Travis County Commissioners Court
September 30, 2008
Items 64 and 65
64 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding modification of leadership strategy on Travis County downtown development master plan. Your subcommittee put together a memo that contains another recommendation. Last time we had this matter before us, we had sort of three member leadership team in place to spearhead this effort for us. And after looking at the situation over the last few months and talking with different people, we sort of concluded that one person at the top is probably better. And so our recommendation is that we do one person, and secondly that there are one person be christian smith. And in my view, the main reasons for selecting him is experience, one, two, that he does have -- he's got sort of recommended assignments, but we really can turn him loose on this one full time if we choose to. So the ability to dedicate full time to this one assignment, ought though his full time is half time between now and may 30th I think is important and he's work on this issue on and off over the last few months or so. And I think that -- I think he should be selected. We looked at the other possibilities, alicia has on lot on her plate, rodney has a lot on his plate, plus he's kind of new and during the budget process we hinted at other things. Look at the relief for -- I think we ought to look at the ratio that keep coming back from law enforcement. I think we ought to put together a charge for adult public defender office for the judges to look at. All of those will require somebody from planning and budget to work with us. So these ideas are in my head, but they kind of surfaced during the budget process and while we didn't land on it specifically, we sort of hinted that we would do them. Further, it seems to me if we're going to do them we need to do them early in the fiscal year before we start thinking about the next budget so we get as much done between October and December, October and January, then I think that that's best.
>> and judge, and that's fine with me because I had a conversation as well with the judges, and I think the whole idea is that there's -- there needs to be something brought forward and then probably it would be great to have a time line by which we will deliver product to the Commissioners court and for their to be some kind of comfort with the users of the plan, and then the building for additional space. There's no doubt that there are needs to happen. The other thing, though, is that, as you notice, it's real hard to pin down people who are really responsible. I don't have an issue with one person being identified as the person who will be wholly responsible for this. And so that is -- I think it will cut down on finger pointing about she didn't do this, he didn't do this, they didn't report to me, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And so because I -- you know, I want to be respected though as much as I respect other people in their roles in trying to get all of this done. I want a project, and I've said it before and I think I need to say it again because it just, I think, is worth repeating. I want a project that is problem free, as problem free as possible. Now, I know this involves a lot of human beings, and any time we pass an assignment off to somebody else, you know, they add their own interpretation about what was said, what was meant. And so I know there's going to be a human factor involved. But as much as possible to have a problem-free project that is on time, on budget and certainly no lawsuits. I don't want to spend my money on trying to defend something that we could have prevented on the front end doing plenty of planning. And I really want us to show that we have learned from the cjc project. I don't want that repeated again. And so the other -- I guess some of what I need to address, judge, is then on the prioritizing assignments for the special assistant. I would think that there's one primary duty, and do we need to call that item up?
>> we can.
>> that's number 65. Discuss and take appropriate action on proposed assignments for the commercial assistant to the Commissioners court.
>> and I would think that the primary assignment for the special assistant at this point is to coordinate that downtown master planning and civil courthouse project. It entails he would be singly responsible for the successor failure of that project. And I would think that working full time on it is required. And so that we can see -- I'd like to see that product delivered and taken care of. And then we can move on to the secondary assignment, which I think, you know, the executive managers are free to ask for his assistance. And -- but I think the values, though, that govern county government cannot be abandoned. Decision-making involves all parts involved no matter what, I think all users purchasing, the auditor, the engineer, the architect, you know, I mean there are a lot of different folks who are involved in all this and we can't leave them out. In order to fulfill the law that we have to follow. In addition to that, though, I think that there has been an r.f.q. That has been developed --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> pardon me?
>> scope of work.
>> it kind of -- that can be handed over so that nothing needs to be started from scratch. And so other than that, I mean I think that -- but this is where I'm coming from, because, you know, every four years I get evaluated publicly and I certainly want to be able to say yeah, I learned from the past and I was -- I made sure that I -- that I let everybody know that these things were important to me in trying to reach a good -- to come up with a good product. So --
>> Commissioner, I agree with all those things you have brought up, but I know there has also been a sense of friction that has been -- for whatever reason has been present here before us. And I hope and hope that there are friction has really been buried in going through this process. I'm saying friction among staff, not necessarily Commissioners court. But saying all of that, I really think that i.t.s. Should be included in this process. I think they are very necessary to make sure that this process is done, so I think they have a role in this particular process. And as far as communications are concerned, I think it needs to be open communications where you utilize the full resources of Travis County staff. Very important. And I feel the team leader should work in the type of structure that can garnish and gather all this information without any frictionary situations. I think the more incloudy skies I have this thing is the better off we are. But we need to get to the end of the road on this as far as I'm concerned, and I'm supporting those things that Commissioner Gomez just stated and the things I'm supporting, the things I have just mentioned, I'm in support of those too. But I think it needs to happen and we just need to move in a positive direction. And knowing that sensitivity things are something that we got to look at in a positive way. So I'm just letting everybody know that I'm on board with this, but under those kind of conditions. Thank you.
>> just a couple more points. One is that we did attach to our memo a kind of long page phase a, b and c. And this recommendation is meant to cover phases a and b and we will deal with phase c at the appropriate time. The other thing is in our memo we tried to indicate the importance of team work, collaboration, cooperation among all county staff and managers in the future in order to succeed with the project and so we would certainly want that to happen probably ten or so departments are impacted. And so we would expect representatives from those departments to be available to assist the leader of this project as much as possible. And so, I mean I'm confident that we can do it. I think that we tried the three-person management team, didn't try it a long time, but we tried it long enough to know it wasn't moving in the right direction. And I think this should energize it and give it the opportunity to accomplish more over the next few months, and I do think we owe it to ourselves to look at it two, three months from now and take a look at what we've done, try to figure out if we're moving in the right direction or what.
>> so we expect a time line by which?
>> I think we ought to try to put one together. Christian, are you headed to the mike? I think we ought to put one together. The scope of work is there. We were trying to get input from impacted officials. We ought to try to get a document the court can consider, act on. After that there are major pieces that re probably ought to reduce to writing and maybe try to put some schedule to. Is that doable?
>> I'd like to get you the scope of work by next Tuesday for your rea formal policy of view and approval along -- review and approval along with the revised attachment showing a phase 1 and phase 1. I would like to be able to have you see that a very good presentation from purchasing, cyd grimes has a power point presentation that can provide an overview of the timing and the steps for the r.f.q. I'd like to be able to provide with you a schedule next Tuesday for your review and approval of how long we believe it will take for the r.f.q. And the response from respondents as well as the evaluation time as well as when we could get what you are going to see as I suggest we call phase 1 which is needs assessment and phase 2 excuse plan by next cuss so we can move that along. This is in essence as a result of an enormous amount of work that's been going on and it's ready to be shared and we need to deal with the judiciary to be able to identify appropriate leadership. We know judge dietz and judge shepherd have been deeply involved but there are now other people who are -- you have the strategic direction, but you also have a lot of technical direction from both the courts on the civil and criminal side. We will put together a small team of technical experts and that can be shared with you through the r.f.q. Process that cyd will share with you. And Commissioner, you mentioned that you are evaluated every four years. I would hope that you would evaluate me more frequently.
>> okay.
>> and I have no problem with that. And I expect my feet to be put to the fire. I expect to be able to deliver and if I'm not delivering, then we will -- you hold me accountable. And because that's the way to get this done.
>> christian, along with what Commissioner Gomez, and I brought some points up too, I'm going to support this is these things are considered along with the m.o. That's orchestrated by Commissioner eckhardt, the judge and Commissioner eckhardt. I just think those things is integral moving parts in this process and I'm -- you know, she said she's going to evaluate you, I'm going to be looking at you also and I'm going to make sure these things happen.
>> you mention friction being buried. I'm not sure we're going to bury friction, but I think --
>> we can avoid it when we're trying to get to a common goal.
>> but there is creative friction and dysfunctional friction. Not all friction is bad.
>> I'm talking about the bad friction that would not let us progress. That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
>> then we're on the same page.
>> I want to make sure we have an understanding.
>> we got it.
>> speaking of friction, we have an expert here with us. Judge dietz, any comernts?
>> [inaudible].
>> you can address any other part of our discussion.
>> judge, I don't know if this is the proper time to address this issue, but on the subcommittee, I was an ex official member at the beginning so I would get all of the -- you know, the information. I know how that happens too. It's hard to pass off information, you know, because I've tried it and it's hard. But can we -- can I join maybe the subcommittee and have just -- post the meeting?
>> may I make a suggestion along those lines? That I'd be responsible for ensuring that the court is fully informed of the progress. The subcommittee, and I know there's discomfort are members of the court that are feeling -- that can feel in the dark what's going on. There are two people that are more deeply involved. Well, maybe I can assume some of the responsibility for assuring every few months that the court as a whole is informed of the progress so that there isn't this discomfort. Because there has been some benefit in being able to sit down with two members of the court and really hash out things that sometimes are a little sensitive. And now, that doesn't mean it can't be a posted meeting and if it's really important, then go forth and do it, but perhaps I should be the one to be a conduit for the court to be fully informed so that you don't feel in the dark. Would that help?
>> well, I think what I would ask is -- I could ask that after the meetings, that you come and have an appointment with me to explain to me what's going on, but there is that whole deal about if two members of the court have already been involved in the discussion and then you come to the third one, that there are kind of gives the impression that we're violating the open meetings act.
>> I think I can give you legally minutes and a briefing.
>> you can get briefed. He can brief you.
>> he won't be violating the open meetings act? Because that gives him the opportunity to say, okay, two people and then I just had another one, that's three votes.
>> well, you shouldn't vote during that meeting.
>> right.
>> but he can brief you. He can brief you as much -- and I guess I would rather -- I think the benefit of the subcommittee is ready access to two members of the court. If you've got to post it, it's not an emergency. That's a 72-hour requirement. And so typically the urgency is kind of warn off. See what I'm saying in maybe we can get you briefed more regularly and also get the court briefed. You know, we can make it where monthly we have a court briefing if we want to.
>> we've actually discussed the possibility of just having a standing monthly agenda item.
>> if we don't need it, we don't need it.
>> would that help?
>> that will help a lot, I think. So it wouldn't hurt at all after he talks to y'all for him to set up an appointment with me to just get briefed.
>> and I'm happy to do that with anyone, not just one, but everyone. Either public electrically or privately.
>> john would say you can't get an opinion from two members of the court, sort of like a decision, then go to a third member and get a decision.
>> I wouldn't do that.
>> but in terms of just straightforward brief, john, don't let me speak for you. Speak for yourself.
>> right. If that subcommittee is giving direction, there's a concern. Typically the way I've understood the way christian has done things in the past if he's looking for a sounding board and unless he hears some concerns, he's going to move in a certain direction, but I understand Commissioner Gomez's hesitation that if -- if he's already having meetings with two and then he's having a meeting with a third, there's no way to tell how that discussion is going and how you all can safeguard yourselves if he is starting to interchange and work out policy based upon a discussion with three. So there is a concern there. And it's a valid concern.
>> how would that be resolved then because she has a legitimate concern?
>> set up that subcommittee. She is soient interested tonight, maybe she needs to be one of the two.
>> having gone through this for 15 years, and I don't think I have ever-there's ever been a hint that I have violated the open meetings law.
>> nor me.
>> pardon?
>> nor me.
>> exactly. And having done this on topics of great interest to five members of the Commissioners court, perhaps a way to do this would be to make sure that there is a subcommittee, that there is minutes made of the subcommittee, and that I share those and that the focus is then on what the content is of those minutes and that we have monthly meetings of the Commissioners court. There's an agenda item that once a month that the court is briefed about where things -- and that could be an action item so that we are all kept very much aware of both the benefit of having only two people and not having a very large complex open discussion, because that is -- that does get sometimes can get difficult to manage. But that you also have the benefit of full disclosure. Would that be a way that -- and it's no different -- I mean in essence that's how we handle the budget process in many ways, and there's never been a hint of any work around that somehow is touched up against the open meeting law.
>> sounds like if you are only giving information, john, if christian is meeting with whoever and giving information and not talking about policy, that's what you need to do. And you can do that.
>> if he's just providing information and you are not going into policy discussion --
>> than that's the design. He's had 15 years experience and that's the direction we need to go. It's an informationable meeting for Commissioner Gomez.
>> and part of holding me accountable is make sure that I stay to the left or right of that line about open meetings.
>> right in the middle.
>> I don't want to get close to the line of open meetings. I want to stay away from that because I understand the difficulties there.
>> move we approve the eckhardt/biscoe recommendation as contained in the memo.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> the things we brought up, Commissioner Gomez and i, that we brought up, is that being considered also?
>> yes, sir.
>> and christian smith heard every word.
>> and understood every word.
>> thank you. Any more discussion?
>> christian, can you get us whatever you want us to do for next Tuesday? Can we have it by Friday?
>> no, you can have it by tomorrow. No, I want to get it to you tomorrow, Commissioners. Is that okay?
>> [laughter]
>> it sounded like we were going to get -- I'd like to get it to you by close of business with a sentence that urges you to read it in its entirety and understand it so we can have a wonderful compliment of discussion next Tuesday. Thank you. And this includes judge dietz's input.
>> and before you all vote, since I've been on behalf of the judiciary and communication with you, I want to thank you all for taking this decisive action and I will communicate it to my sisters and brothers what you all have done here today. Thank you.
>> thank you very much, judge.
>> thank you, judge.
>> let's basically identity y'all. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> judge, may I have one cough yacht, I got a call from the county attorney and he was very interested in Commissioner Gomez's comments and he wanted to affirm here and being very respectful of the open meetings act, and we need to be very careful about any briefings that would occur. I really liked what christian presented originally where it was very meetings with the subcommittee, just the two individuals, and then to come back to Commissioners court and give updates. For whenever decisions need to be made. That's what you were thinking about all along.
>> then during the week I can still contact him to ask him questions about the material that might be available.
>> if we establish a library that pertain to the central business district. Those are not in the realm of deliberations, it's a library of documents which we've already developed in the subcommittee essentially. It's the various drafts of the scope of work and the various drafts of the division of labor in terms of the leadership on the work. And it's very helpful. And very useful to have access for all of the members of the court to that library of documents. And that would not be an issue. Correct?
>> that would be no different than you getting backup for the next week's agenda meeting.
>> right. And with christian available to explain any of the documents if they weren't self-explanatory.
>> that's what I'm saying and I could take that backup and if I have questions about it, I can approach christian but I can also ask the judge or sayer remarks can't i?
>> the more contact that you are going to have I think the more you start to skirt into danger.
>> well, but I'm saying or, or, or. I'm not saying and, and, and.
>> is there either one of you that doesn't want to be on the subcommittee?
>> no, no.
>> that's what it sounds like you want.
>> no, no.
>> how about if I keep -- if we become attentive to simply explaining and briefing past history and written documentation so that you can see it and stay well away from any urging policy discussions, discussions of potential future actions, because that has to be done in full sunshine. That's really in a different way of saying the same thing. I'm not an attorney but I understand the principles.
>> in addition to that we'll keep a library of the documents that are the development of the r.f.q., the development of the drama mass and the development of the time lines and those three things will always be available to all members of the Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>> move we recess to 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
65 we sort of maybe obliquely addressed. 65 is discuss and take appropriate action on proposed assignsments for the special assistant to the Commissioners court. I think based on the action that we took in number 64, we would like for the special assistant to spend his time on the Travis County downtown development master plan especially over the next few months and we'll take a look at it in several months and see if we need to change that. Is that okay? We just gave those as directions for 65. Any problem with that?
>> judge, I'm hoping that christian is going to be able to mention that he said it would be delivered to us tomorrow. But I would pretty soon like to know what is the time line that it's going to take to deliver to this court the final
>> [inaudible] for this particular job. In other words, when are we going to have delivered to us the needs assessment so that we can move much further beyond probably a, b and c. And maybe christian will tell us that. Just wanted to say that out loud because I wanted to know what that time line was because otherwise it will get here when it gets here, which is not acceptable to me.
>> okay.
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:
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:03 PM