Travis County Commissioners Court
September 25, 2007
Items 19
>> nineteen yes, to approve 12-month extension to the following unisys contracts, a, modification number 5 to contract number ma 00042, system hardware and software maintenance support services. And 19 b is modification number 3 to contract number 95 c 0150-cg, unisys system licenses.
>> judge, I had pulled this because of the fact that unisys, you know I have talked to you several times joe on this whole unisys system. Been around with us a long time and we haven't put it to rest yet. I still see that we are still spending money on it. I had anticipated that we would be out of the woods with that so I'm just trying to figure out why are we doing this now, especially maintenance upkeep and also license agreement, I guess, maintenance upkeep, to support that also with the expense of the ongoing system we have been trying to get away from.
>> this is the current live system that drives all the jps. We are metting with the jps on a weekly basis.
>> that is not my question. The sqe why haven't you gotten away from this system that we had said we were going to get rid of this a long time ago and yet we are still dealing with license agreements and maintenance and support. So my question is still, why haven't we gotten rid of this old system?
>> because the main reason is because of not being able to get the courts off the facts system. Currently looking at the jps. It is a data issue. It is a balancing the data. You've got, for instance with the jp's right now, you have the collection system out at the tax office, you have the systems they are running on unisys. With a we are finding is that the balances between the two systems are not the sale. Before we convert them they have to be in balance in order to meet gas b 34 requirements. That means we have to change--
>> how long will we be dealing with the unisys system? When do you anticipate now, have different answers, but can you give me a bonafide solid answer of when we will get rid of the systems?
>> I will tell that you we are going through the databases today and if they can be cleaned you by March we can start the first jp's by March. It will take some time to get the databases cleaned up.
>> that is my whole, okay, thank you.
>> any additional information? Do you need to catch your breath first?
>> you all might have questions for me. That is why I'm up here.
>> no, I have asked the same question for years and I'm getting the same answer.
>> the answer I'm hearing is that the backup systems indicate that we need unisys at least through next summer in order to gert courts conversion. I take it much depends on how the conversion goes.
>> that's correct.
>> if you run in unexpected problems, it may take longer than that. But we need unisys until the conversion is perfectedthat is correct.
>> .
>> --
>> that is correct. Back to the Commissioner's question, we have run into unexpected problems. And that is multiple systems not being in balance. In the court will remember April 1, 2006, we had to implement a collection system for the jp's. So that put another system yet that we had to put into the mix of balancing and reconciling and making sure that if there were 29 records here, there were 29 record here, and the data was the same. So to go back to Commissioner Davis's concern, it's a very difficult question to answer because the jp offices would need to be here to say, well, we have 6,472 records we are going have to research to find out why we have 20 in the collections system and 29 in the unisys. I don't know that i, and I hear the frustration, but you don't know that we can give you a exact date. It's like the judge said. Our plan is to convert the first jp court in March. Is that correct? That's our plan. Not foreseeing any additional data issues. From a technology standpoint, we're kind of ready. It's a data issue.
>> we did fund some temporary personnel.
>> yes, sir, we did.
>> to assist with the conversio.
>> yes, sir, you did.
>> some of the personnel is in the jp offices.
>> that's correct.
>> and the jp's share our desire to basically terminate reliance on unisys as soon as possible.
>> they have a reliability issue with the unisys from time to time.
>> the same concern. Hasn't changed.
>> right.
>> but if we were simply to terminate unisys--
>> jp's would be out of business. We don't get them converted.
>> we would have to bring them up on facts and they would start without conversion.
>> if there is anything the court can do to expedite conversion, you know, let us know. Sometimes there are little things we can do to tweak.
>> right. May be some additional temporary help in the jp's to help clean up the data.
>> they would probably appreciate that.
>> if we think it will have significant impact. Let us know.
>> will do.
>> any other questions?
>> move approval of 19 a and b.
>> second.
>> motion to second. Discussion?
>> yes, I'd like to say that I support the end result, dealing with the jp's and all the other users of this end product. However, I can't continue to support the spending of money on the unisys system that should have been terminated a long time ago. Have I to abstain on had this particular motion.
>> all in favor. Shows Commissioners Daugherty, eckhardt, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis abstaining for the reason just given.
>> thank you.
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, September 26, 2007, 18:30 AM