Travis County Commissioners Court
November 13, 2007
Item 13
Susan, since we have you here, 13 is provide modification number 3 to contract ps 04016 jw, nora del bosque, to provide professional legislative advocacy services. Commissioner eckhardt had a question.
>> I was just wondering, I was wondering the difference between this contract and the scope of service for the shields cam contract.
>> what we -- I’m not real familiar with the scope of service there so I can't compare them. What she has done is she has worked cooperatively on, like when we did appraisal and revenue caps, she did a lot of arranging, I did a lot of presentations to people over at the capitol and she around that. She was the one that helped us primarily on the gasby 45 bill. So these done more specific things involving issues that I’ve been involved in with the judges, but she's also worked as part of the county team. So it's kind of a cooperative collaborative effort.
>> so she works -- she works in tandem with cam and shields?
>> like for instance on that they very much worked together and divvied up strategies and things like that. So that's what she has primarily done. She worked on some bills involving the district judges a couple sessions ago, worked on those kind of things. And cam and shields primarily work at you all's direction. Most of the things that I want are the same things she wants. It may be a different scope. She has worked with our office, she works in tandem with them.
>> did she also work on the legislation regarding the folding of the county courts at law into district courts?
>> I don't think she did. I don't think she did. I think cam and shields did that.
>> she works exclusively on auditor issues but not on district or county --
>> she has worked on district. Part of it is, it's kind of a -- you know, who is available to work on these different things. Last time the gasb 45 bill was such a huge bill and took so much work that I had her focused primarily on that and I think that's one of the reasons we got that through. It was a tremendous external effort of getting us around, getting the message out, it's a very technical bill. She didn't do a lot in the last session other than that, but she got a major statewide bill through for us, I mean with our help. I think it depends what issues are out there for you all and that I don't see a big bill like gasb 45 this next session. So she probably would do more diverse kinds of things. But it is a cooperative effort and some of it depends on what the interim charges are, what's coming up, what impacts us, you know, where we think we need help over there. What she's been very good at doing -- I mean she doesn't appear in court. She hasn't gone to -- she didn't come to the auditor's meeting, she didn't do any of those things, but what she has done is really been good about particularry advising what things I need to educate legislators on and that has been a role that we have played throughout the session where they've needed to know legislative things. And as we have testified and I’ve provided a lot of information to legislators as well as t.a.c. And revenue caps when we first hired her, they feel free to call her and call me about other things about the county that has to do with money or that type of thing. But, you know, I think when you look at legislative services as a whole, there are things that we absolutely need outside people for us to do because we can't do that ourselves. Like, you know, we just don't have the contacts. With our own legislators we do, but we don't with the rest. We need people tell us what they know, help us figure out what we need to know, and then you need internal people who are working with them. Like she on that bill, for instance, probably called us every other day asking for things and getting information out to educate. So it's not -- working the legislature is not a clean-cut, organized type of thing. It depends what's going on. What we need. One of the things that I think is important with the legislative effort is -- I mean for the public's viewpoint, the question is should governments be involved in those things, and the reality is this. The way county governments are structured, we can only do what the state allows us to do. It's not if they prohibit it, we can't identity. They have to allow us to do that. So as we're doing our damely work in many facets, there definitely has to be a link between us and the state. And, you know, we need to educate them so that we can do what they think we need to do. And sometimes they don't know that. And so I think it's a very necessary process for the county to be very involved in the legislature.
>> I agree 100%. My only question is -- I confess, I wasn't aware there was a separate consultant contract for the auditors.
>> and I pay for this out of my budget which is the only reason for that. As long as I can, I’m willing to do that. At some point I probably won't be able to do that.
>> I just -- it raises the question in my mind since we have -- we have two separate legislative consulting contracts whether it wouldn't be good to step back and figure out exactly where we do need to be placing legislative consulting efforts and how to structure that.
>> I think that's always a good idea to coordinate our efforts.
>> because I didn't know she existed.
>> that's because -- since you've been here, she's worked exclusively on the gasb 45.
>> but it also raises in my mind several court issues that came up during the last legislative session dealing with county courts at law and district courts as well as salary structure with district judges. There are many other things I’m wondering whether we aren't getting the most out of our contracts as far as our scopes of service considering this is a not to exceed of 158,000 over two years.
>> right.
>> and I believe that our other legislative contract is similar in a not to exceed amount and that's $300,000 of consulting services. I just want to make sure we are coordinating and -- as well as there are other divisions in the county who could probably use specific hand-holding help in this coming legislation session on big-ticket issues.
>> there are huge issues.
>> juvenile justice.
>> we have coordinated historically on big items.
>> oh, yes.
>> however, this person works under your direction and is funded through your budget.
>> absolutely.
>> and it comes to the Commissioners court because by law we have to contract -- Commissioners court has to approve the contracts.
>> that's right.
>> since her day 1, she has worked on matters of importance to Travis County, but by and large those items have been equally if not more important to the auditor. Salary caps is important to you but also important to the Travis County budget.
>> right.
>> and the gasb 45 issue that really took a whole lot of time and effort and she was kind of dedicated to working with it.
>> right.
>> the other consultants work on those issues as well as a whole lot of other county matters.
>> uh-huh.
>> and to be honest, you know, they are kind of responding to the five of us.
>> right.
>> and often we are not completely together.
>> right.
>> so --
>> we primarily are, but yeah.
>> do you think she has an easier job than the lobbyists that work --
>> I’m not saying it's easier. Respond to one person instead of five.
>> if you like the one, it is.
>> susan, if we do this, are we locked in for two years?
>> I don't think we're ever locked into a contract. What I’ve been funding, and as you well know, you know, I’m using salary savings to fund this. And my dream is that I won't have salary savings because I will fill every position in my office. So what I have done is taken those salary savings and tried to direct those over issues that I think are -- and the judge is right, primarily significant to the auditor's office, but nothing that's significant to our office is insignificant to you all, to be honest, the county. So that's what I’ve done. You know, it's a two-year contract. I think that it's important to work in the interim. I mean I think we're foolish not to work in the interim to see what's coming up and get ready and get our data. Getting data together for the county is very difficult. Getting it, coordinating it, getting it in a manner that is easily communicated, very, very difficult. As bob and chris have said over and over, we cont do that at the last minute. We're kind of not far enough back and we need to do that.
>> if we decided in six months that we were going to go with different direction, you know, like I intimated to you on the phone this morning, would we have an issue legally if we wanted to sit down with nora and say I know we signed a two-year contract, but we, quite frankly, want to go something ?els.
>> you would probably not redirect funds from my office and that's one of the issues. If she's not paid where you pay cam and shields. You could ask me to redirect the funds. Certainly I would be interested in talking with you about it.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I’m sorry?
>> you still receive funding from Travis County.
>> yeah, but that funding is in the auditor's office.
>> where it exists now.
>> right.
>> but every year her funding is locked into the same amount and district judges can increase that by 5%.
>> that's right.
>> so if this is budgeted on a certain year, she starts off her budget with that amount plus 5% that the district judges can do.
>> right.
>> whether we like it or not because the law provides that. It just so happens that historically we have worked together and the --
>> has been a moot point.
>> but in the old days, they invoked that authority and each year increased to 5% and sometimes we were increasing the other departments' budget by more than that so it was a disadvantage then. When we increased it less it was an advantage. We've gotten away from that by cooperating. There's a long history here. In response to your question, it's the auditor's budget plus 5% at the discretion of district judges, not at the discretion of the court.
>> right. And I would like -- I mean I try to use the money that I’ve got in the best way I can for the county as a whole because we're a part of it. If I don't have this money anymore, I would reassess the value of it, obviously. But what I’m using is salary savings for the contract.
>> I move approval.
>> Commissioner Daugherty, I’m sorry, did that answer your question? From a contract standpoint, sir -- I’m sorry, marvin bryce. All of the contract runs through 2010. All of our contracts have a termination clause. It provides that an option for the county to terminate for any reason within either 10 or 30 days. Some clauses give us 10 days notification to contractor, some give us 30. We have the right to terminate the contract if need be.
>> without any liability.
>> without any liability.
>> that's fine.
>> purchasing has been putting our heads together and if we think there is a better way than the status quo, we would sit with the auditor and try to convince her we are right. She may convince us -- she may persuade us in fact the truth is just the opposite and her way is better. Any more discussion? I do think as we put legislative issues together, we ought to share the same master list. Opportunities to collaborate. We have committed to start earlier in preparation for the next session. So if we get down the road on that, it will be good for all of us, I think. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
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, November 14, 2007, 18:30 AM