Travis County Commissioners Court
February 5, 2008
Item 38
38 is to consider and take appropriate action on establishing policy to end committees on which members of the Commissioners court sit that a, are internal to Travis County b, are not required by statute or other agreement, and c, have not met in 24 months or more. Commissioner eckhardt.
>> I put this on as a house cleaning measure to see if there is interest in taking some load off by eradicating committees that no longer meet or reforming committees that ought to be meeting, leaving it up to discussion of the Commissioners court.
>>
>> [unaudible]
>> I was curious, are those two committees meeting? Could we consider--
>> I haven't--
>> sunsetting?
>> it's been a while.
>> I致e been given to understand that the space planning committee committee hasn't met in over two years.
>> .
>> it was always the an understanding that belinda would let us know when we needd to meet again, but it hasn't been done away with. We just met as needed to update the report.
>> would you suggest that it should continue to stand or should we sunset it and reform it if we need it?
>> I think it needs to stand and it can be called as needed.
>> okay. Then--
>> I think the question here is whether the committees should heat.
>> right.
>> I don't know that we ought to make the decision without some of the other. Kind of like the internal audit committee. Last time I was on it seven or eight years ago, we did good work because the departments had been receiving internal audits that were not good but were not taking corrective steps. So when we met we would take one department and try to figure out what the issues were and then sit down with the department head and try to work through the problem. But that committee ran into some issues and basically stopped meeting. There was friction internally. A lot of people say when I was on it was a good thing I manufacture said that but clearly, that committee did some good. I don't know how the internal audits have been going because I haven't spent much time looking at them, but I wish the committee would at least take another look at sort of outstanding audits and see what the issues are, see what kind of follow-up steps have been taken. The additional step is us looking at the various committees, seeing what they were charged to do, and then maybe getting the committee members together to figure out whether really they ought to just be eliminated or whether they ought to be revised. So that would be the fourth, d under 38.
>> the y is what I just spoke of. That was my comment, just on c.
>> right.
>> now, I guess, sorry.
>> my idea was by creating an automatic sunset, it would put a fire under all those who are ined to advocate for the continuation of committees, otherwise they would be automatically sunset. It seems like we do have a number that haven't met in a long while and should either be moved off the plate or resuscitated.
>> I知 trying to understand what the judge is saying. Judge, what you are saying, there needs to be another item, maybe a d or something like that to revisit the functionality of whatever? The comment you might, I知 trying to say what interject ing you were having. I guess the idea is to evaluate them? What was had a--take?
>> the step that we did not include is looking at what the committee was charged to do. Seeing whether that problem has gone away, seeing if the committee members in fact think the committee ought to be eliminated. The two or three examples that I have heard about, the committees have not met in a long time but the need has not gone away, is the problem. So even if we decide, okay, we need to reconstitute the membership, that is not doing away with the committee.
>> right.
>> because some of the members may have left the county or lost interest
>> [ph] --in that particular item t my point is if we take that proactive step and conclude that the committee is unnecessary, I think we do ourselves a favor by eliminating it. So if nothing else you eliminate the anxiety and stress of not attending.
>> right.
>> or doing nothing. But the internal audit committee the space committee, those have serious work. But they are not going to do it, then we may as well do away with the committees.. Otherwise, I agree with you in that if had they have become defunct and serve no purpose, we ought to consider whether to keep them or do away with them. I知 just saying that rather than having them automatically sunset I really prefer us to proactively look at what they were charged with doing , whether that need has gone away. If the feed has--need has not gone away, we need to address it one way or another, we can do away with the current committee but still have to put another committee in place. Thing about the internal audits too, as I i recall some of them had some fairly serious findings and on some of them the department heads weren't dealing with them because of lack of resources . El so when we would sit down with the department heads and ask what would it take to address this problem, a lot of the department heads said I need a couple temporaries for 90 days, this kind of equipment, I need this, feed that. The problem too is in a whole lot of these, the audits found problems that really involve not only Travis County funding but also state money. So when the state auditor is made aware of these problems, typically they want to get after it because the end result is additional state funding.
>> let me ask a question. Central Texas regional mobility subcommittee have anything to do with the ctrma, or was this, I mean maybe it doesn't, but central Texas regional mobility subcommittee, does that have anything to do with--
>> it may be one we ought to do away with. I don't know.
>> originally, Commissioner, what happened, when we were looking at the possibility of having an authority created, well, you were here I think during that time. That particular committee was established due to the fact to look at Travis County's interest as far as some of these transportation needs to make sure that whatever happens during that time, we were looking at an example, looking at an example of sh 45 southeast for example, the toll road that they were basically looking at something new. Not old but something new. Of course, at that time wilson county had something on the book something new, 183 a and that was basically the interest of trying to make sure that Travis County as far as new toll roads had an interest in it. Of course, looking at all the other interests that this thing basically generated. Now, it's kind of deviated from that, I guess. But that particular subcommittee was basically created. My recollection serves me correctly, it was to look at the new transportation roads that could possibly be generated from tolls revenue. Of course, new construction. Nothing on existing roads.
>> did it have something to do with the ctrma?
>> as far as what?
>> yes, it did.
>> okay.
>> as far as what? As far as the relationship --
>> I just wondered--
>> yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> whether that was a creation because of the ctrm yes--
>> yes.
>> that's all immediated.
>> my recommendation is that d ought to be that we determine whether a need exists and whether there is agreement to eliminate. On the central Texas regional mobility subcommittee, I don't know who else is on the committee but the question is, is there a need for the subcommittee to exist. To be honest, I don't know of one right now. Could be one we eliminate.
>> I agree. I don't have any problem. What happened, you and I were on the subcommittee, as I recall, with a transportation.
>> okay. This is.
>> this is another transportation committee right now, again, I don't see the need.
>> if the it's just the two of us on there, then that committee is gone.
>> okay.
>> I agree.
>> yeson.
>> on some of the other like the internal audit committee, think the purpose of it, whether the need still exists and whether there's agreement by committee members to eliminate it, and a lot sort of depends on the auditors response to that question about if there's no need for it or if it's not going to serve any purpose, or if the committee members believe that it ought to basically be eliminated, then let's do it.
>> the committee members of each of these things--
>> I would ask the question.
>> go ahead.
>> if we report back had a in fact the ctrma beliefs the committee should exist because there's work for us to do, we may want to we constitute the committee. It may be that you and I shouldn't be on there but two other members of the court. But you don't make that determination without looking at purpose, need and agreement to eliminate . Problem is that it will take a little time. I don't know who has been thinking about it but my guess is that the auditor or some of her people would want to kind of mull over it and try to figure out does the committee really serve a purpose. When I reflect back eight, nine, ten years ago when I was on it, before the end there I thought we were meeting an important purpose. We were getting movement, getting agreement by different departments, cleaning up some problems. The other thing about the internal audit, when you look at them, some of them kind of read the same. Unfortunately, they kind of highlight the same issues and problems that are not dealt with year in and year out. Which should send a signal. That may not be the situation today but a lot happens over a period of eight or nine years. I mean, those were common problems in those days.
>> judge, are you saying that 38 really ought to just have an a, and the a is, is there a need to exist, and each committee needs, every committee, I think, has a chairman.
>> I知 really suggesting d.
>> yes, a, b, and c unless d. The charge indicates that there's remaining issues and that we need to continue with the committee.
>> just adding d.
>> yes, a, b, and c are important conditions. If you haven't met in 24 months, that's a long time. There may be reasons.
>> it's been a while. A long while.
>> do you think this is worded broadly enough for us to add d today on approval? My d would be--
>> a, b and c unless--
>> whatever the language is in d my intention is to focus on purpose, whether the need still exists, and whether there is agreement by committee members to eliminate it.
>> uh-huh.
>> and what it means is that if we don't think we'll get the right answers
>> [ph] d--in d, we bring it back to court and decide, based on the information we gathered, whether we ought to eliminate that subcommittee or notshould we attempt in----
>> should we attempt in the interim to go to the committees we sit on and identify the stands issues?
>>
>> [inaudible]
>> absolutely. In two to four weeks, come up with a list. I知 thinking two categories, one where clearly there is consensus to eliminate, and make a second category where there are issues that the court needs to address before taking final actioni guess to eliminate the confusion to the public, I want to make sure that they understand the committee that we are serving on had in central Texas regional mobility subcommittee, the committee's endeavoring to look at tolls for new roads, not existing roads. I want to make sure that folks still realize that I知 still opposed to the rolls on free roads, existing roads.
>> I think everybody is I don't know of anybody in this community that is supporting of tolling an existing road.
>> anyway, I wantd to make sure my position is clear.
>> unfortunately, a lot of people in this town don't know this.
>> I second Commissioner eckhardt's motion the the approve 38 with the disk of d.
>> yes, as appropriate.
>> I appreciate it.
>> if this passes, give ourselves two to four weeks. I say those that are ready, we put in an agenda item and come back and take action.
>> shoot for say February 26? That's further out.
>> do we have a full court?
>> I値l be back.
>> sounds good to me. All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all much. Good item, good strategy.
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, February 6, 2008 8:09 PM