Travis County Commissioners Court
February 10, 2009, 2009
Item 31
We see judge evans here.
31.
consider and take appropriate action on request for additional staffing needs for field release citations for justice of the peace precinct five.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, thank you for taking us up -- up and thank you for considering what we had to say.
i want to -- I want to -- this is a very innovative program and I would like to -- to just summarize it for you first.
what -- what sheriff hamilton has put together is a -- a substantial departure from the way we have done criminal law for decades, generations in the state.
and what he's put together is a program where we instead of arresting non-violent offenders, we instead issue them a citation for certain selected misdemeanor offenses.
there has always been for vision in the code for doing it.
magistrate has always had the option of issuing a summons rather than a warrant, but it's been very seldom used.
our sheriff has gotten the legislature to specify certain offenses and to approve the issuing of citations for certain misdemeanor offenses and his staff and now other agencies have begun doing it.
the principal benefit is not so much that we have a few -- fewer people going to the jail, although that is a benefit.
any time we can hold down the population of the jail I know that gets your attention, I know that gets the attention of the folks in the federal government who oversee our jail.
our jail processes.
the big benefit is that it keeps sheriff hamilton's troops out on patrol a lot longer.
when they spot someone chitting a certain driving with suspended license or possession of marijuana and a small amount, at Lakeway, they don't have to leave Lakeway to drive all the way down to the jail on the Saturday night and wait in line, take three or four hours to book the prisoner in and then go back to their duties.
instead of having to -- take outlet several hours each time they make a misdemeanor arrest.
they simply issue a citation, five or 10 minutes later they are back on the road.
uniform patrol is the single most important tool that the community has in fighting crime.
what the sheriff has done is he's dramatically changed the percentage of time that his troops are actually out there on patrol as opposed to sitting on a bench waiting to book their prisoner in.
that makes a whole lot of sense.
looks to me like a program that's going to provide a lot more law enforcement for very little more money.
i'm just in awe of the sheriff for putting it together.
grateful to him for a member of the communities, help to happy any way that I can.
i would like to ask a few things from my office.
we have put together this request that we have put together for you was put together last summer.
sheriff hamilton, along with some of the other members of the -- of the -- of the community have been meeting about field releases for a long time.
he's negotiated with the city and chief of police, finally gotten their approve, we anticipated a long time ago, when I put together the request to the court to add a clerk on my staff, it looked as though we were going to desperately need a clerk.
since then our numbers have been declining.
and we have some other things going on and we are reviewing what we are doing and I would like to ask that instead of considering a request for a clerk at this time, that you allow me to defer that.
basically d.p.s.
has -- has slowed down writing tickets.
they've had a change in policy.
they had some idiot fire bomb the governor's mansion and they've had to divert some of their resources, that the principal source of citations that our j.p.
court has.
we are land locked.
most of the tickets written in our jurisdiction going on the city.
when the capitol police slowed down their ticket writing our business has tailed off in terms of citations.
so I'm still reviewing what I need in the way of clerk time.
for right now I would like to defer that request.
but I do have other requests that I would like to ask you to consider.
>> are they related to this item?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
i want to promote one of my clerks from a clerk I to a clerk ii and have her supervise the other clerks in making sure this work that comes from the city is done promptly and properly.
that will require just an adjustment up ward in her salary, but no additional equipment or supplies or anything at this time.
>> so the capital remains the same?
>> sir.
>> so the capital request remains the same.
>> well, insofar as this program I want to upgrade one of my clerks to supervisor it, to make sure it's been done properly.
she's been doing it for the sheriff, doing it for d.p.s.
i want to put her in charge.
it's going to take more.
some other clerks will help, I want to put her in charge and promote her.
i'm also asking that the court grant me eight additional hours per week for a visiting judge.
each of these field release citations has to be reviewed by a judge to make sure that probable cause is stated in the affidavit.
the judge has to magistrate each of these persons who receive citations as they come in and this will represent a significant workload for our court.
i have a visiting judge who is available, who is experienced in this, I would like to use her for -- for two shifts a week, half a day a shift.
i would also like to have a desk for her, a laptop computer for her to do her research as she needs to.
that's basically what I'm requesting.
>> well, judge, I have just a couple of questions and maybe you can help me out.
have we been able to assess the amount of savings that -- that has been realized using such a program as this?
in other words, those persons that are released on personal reconnaissance bonds or and still spending time in jail to be adjudicated, released, all of these other kind of things, in my opinion there is a savings, but I really wouldn't know what that is.
then also mentioning the sheriff as they are not able to -- you know, don't issue a citation, do not have to bring folks down here to -- to book them and stuff like that, is there an actual comparison to see how much money this program has saved and will save in the future?
any data been collected for that?
>> I'm pretty sure, greg hamilton Travis County sheriff.
judge Biscoe and Commissioners appreciate you giving me the opportunity to come here and show my support for this initiative.
the house bill 2391.
one of the things that I will say is that judge akins has given me --
>> [indiscernible] this particular initiative.
i cannot take the credit for this.
this is a collaborative effort which means officers within our agency, along with the authors of this bill.
as far as the data are -- are -- savings on this particular program, I don't have that figure with me here, but I'm pretty sure that we --
>> can we get -- that would be my request.
it would be good to see exactly what -- what that would be since the house bill 2391 has -- is law and of course it is more of a -- you know --
>> [indiscernible] in there, it means I think an interpretation of that, some of that stuff that I do.
i'm interested in what happens in the past, a little more than 1100 persons released, a.p.d.
if I'm understanding the backup correctly, 1100 persons having to deal with the situation.
but you have many other parties that -- that have been involved or can be involved with -- with this program other than the sheriff and a.p.d., Texas alcohol and beverages folks, tacb
>> [sic], you have u.t.
police and the list goes on.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> we have an efficiency committee that we've established here in the court a little bit ago.
and one of the charges for that committee is to see where we can save money to the taxpayers.
and since this is already law, it just appears to me that this may be something that the efficiency committee could also look like and maybe get some numbers that would show -- if no one is in jail, of course there's no cost to us at that time.
so it would be good maybe I think to maybe good that route also.
i really don't know.
i'm just trying to compare some stuff here and trying to see the impact of it, but also the money impact as far as what taxpayers will not have to hit their pockets for.
it's money that taxpayers don't have to -- have to shell out if this program is effective and put into place.
>> there's no doubt that the program will be effective simply because the fact that our officers do not have to come from Jonestown and bring an individual to jail.
it will take him longer to take him to jail by the time he's dropped that individual off, that individual is being released anyway.
as far as the cost, the only cost saving figures that I would be able to get to you would be from Travis County.
the efficiency committee might be able to gather those statistics from the other agencies.
>> yeah.
i think it probably may be the appropriate arena, and I may be wrong.
there may be other venues that we can maybe investigate to see if we can get some answers.
i think it's a good step in the right direction is for us to do that because one of the things that I know that we looked at when the court decided to establish this efficiency committee was to look even at how we could save on fuel, for example.
coming all the way from Jonestown all the way down here and back out into the field, that's not only personal hours, but it's fuel cost, it's a whole bunch of activity aspects of this process that I think need to be quantified and actually revealed, so if someone asks me, Commissioner, why did you vote or support something like this where persons are not incarcerated, well, I supported this because a, b, c, d, f, g and the bottom line is the grand total is this.
and it's about money.
it's about money.
so I just wanted to just lay that out just for thought purposes.
>> and another point that I would like to make, when this bill was being talked about at the legislature, a lot of people thought this was going to be a bill to address jail overcrowding.
i think it has some effect on jail overcrowding, but the reason that we pushed for this bill and assisted the legislators in this bill is to help out where officers have to travel that great distance and the individual is being released anyway.
and still it's at the officer's discretion.
and I must say that when this was being put together, I think Travis County as a whole took a lead on this particular project that was da's and sheriff's across the state that was saying that they're not going to implement this.
and now I'm seeing more and more law enforcement agencies across the state that are stepping up to the plate and trying to implement this.
i think we have a model program.
and it took several organizations to work together in order to make this appear, and two in particular that I want to applaud is jp 5 and pretrial services stepped up to the plate on this and worked with us real closely.
and I think that we have a machine here and the process that we have in place is extremely efficient.
>> comments, please?
>> I just wanted to compliment the sheriff on thinking forward about these things, and also I think it's reflected in the previous election.
i'd like to thank our voting citizens of Travis County.
they happened to vote for a former sheriff because one of the planks on his platform was to do the very thing about stopping the war on pot smokers or lessening the ridiculous waste of time and money and all the rest of that.
so I think it's a reflection of our fine sheriff now paying attention and also what these officers are saying about -- it's not only just here, but all over the country people are beginning to realize the priorities of -- the necessity for police to do meaningful, important things and not to be time wasted on these wrist-slapping type of enforcement of nonsensical laws.
>> thank you for your comment.
planning and budget, have you had a chance to look at the modified request?
>> no.
>> all right.
we'll need another week anyway, Commissioner.
>> well, thanks very much.
i think it's a great collaborative, no doubt.
and -- but the fact that we need to also factor in the pretrial resources that will be needed and in addition to the fact that a.p.d.
will be participating, and I'm really, really glad about that.
so it looks like we need to continue looking at the issue in a little more depth to finalize the full impact of resources that will be needed.
but thanks very much.
>> one of the things that I heard, and I think the major can speak on this, a.p.d.
is prepared to come on board by the end of this month or next month.
>> by the end of this month.
they've got their citations all print.
they have them in place.
they're pretty much putting the polishing up on their procedures and sop's and we feel like if they adhere to their policy and they fully implement it, that we could see maybe up to 2,000 that are cited and released in lieu of going through central booking.
them we don't have to feed them, we don't have to medically screen them.
it will save time.
and I don't want to -- I don't want anybody to have a misconception that now I can shift those resources because we're doing 61,000 admissions, you know, 60,000 I still need all my staff down there to continue doing that.
so I don't want anybody thinking, well, we'll just take it from there to put over here.
that's not the case.
but like I said, a lot of this process will be just shifted to another process.
the criminal justice process as far as prosecuting them and doing those things will continue on.
they just instead of going down into central booking and taking the officer off the street, they can write that citation, save the officer at least two or three hours, at least to a Friday or Saturday night that may save them four or five hours when they can be out there enforcing laws.
but the work will shift from my intake area up to my bonding area because that's where they will eventually have to go through the process and go through.
>> we might be talking about getting morman power -- I'm sorry.
>> [ laughter ]
>> does this staffing take into account what a.p.d.
may do?
>> yes.
that's what it's based on.
we've absorbed d.p.s.
and tcso and the u.t.
police and the alcoholic and beverage commission, we've done that.
>> roger, do we need to determine what central booking interlocal impact a.p.d.
may have?
it's a source of funding issue for us.
>> we have some numbers and we can make an estimate in the current central booking interlocal there is a provision for a true up.
so if bookings -- if it affects bookings, then at the end of the term we will have to assess that.
>> because if in fact this is working that means fewer people through central booking, but greater staffing costs at the jp 5 level.
there are municipal judges who currently do some magistration.
so are they available during the day to do magistration at the city also?
>> I think they're pretty busy, judge Biscoe, but it won't break my heart if they do some of it.
>> yeah.
part of the -- I guess we'll need to collaborate with a.p.d.
and the city miewp judges to make sure that out out municipal judges to make sure that we have a process that we all sort of agree on, don't we?
>> I don't know how a.p.d.
-- I don't know how the magistrate will affect the jp's court.
i don't think it will have any effect, does it?
>> I think what judge Biscoe Biscoe -- what I thought the judge was asking is are there junlz available to do some of this?
the answer is yes, but they are pretty busy.
they stay busy through the day.
>> that's my question.
>> that's your question?
>> yeah.
that was one of them.
it seems to me that you've got the sheriff's office, people who are arrested and processed without -- just issued citations, the county's responsibility even for magistration, right?
>> right.
>> but under the law a.p.d.
magistration is really the city's responsibility.
and part of the central booking interlocal is for us to get paid for the part of that responsibility that we pick up.
that makes it a source of funding.
so I'm really -- yeah.
i just think we have to analyze exactly what we're doing.
pbo needs to come back.
it looks like there's a need for it.
certainly jp 5 has not had this mission all the time.
this was kind of added as a result of implementation of this new law.
which everybody is saying today makes all the sense in the world.
and if it does, hopefully in the future we'll do even more of it, so we have to make sure that the staffing meets the needs, but also that the source of funding issue is addressed.
and if the true up allows us to do it, fine.
but the more this works, hopefully the lower the number of offenders through central booking, right?
>> right.
>> so there is a way for us to gain financially on that end as well as in jail space.
but pbo, if you could let us know next week implementation would wait a week, I take it.
>> when will it come back on the agenda?
>> I suggest it come back on next week.
>> will that be enough time then to -- I have no problem with that, I just want to know that the request that I made earlier, is that something that will be a rolling issue as far as getting the information?
in other words, the actual -- looking at the savings, cost savings that could be realized by doing what we're doing here along with -- hold on just one second and then I'll turn it over to you.
along with why -- if somebody can explain this to me.
why the magistration portion on just Tuesdays and Thursdays.
in other words, as far as people being looked at, as far as -- I didn't understand that.
just two days, Tuesdays and Thursdays as far as some of the time lines as far as when this will be visiting judge and everybody else will be available.
i kind of got confused on that a little bit.
>> that I can answer.
>> can you answer that for me?
>> when the officer gives a citation for anything, there's always a time and place to report.
if you get a traffic ticket it says report to municipal court by such and such a day.
they do the same thing with these field releases and we've asked them to schedule them on Tuesdays and Thursday in order to separate the work load a little bit.
we've picked a particular time that perhaps is most advantageous to the sheriff's booking officers.
they don't actually go into the jail, but they still have to be processed at the bonding office.
and it also a time that we've picked that most convenient to pretrial services.
>> okay.
>> so that's why we're going to do it on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
>> okay.
>> mid morning till --
>> I understand now.
i just wanted to question.
i said this is the only time they'll be -- what about what happens during the rest of the week?
>> we may have to add Wednesday fz it gets real busy.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> specific request for additional information for next week or if it takes a little longer, then let me know, but 1, I was looking at it and in regard to last year -- this is a testament to how conservative we've been with this.
this isn't the willy-nilly let people off for everything under the sun.
y'all are so judicious when you use this that there were only 77 field citation releases, right?
>> there were I think about 130.
>> it says fiscal year '08 the number of field release citation defendants released on personal bond, non-a.p.d., the total is 77.
is that the number that went through ap 5?
>> -- jp 5?
>> they all went through jp 5.
i think the number was closer to 130.
>> okay.
>> so what I need to know is because we are comparing apples and oranges here a little bit, what I need to know is the number of offenses under hb 2391 that went field citation as opposed to the total number in the same time frame.
because my concern with the base number that we're using to calculate this at, the 1,141, that's the number of a.p.d.
field release citations based on the number of fiscal year '08 arrests of defendants with hb 2391 eligible charges who were release odd personal bond.
but we know that just because they were hb 2391 and released on personal bond, not all of those are going to go field citation.
>> that's correct.
>> because an officer in the field may have someone who ultimately is eligible, but they choose not to give them a field citation for any number of reasons.
>> they may be ineligible.
>> they may not be able to discern their eligibility in the field.
so I think that the 1,141 number may be large, larger than what will actually happen.
because that's actually the outside number based on the fy '08 estimate.
so I'd like us to look at those numbers more deeply on that.
also, in regard to the numbers that actually did go field citation, I'd like to just use those as a thumbnail to say, okay, of those the average travel time on bringing someone into central booking is x.
whatever the number is, let's say it was 100.
100 times x is how many -- how many miles y'all didn't have to travel into central booking where you otherwise would.
and the average cost for a meal or whatever, someone going through a personal bond through central booking would be y.
so the number is 100 times y just to give us a thumbnail of what we saved last year.
it won't be everything.
it won't be all that we saved.
but it will give us at least some parameters within which to consider this.
>> there is another category that's slightly smaller, but it also has to be considered.
and that is summons.
we have always by local agreement issued summons in driving while suspended with license suspended case.
that's been by agreement with our prosecutors and our sheriff's office since 2009.
we also issue summons when it's recharging of an offense.
they were arrested and released and then recharged.
we issue summons on those just so we don't abuse our jailers.
>> some may view this as kinder and gentler.
i view this as simply smarter.
>> why keep booking men on the same charge?
>> exactly.
>> those numbers are about a third of the field release citation numbers.
they add to it.
>> the other thing I would request just as far as trying to figure out what the -- the universe in which we're considering this, if we could look at the true-up provisions, actual language of the true-up provisions to see if we need to revisit the language since some bookings will be foregone in lieu of a -- in lieu of a field citation magistration.
and whether we can fix the language to encompass that.
>> okay.
anything else on this item today?
>> thank you for hearing me out.
>> thank you very much.
have it back on next week.
can you get that data in a week's time?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> rodney is holding up two fingers for two weeks?
>> you need two?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> you need two weeks?
>> please.
>> all right.
>> thank you.
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, February 10, 2009 2:00 PM