Travis County Commissioners Court
May 6, 2008
Item 16
Item number 16, considering a take appropriate action on recommendations for contract award for third party collections of fines and fees, to the two highest ranked proposers, linebarger and msb. There is a question?
>> I had a clarification, I voted in favor of the computer system to increase the efficiency of collection and fines and fees and I remain in favor of this system but I’m not in favor of the privatization of the collection of the fines and fees because I’m concerned that government may become desensitized and insulated from the effects of these ever-increasing fines and fee, particularly with state mandates that have these out of our control so for that reason, I believe to reduce the probability of that level of insulation, we should keep those collections in house, so I will vote against this item, although I’m in favor of the computer system that made the private collection possible.
>> Commissioner, I don't object to what your comments are, I think they're very appropriate in this particular situation, but I just want to go back just a little bit into time, just for a couple of seconds here. When we found out that there were outstanding monies owed to the county some time ago, we had a big meeting right down here, and during the course of that meeting we had the different departments was in the county that had outstanding issues, not only in the debt that was owed the county but in ways to correct it. They had made several attempts in trying to bring in the moneys that were owed to Travis County. And for a number of years this was occurring and they were not having any movement at all. So we tried to figure out what kind of way could we come up with to look at collecting fines and fees that would were owed te county and of course to include this into the general revenue stream. And since then, since that effort has taken place there has been other initiatives that on the senate bill 1863 that authorize counties to initiate some type of collection fee program. That this is con I think contina part of, I listen to do so staff, Commissioner Daugherty and I were versed, we sat on the committee here and I will never forget that and we listened to staff and just seemed appropriate, and I don't disagree with you, it seemed appropriate if we are going to recruit for Travis County, we need to end up going in this particular direction because we couldn't deal with this publicly and we've asked the departments to bear the brunt of it and they were not doing, some felt that, well the record showd itself that the attempts that county staff had made to collect outstanding debt owed to Travis County were just not working. So I just think this is an appropriate way to try to recruit some of the money that is owed Travis County, and of course, in accordance with the senate bill 1863 is for the collections program. But I don't disagree with you for what you're saying and I think it is very appropriate, however I just think we need to take the business at hand and move forward.
>> move approval, judge.
>> second.
>> can we put in the contract language to the effect that we would annually or periodically is better, review the contracts and if we think that performance does not meet our expectations we have the right to terminate.
>> put in the contracts that are available for significant today is that there would be a two-year term initially, to accommodate the fact that there will be a certain amount of initial cost at starting up, start-up costs related to this kind of a program, then after this you would review it annually to determine if you would extend the contract.
>> change if we are achieveing r causing negative impact, then we ought to do something about it. These will be our agents and representatives and they stand for Travis County while they do this work and I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the contract is implemented in the right way. Personally, I think if we get this done there is a central collection rest quirement by the state now for us to staff up and get it done would be an enormous up-front investment and I’m thinking if there is another way to get it done, we all the to do that. The other thing is that there are old fines and fees, there are very, very old fines and fees, and there like current stuff. And as far as I know the other countieses get low-hanging fruit, which is our goal, but on the rest of it, it requires more intense work that we've contracted out. I think we're not bound to this forever. If it is a two-year pilot and we annually we review, we should know what we expect and if they are meeting expectationses or not.
>> and the jps are also very sensitive to how the people in their precincts will respond to this and they have retained the right to pull back cases any time, they have retained the right to approve all core response dance going out and being notified of correspondence that results in a claim being made against the collection people so there watching it very closely on a day-to-day basis they feel represented appropriately based on their image within the community as well. So it is not a free-rolling do whatever you want.
>> which is very appropriate.
>> and I would add there was a lot of discussion about all these being handled by the constables and they tried to collect and collect and it is really when you get to where you're not having luck, those are the cases that are going.
>> I want to express my sincere appreciation of the people who have worked on this, this contract is excellent.
>> barbara wilson should get a lot of credit for that.
>> it is a very tight contract, there are a lot of checks and balances in it. It is not that I have any issue with the excellent work that is done in crafting the contract, nor do I have issue with the excellent we will see out of the two firms that are, have been selected for this work, it's not that. I think that in terms of the work that has been done in this county, we will remain as engaged as one could be in privatization circumstance. And that we will have very little in terms of -- we'll say very, very engaged. It is, however, a philosophical issue for me that is essentially, that is driven in great measure by the state, and a desire to increase revenues for the state through the continual addition of fines and fees in the criminal context.
>> and Commissioner, let me just add this, stay this a little bit. Again, I applaud you for what you're saying. Is there anyway where by we can measure if there is insensitivity within the workings and operations of this contract dealing with our residents and insensitiveity is not being -- well, just running rampant. Is there anyway that we can monitor this along with the judge, he brought up a good point too, where it can be monitored and looked at to see if there is an insensitive nature, whether it is case by case basis or whatever, how will we monitor that. Is there any role provided in the contract to ensure --
>> there are many, many roads provided in the contract.
>> so this is there.
>> we have too many elected officials involved in this not to be very sensitive to it.
>> I want the public to hear this.
>> and change --
>> I want the public to hear that.
>> realize that whatever did on writing this was only because I had the excellent support of people from the office, people from the auditor's office, people from pbo, con sta I believes and j -- constables, jts. And I called people and nobody held back, they worked really really hard. Worked harder than did, probably.
>> any more discussion? All those in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Daugherty and eckhardt voding in favor. No may increases but many -- no pay increases but many pats on the back. We will until 1:30. Fear favor that passes by unanimous vote.
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, May 7, 2008 8:51 PM