Travis County Commissioners Court
July 10, 2007
Item 26
Now, what about item 26?
>> we have several options laid out previously, and we got from Commissioner eckhardt a one pager that contains -- these were various duties that could be considered for this position, and ways which to fund the position that were just for discussion purposes because there does seem to be a debate -- a question still hanging out there whether this would be essentially a press function or whether it would be more of an intergovernmental relation function. Liaisonning with other governmental entities both at the city level, the other counties and at the state level. And in late of -- looking at our lobbyist contract, for instance, I could see a real benefit to this being an intergovernment a.m. Relations position. Not to replace our lobbyists, but to augment their efforts and make it much more -- give us a much more integrated response in regard to other governmental entities that have a profound effect on our abilities to do our job. That's how I brainstormed this essentially.
>> I think at one point we mention that had we also wanted them to be able to understand and then be a liaison and interpret the issues of tif, for instance. And that is important because then we have to deal with other entities who want us as partners and we need to be able to understand those issues.
>> and I think those issues will come up more and more often as we see the deevolution of state responsibilities down to our door. How we fund these items have a huge effect policywise across the board, whether it's Williamson county, hays county, Travis County, bastrop county, the city of Austin, city of Pflugerville, Lakeway. I think that we could do a much better job of -- even if the choir isn't always singing the same note, it still would be valuable to see if we're all at least in the same key. And although I'm very new to this office, in January I hit office dealing with a legislative session, and while I was -- daniel bradford if you're listening, thank god for you. He was on my staff during the legislative session and was just phenomenal. It would be great to have someone whose imbedded in our county government to do that job that has that includes the ability to analyze policy as well as the skill set to see how each one of the governmental entities plays into our policy. It was great having daniel on my staff, but frankly it shouldn't be on any one Commissioner's staff.
>> not if we're going to have to deal with those bigger issues that bring us to the point of interacting with other entities. That's why I thought that calling it the intergovernmental relations person is a little more substantive for me than a pio.
>> one question that's hanging out there, though, is this too large of a job? Are we having too high of an expectation for the skill set in one individual to essentially do pio and intergovernmental?
>> if you have this person focusing on big issues, more of a coordinator, manager, mover type person, one person can get a whole lot done, but that one person needs at least one other person, I think. You won't get much done if you don't have some support. So I think we're talking about at least two people. I've seen three recommended, but I think this ought to be one of those high level jobs where we can see impact.
>> and I think -- the other thing to recognize is that the person needs to communicate -- they have to communicate with us, but then can have that freedom to communicate with other entities as to what the county's interest is in this. And so that we don't have to be looking over this person's shoulder, what did you say and how did you say it? I think as long as it's consistent with the county position and the county conversation with this court, that can be done?
>> I think we're coming to the point where we need a specific proposal, either approve, reject or modify and act on. And we have a whole lot of ideas, but -- we have options and ideas, I think, more than a particular proposal, so we're maybe to the point of trying to pull the best from these and then try to figure out what we can do.
>> will there be an interview process, judge, basically the way we did all the other selections and stuff? Because I'm quite sure once this is --
>> to fill the position?
>> right.
>> yeah. But I think we ought to have a proposal --
>> yeah, see exactly what we're looking for.
>> and one of the large questions hanging out there is exactly where would this office land in our hierarchy. One option that is used in a lot of other areas is that the position resides in the county judge's office. Another is that it's a position that is -- that works for all of the Commissioners and the judge, but isn't at the level of a manager position. Works with the managers, with the Commissioners court and for the Commissioners court. But the judge's point is well taken, this position certainly would have to be supported in some way by at least one support person. And preferably supported by two, one who does essentially a press function and the other that does essentially a clerical support.
>> you could start off with two and decide later on whether you want to reduce it to one or whether you want to add another for three.
>>
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> I think each of us should be left with the impression that whatever investment we make is worth it. And without landing on specific duties and responsibilities it's hard to make that call. And if you pay somebody 70 or 80, $100,000, it's a major investment. But I don't think you want that person doing secretarial stuff fbility the big issue is if the job be were filled tomorrow, what would that person do? And we ought to be able to come up with a list of them. On the sheriff thing it's -- on the legislative thing it's really kind of slow except during those six to eight months. And if you start early, even putting together legislation is a kind of slow process. And I don't see us overnight treating it with the same urgency that we treat legislation on January third. But we could really pick up the pace two or three months before January.
>> and also through that, the interim, and one thing I have seen in regard to our contract with our lobbyists, our lobbyists are not in a position to be able to go in the interim to all of our departments and say what are your priorities? Where are you hampered by legislation? Where are you hampered by ordinances with the city of Austin and city of Pflugerville, Lakeway, whatever? Where are you hampered in our dealings with Williamson and hays, blanco, wherever. And if we had that person, while it's a major downtime for our lobbyists, be I'd see that interim actually being the area where this position would be working the hardest. By the time you hit legislative session, you should be skating over the hard work you've already done.
>> and that's my expectation of the position.
>> actually putting pen to paper on draft legislation and then finding the people in the interim who are willing to carry it and why they're willing to carry it.
>> well, there's the intergovernmental function, then there's legislative. Then there are big county issues. Those are three distinct categories. I don't know that we'd be prioritizing the same. I would put the legislative one last now, and probably first two or three months before the legislature gets to town through probably 45, 60 days after the session. Because normally there's plenty of post-legislative session stuff to do.
>> oh, yeah.
>> sometimes there are interim committees working.
>> yeah. So that leaves probably 15 months. That carves out maybe nine or 10. So in my mind for 15 months you do legislative stuff, but it wouldn't be a priority because I'm convinced you're not going to get county departments that worked up. And I don't know the issues are that hot. The hottest issue last time I thought was the constable issue, but in the middle of the session is when they really came together and got it done. And that was when counties had spent as much money as we settling lawsuits that legislation could probably help us eliminate in the future.
>> probably the major issues that the county is going to face as it interfaces with other entities would be an ongoing thing. I think that would be. And --
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> and that's a major, big issue that would be worked on.
>> that's a big deal. Because as you know, there's water quality protection -- the protection of the water quality zone on certain parts of the county, then you do look at the ddc, desired development zone, they're trying to focus and bring development to the ddz, but again, we are very limited as far as what we can dictate to come to. Meaning anything and everything can come right there next for you. It will be a case-by-case basis as we go through this process.
>> as far as fleshing out this idea, the priorities that you've articulated, judge, in priority order, would be intergovernmental relations, big policy issues and legislation. Is that a fair reiteration?
>> public information.
>> and public information. And then some of the items that we'd need to flesh out as far as coming up with a proposal would be the actual job description of this position and any support position, the qualifications of this position and any support position, and how it would be structured as far as where would it be housed and under whose authority.
>> right.
>> okay. And come out with maybe three scenarios and flesh it out there there?
>> do you want two of us to work on that?
>> and I think that would include melinda because of the space issues that we need to address.
>> I'll throw another idea out there. Perhaps the judge calls one or two other judges, be it tarrant, dallas, wherever you might know somebody that has a position like this, and ask if their person could come down and talk to -- and maybe it is the committee. And say, here is what I do, here is what kind of a department I have, here's how we really go about this. Because to me, what you've really got to have in this position is someone that really, really understands county government. I mean, you can -- because you almost need to go to a department and say, you need to be thinking about this where they are really proactive in going to the departments, I mean, much like probably what our pbo analysts do, and say, here are the thing that we are going -- that we are going to need. Because I know there were some of these meetings that our lobby team tried to huddle up with departments and what ended up happening -- because it generally wasn't us at those meetings. It was somebody in a department that might not even have been the head after a department and they really didn't know what to say to the lobby team. So the lobby team gets frustrated about rltd that's not how to work. And I think the lobby team will tell you that there are more things that can be going on right now than there is when the legislature is here because when the legislature is here is the worst time to try to get it done because you can't see anybody because everybody is so busy.
>> we are not maximizing our relationships with our lobbyists.
>> no, we're not.
>> we went through this process and it took us awhile, a couple of years before we really got our feet on the ground with being effective. But we've done it now. I would think that you're probably on a first name base with somebody. Let's find out who it is.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> from harris county.
>> and work for a senator.
>> we're looking at a procession that may take another two or three weeks.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> ed carr -- is that sort of informal that Commissioner Gomez and --
>> so in two weeks you would like to see three scenarios for additional discussion?
>> you'll need three weeks?
>> we've done a good amount of legwork and Commissioner Gomez's long association with
>> [inaudible], I think we can work it out.
>> we'll plan to have it on in two weeks.
>> if we need additional time, we'll just roll with it.
>> that's the 24th, right, ms. Porter? Don't you all get ready to any particular option.
>> no, no, I will be objective.
>> too late.
>> [laughter]
>> I will be openminded.
>> two weeks we'll bring it back up.
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, July 11, 2007, 11:00 AM