Travis County Commissioners Court
January 22, 2008
Item 19
Number 19 is revised language. A, consider and take appropriate action on request to designate edward racht m.d. As alternate health authority for Austin Travis County health and human services department, and , the appointments of the health authority and alternate health authorities.
>> good morning, judgage Commissioners, sherry flemming, health and human vnciouslve as you are aware, you have certain authority in the area of public health and as a part of had a authority, the responsibility to designate health authorities for Austin Travis County. Lasa tt)di believe your acti designates dr. Linda dooly as acting health authority and doctor burch. There was questions also about dr. Ed racht. I believe legal can speak to the mu dopedocument that you have before you today.
>> the order that the court has providedhat the order confirms the actions taken last week and to confirm what action you take this week, which ordinarily the court does use an order to confirm the appointment. These appointments are made under law and under the court's interlocal with the city of Austin, where your director for the health department is not a physician. These are appointed to take, to cts of the health authority which require a physician. And the order is pretty standard. We have used it before. The on the second page urqh @&ht which covers any action that a arthere be a jty or alternate t conflict of interest in the duties of that health authority and other duties that that person mnder a +q different position. I spoke at length with dr. Racht. He very much favors the language and beliefs this is a model order that probably could be used thrute out the state because there are so many instances where the people best suitd to have the urmay uajua have other involvement in the public health area, and that their ethical and professionel standards would cover this instance and would cause them to take the appropriate action, but this puts that in written language, and the court and everyone involved sees that, for example using dr. Racht's position, should there be a public healt$juujjrwhere e m ms might have one interest and the health department would have another, them he would in the act in this position. He would take things position in e ms and one of the other alternates obje(uhrqpsur authority would act in that situation. That would apply to any one of these appointments should there be any kind of conflict between anotrer positio'$qv hold and their position as health authority.
>> there are examples in the state where they deal with this the same way.
>> exactly. When we talked he said this has been an issue coming up more and more and probably the wording and order that the court is going to use today is something that then can be used throughout the state that will provide the assurance to the public that this conflict possibility has been notified to those involved and that it will be addressed any time that comes up.
>> move approval, judgeof a and b. Irnyes.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> my other than question, goes to what you were saying, should this paragraph be general to the director and two alternates rather than specific to dr. Racht.
>> I think the first part of the paragraph is specific and the second generally.
>> right. To have it not cover just hill but all the appointments. The potential is there for anybody.
>> the appointment of any physician, that part?
>> yes, the second half where it starts out, in addition.
>> okay.
>> that is the general language that would cover all of the appointments.
>> my only question was whether the portion, in addition, and everything prior to it, is even necessary, because what comes after the comma, and in addition covers them all.
>> I think it was just something that in this particular order, I think in future orders we would just use the language in the second part. I think there was, since there n a been concerns voicq" particular individual with a particular position, that we wanted to address those. Again, dr. Racht was in favor of that.
>> okay.
>> then we wanted to have the language that would cover the general cases that might come up other than those that we had recognized.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor. Gomez, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis abstaining. The motion chris.
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, January 23, 2008 8:09 PM