Travis County Commissioners Court
April 24, 2007
Item 8
Number 8, consider and take appropriate action on Austin police department drug lab staff.
>> I just wanted to give the court a brief update. Tim, claire and I did meet last Tuesday in rar to a draft interlocal for the drug lab and I'm hoping that we might be able to have that in front of the court next Tuesday or the following Tuesday. But one of the things that I wanted to discuss with folks last week when we met was if Travis County is going to fund this position, when can we start to see a decrease in the rocket docket? What would be a realistic time line? Will it be three months from now, six months? Could it be a year? And included in my backup, at the bottom of page 1, the first two chemists that a.p.d. Have on board is 100 100%. The third chemist should be an f.t.e. Or 100 percent in the next couple of months. Position it four and five, those are the two positions that resulted from one promotion and one being retired. A.p.d. Says that we have chemist four coming on board. This person comes from el paso, has quite a bit of experience and should be trained and certified in the next couple of months. Position number five has little experience and will require the entire six months of the training period, as will position number six, which is the proposed position from Travis County.
>> a.p.d. Also also agreed that the person who retired could come back on board and they would pay for that position for thee months during this transition period. Another thing we discussed is what would be the priorities for the drug lab and obviously we want rocket docket to be the priority than any other cases or court requests. If you look at page 3, this really tells you or gives you a good look at when we would be able to see a decline in rocket docket cases and in fact it possibly could be January of next year. We see a little bit of an increase in the summer months while these chemists are being trained.
>> but waiting is not going to help us, though.
>> no, absolutely not.
>> that could make it a whole lot worse unless we get them on board.
>> the quicker the better. When we were speaking with them last week, the sixth person, they were really encouraging us to -- the quicker that we can get the interlocal approved, the sooner that this -- because we don't want that person to go accept a job somewhere else and then we have to start this process all over again.
>> I just wanted to ask this question to you because I'm trying to determine we're really going to concentrate on the rocket docket situation, and we add the extra chemist or chemists -- I don't really want to add to this thing, but we get one in there, trained, ready to go, and the ground running and however, or whatever situation they end up having to deal with with there after they get on board. My question is who will they be responsible to to move according to a rocket docket situation? Here's the task, we're trying to make sure we get test rawlt rults back, are they responsible to trailt or did they get an solved in the big picture of doing things other than what we have hired them to do. I'm concerned about that. How can we structure that and make sure they concentrate strictly on Travis County stuff as far as what we're trying to accomplish, and that is to reduce jail overcrowding. That's what our goal is.
>> absolutely. And we did discuss this, and jim, you might want to chime in. They say that that's what they spend 95% of their time whvment a chemist comes to work, say they report at 8:00, they come in and grab 50 or however many cases they work on that day and for the most part they are all rocket docket cases and they move on to other cases when they get finished with with that. They say that's what they're doing now. I would assume that this sixth chemist obviously would be workogall of these rocket docket cases.
>> are we sure of that?
>> we discussed that in great length. I guess we could put it in the interlocal that this person would be 100% on rocket docket.
>> I'm concerned. I hear what we're saying, but I haven't seen any documentation to support that. If we're going to -- in my opinion if we're going to spend money, it just appears that we ought to hold somebody accountable in some format and make sure that that hans, otherwise -- that happens, otherwise they may end up doing stuff that may not serve the interest of rocket docket.
>> I agree and we're looking at performance measures and I'm sure we'll be meeting several times again before we bring the interlocal back in front of the court. But I agree.
>> that's my concern.
>> kimberly and jim, this dove tails I think with what Commissioner Davis is wondering about. I was looking at the performance measures on page 2. How many cases, requests for drug analysis do we anticipate six chemists can analyze within two weeks? What caseload is reasonable to examine from a fully staffed six-person lab?
>> in the information that a.p.d. Sent me, they can do -- one person can do 50 a month, which is more than what they indicated even here on page 3. These are their numbers that they sent me on Friday. And they're indicating 16. But from all the correspondence that I have from a.p.d., can do 50, so that is 300 a month analyzed.
>> so 150 in a two week turn around, that's 20 more than our target under the performance measures. And if we're looking at our projected high in, then we're good if we have six fully trained and certification period.
>> and is there any reason to believe that the city of Austin and a.p.d. Has any disincentive to make rocket docket their priorities?
>> she thinks they're 100% cooperative. But they've assured us that they do now make rocket docket cases a priority, and if given this additional chemist, they will continue to make rocket docket cases a priority. And I think that they -- in fact, if I remember the conversation correctly that we had last week, just because they have been short staffed for awhile and they do have some people now. They say we may see some shortening in the turn around on those lab results for rocket docket cases in the next few months, even before the sixth chemist that the county would fund would be up and going. They do expect to see in six months in benefit in the next few months just because they have restaffed some of those positions that were vacant for awhile.
>> the rocket docket cases would be a priority not only for the sixesth position that the county funds, but for all six. They have more than six forensic chemists, but they have five who do drug analysis. And if the county adds one, then they will have six who do drug analysis. And all six of those people will give priority to rocket docket. That's what the interlocal will say. And that's what they've agreed to.
>> have we told them to go ahead and implement the six chemist strategy? That we would fund chemist number six.
>> yes, sir.
>> have we formally voted
>> and we did say that there was language in there that we did want to see the other ones hired.
>> right.
>> and those packets have been sent to hr. I'm pretty sure the fourth and fifth chemist will be hired soon.
>> that's fine with with me.
>> okay. Any more questions, discussions? So they will let us know when the persons have been hired so we can start sending the money, basically.
>> that's right. When that sixth one is up and working, then they will invoice us at that time. I hope that you'll have an interlocal to look at next week. I would expect that you would, that it will be ready.
>> okay. Thank you very much.
>> thank you, kim.
>> kim, now in terms of the interlocal -- jim, in term of the interlocal, you will submit an agenda item when it's ready?
>> 83, we'll do -- yeah, we'll do it next week. I expect it to be on next week.
>> but when will the contracts be available? If you need two weeks, I would take two weeks. Not that the county attorney cannot move at incredible speed, but the item should be submitted when the contract is well, it's not ready today and I understand that today would be the deadline for next week, so perhaps you should put it on for two weeks.
>> the item should be submitted when the contract is ready.
>> [ laughter ] thank you very much. We're together. We're together on it.
>> very good.
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 25, 2007, 8:34 AM