it's not to the point where the revenue that is scwen rated by the m.e. Would end up paying for it. So that's where I'm kind of coming from, and I hope y'all understand what I'm trying to get to.
>> has this court committed to Travis County residents to improve the overall quality of the medical examiner's office, including achieving name accreditation. We knew that would be some additional things we would have to do. So I move that we approve this request that we ask its to monitor this work by this staff person between now and the -- I say now and the first part of August whenever we start having budget hearings. And thirdly, that we look at the m.e.'s budget, overall annual budget and try to see where we're soft and doing all right and try to make necessary adjustments to cover this if we need to. But based on what I'm here -- based on what I'm hearing, we need this kind of person in the m.e.'s office probably full time immediately an as far as we know for the time being, butwe ought to be able to make that determination as we go. So I won't be the one monitoring the situation, but y'all are telling me y'all do that if it's part of this motion and the court approves it.
>> absolutely.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> so I can support that. But -- but when it comes around to the 2008 budget, I'm really going to be looking at it real close. So I would like to -- you have got something to say there, young man?
>> is this -- does this motion may not be a live motion. Is there a second?
>> second.
>> welcomed -- seconded by Commissioner Gomez, my answer would be we would budget policy, same as others, we just have these two conditions that commit us to take a close look at this one f.t.e. With the .
>> everybody is probably going to have a little extra money in '08, but this is fixing to come out of somebody's, I mean, with this commitment, if you make -- and I'm anticipating that this is an i.t.s. Deal. If this is an i.t.s. Deal that you are signing up for, if you can get all of your money because you are fixing to load up $80,000, which probably, I mean, even if that can get done --
>> I agree with what you are saying, Commissioner. Let me say this from a manager's standpoint over application development, application support and project management, if this f.t.e. Is not funded on behalf of the Commissioners court I would not recommend to you that -- that we implement this new system because I really don't believe this system can make it without this f.t.e.
>> well, then maybe there ought to be some strong consideration given to that.
>> so you are saying that it should be, it should be part of the f.y. '08 i.t.s. Budget request.
>> yes, it should be part of our --
>> so, therefore, this is the highest priority and therefore if there are no other f.t.e. Funded in the adopted budget for i.t.s., Travis County will continue to -- to be able to -- be able to go down the path or will this be one of 20 f.t.e.'s that i.t.s. Is requesting totaling, plus equipment of two million and therefore what we are doing is -- is jump starting the f.y. 0 budget process right here.
>> I don't know that this court has voted not to add any f.t.e.'s.
>> no.
>> [multiple voices]
>> there are guidelines as to how you could add them.
>> I'm trying to figure out why this fits into the priorities of i.t.s.
>> the budget process, there will be critical programs and services has we will have to decide whether to support or not. There will be millions -- not millions. There be hundreds of opportunities to respond to specific requests. So I never saw -- thought that I was on record as adding 0 f.t.e.'s, if we can get there, I'm happy. But if we -- if we add 20 or 25 it's much smaller than we have been adding historically lately. It's inconceivable to me that there would be population growth, economic growth, also growth in problems that the county has to address, including at the jail over there, the way those numbers are looking, we may have to add to some are -- in fact the sheriff will request a whole lot of f.t.e.'s. So I don't see me just adding, you know, law enforcement and corrections and no other places in the county. I do see me trying to be even handedly frugal and conservative in adding f.t.e.'s, though.
>> but I do think that we -- if you add an f.t.e. Now, i.t.s. Goes out and interviews and hires, that person needs to know that there is a permanent job. That's the full intent. If we had some discussions in advance of knowing what the fund source would be for that, then it seems to me it would be beneficial for all concerned. At this point what we have is a request for an f.t.e., a fund source to be determined sometime during the budget process. That -- that is a little foggy. It's no -- it can be worked on, but it would be nice to have something a little more specific so this doesn't continue to vex folk in terms of where the money is going to come from.
>> what I wanted to make sure of is that that this doesn't get done today and then we start the budget process, somebody says oh, no, don't take that out of our deal. I mean, that was the deal that was for the m.e.'s office. We are just trying to help out. It just happens to be an i.t.s. Person because it is going to be a person. Since it's an i.t. Position, that's -- that's going to get prioritized. I mean, I would say that we are prioritizing it today. But whatever else you had in line is going to come behind this.
>> is that true?
>> I think that's the truth.
>> whether it's the truth or not, we get a chance to vote on it
>> [laughter] not only this, but if i.t. -- if joe and judy come in, say we need five people, they have got to persuade us that they do. And we can either say well four plus the one we already gave you or do you need five more and our motion may be, hey, it's hard to make a case even for one f.t.e. But whatever the standards are for this position and this department, ought to be county-wide, which makes it a little bit tougher, but makes it fair.
>> but to -- but the fund source is the same as the lights in this building. The general fund.
>> well, if this came up during -- during the between out of county autopsy fees and workload. And there has been a belief that increasing fees drops workload. And that that's good. From out of county autopsy standpoint. Now, that may or may not still be the strategy today. But if raising fees drops workload and generates money to pay for needed services, we got a win-win. That's the kind of discussion that we would have normally as part of the budget process. We haven't had that discussion. We are having it here on camera.
>> may I suggest this happen during the budget process? There are other factors that we have to consider, though, like what's the market. You know, we kind of learn from our own consultants that we charge a whole lot more than other counties for out of county autopsy. We know that increasing that fee doesn't reduce the workload because it hasn't continue it, right? Every time we thought it would, actually the number kept increasing. If we sign the contracts.
>> butt problem is that accreditation process immediately took your m.e. That went -- when bwyardo was here -- he said now wait a minute you can't do that many. So in effect what we have done is we are going to take down the workload because that's what accreditation does, it says you can't do more than that. If you are doing less, you know, per, you know, pat pattologist, you are just doing less business, by the way I mean I think that we are adding pathologists so we are increasing costs and probably decreasing revenue, if we are going to try to get this accredited which is one of the reasons that I can remember at least some of us talked about do you really want to try to do accreditation because you really start putting yourself in a spot where -- where if that means a lot, okay, fine, we need to do that, certainly there are some things that we need to do in our m.e.'s office, let's not fool ourselves. We are not moving in an increased revenue, especially given the fact that the dr. Says that we are sort of at the limit of what -- of what we can really charge, I mean,, you know, and you are right danny, I mean, certain charges or more you are going to get less because somebody, although that may not be bad, what it may get us to is you know what you guys have enough workload to have three pathologists versus four pathologists and you immediately whack out a couple hundred thousand dollars there and there's going to have to be some simple arithmetic used to come up with where we need to be m.e. Office-wise, but hey maybe that's another, you know, work session deal.
>> the quality of our work is important, too. Let's not --
>> accreditation standards, I recognize Commissioner eckhardt who has been patiently awaiting an opportunity to --
>> [laughter]
>> yes, she was.
>> these have all been really good points. The only question that I have. I am convinced that this is, you know, this f.t.e. Is needed for this particular task. The question that I have and of course again as is usually the case, this may be a function of me being rather now on the court, but I'm wondering what we can do in the future to keep from having this springing need. I see this goes online, goes live in 60 days over at the m.e.'s office. It looks like something we could have predicted and handled more appropriately in the budget process last time around. It's a point well taken. From christian I -- I believe that one of the points there was that we should plan for this so that we don't find ourselves in April talking about a new f.t.e. Before we have started the next budget process. What can we do in the future to identify these needs across -- obviously this is something that the i.t.s. And the me's office would have to get together on. What about that cross hatching, cross matrixing to identify these kind of needs so we can deal with it appropriately during the budget process rather than in this kind of ad hoc way. I think that what got us here is that -- like judy mentioned, its was not supporting the m.e.'s office, didn't know we had a system over there. The network. It was totally not on our radar screen.
>> if -- what if anything do we have at this point to identify those sorts of things that aren't on i.t.s. Radar? Is there any mechanism --
>> the budget rule process says if there's any new applications, any new i.t. Projects they should be passed through i.t.s. For an assessment prior to going into the budget.
>> did this go, did this package that the m.e.'s office is putting in place, did it go to i.t.s. Prior to it being purchased and -- and --
>> what we have done is assigned a project manager to help work with the folks that were trying to -- to do the changes that need to be made in the m.e.'s office. Nor our project manager was involved and saw what was coming. That -- that's evolved out of that.
>> I was going to interject. The new system is really an upgrade. To a system --
>> irrespective of whether it's an upgrade, or a brand new system. Obviously we are asking for an f.t.e., requires some -- some additional -- additional attention.
>> yes, it does.
>> has been with us how long now?
>> since August.
>> with us -- 25 years, the whole office really has sort of changed. So now the doctor knows joe harlow, joe knows the doctor, so the level of communication ought to be a whole lot more than before. Previously the medical examiner's office pretty much operated alone and I think that it really didn't interact with the other county departments or the Commissioners court as much as the current one is doing. So that ought to help a little bit, but I would think that -- that you know the m.e.'s, the deputy m.e.'s that were there before were all gone. When the doctor came he was the only county m.e. We had only contract m.e.'s we had working there. Dr. Bayardo on the way out. Transition more than anything else. This is really like a new operation under the new m.e. Which is what I suggested a few minutes ago, we would be doing things probably in a different way. There may well be savings down there that are hidden to us so far that will surface over the next few months hopefully.
>> judge, just to address your question, Commissioner eckhardt your point is valid. That is planning. When I came to work for the county, i.t.s. Was staffed for legacy systems only. It's the frustration that Commissioner Davis voiced. They are growing. We don't typically assign a person to support that application. P.c. Application.
>> mission drift.
>> yes, we do. We have mission drift, yeah. So but -- but it's a reality. It is something our executive manager, joe, have put into the budget manual this year. Very often things will come to court that are technology procurements or movements and we haven't always been involved. This year it's a little different. As a matter of fact we will have an assessment website, for departments to request i.t. Assessment so that we will know we will be involved at an early time. On this upgrade, we were involved. Pretty much close to the beginning of this.
>> when was the beginning of this.
>> about a year ago, about a year ago. We were involved in that. However, the vendor, it was a vendor supported application. I think it became evident to danny and alicia that that might not be cost effect because the vendor was expensive. It may be cost effective for an f.t.e. Because of the 24 by 7 nature of this business, we have people who are on call 24 by 7, but they are covering justice.
>> I'm convinced of that, your backup does a great job of making that case. I'm only looking for down the road for the -- for the best time whether it wouldn't be wise in these circumstances to -- to make it status -- pro form make that we do a cost benefit between vendor and in house so that a year ago we might have been able to run that number and say let's do in house.
>> it will come again, I think. But the budget rules this year with the assessment and technology procurements and resources and so forth I think that the budget manual does a good job this year trying to be proactive and i.t.s. Being involved in the beginning. So -- so it would be better.
>> if this motion passes, christian smith will have -- will hold our feet to the fire.
>>
>> [indiscernible] on the motion ...
>> my motion is to the end of the fiscal year, but in August we take a look at what this position is doing for us and
>> [multiple voices]
>> take look at it in --
>> yeah.
>> the funding is there for the department to take care of that --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I'm hoping that we will do our thing before we get into the budget hearings for next year.
>> I have no problem with that. But we will definitely take a look at it in August and see where we are. I have no problem with that.
>> yes, sir.
>> > do you know christian smith our budget director?
>> [laughter]
>> I more know of him
>> [laughter]
>> he's right there behind you there
>> [laughter] any more discussion?
>> no, sir. I had just brought examples of the bexar county annual report, this is fiscal analysis. If you want to see the port of work that this person would be producing, I brought some of those. Software.
>> celia is in favorite of this motion because -- cyd is in favor because she doesn't want to send any equipment back, right? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Dr. Dolinac I wouldn't have guessed this either.
>> thank you.
>> good to see you again.
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, April 18, 2007, 8:34 AM