Travis County Commissioners Court
March 3, 2009,
Item 26
26.
consider and take appropriate action on amending Travis County code chapter 38, law library policies.
>> good afternoon, judge and economics, steven broberg, I have lisa rush with me today the Travis County law librarian.
we have in our law library a very well regarded resource within our community, state-wide and have even gardened a national -- gar in other worded a national reputation for services.
the purpose of the law library of course is to provide legal resources in books, on line in forums advice or well through the pro se program to any and all residents of the communities.
we have one here in the granger building, a location in the heman marian sweatt courthouse.
i would like to note that yesterday was the 7th anniversary of our pro se program.
it has been widely recorded as a successful model for other pro say programs around the state and the nation.
today we're here to -- to talk about the potential of amending our policies.
we were here -- we've been here once before with these policies and they were approved by Commissioners court.
but one of the things that we're finding is take we may be somewhat the victim of our own success.
the law library is growing at a -- at an exponential rate nearly.
the services are -- are well used and our patron counters are moving swiftly.
so what we would like to do is to talk about some of the issues that we might be experiencing and how these policies may address the potential issues that we're experiencing.
the first issue that we would like to discuss is placing time limits on the use of the computers in the law library.
especially within the last year what we have experienced are -- are patrons who -- who may not know how to appropriately use this resource.
they are designated for legal research only.
we are finding some patrons are spending long periods of time on these computers where if you a normal research time for legal research in this setting is in minutes, not in the hours.
now, I would also like to point out that we have full paper book resources available to any and all patrons.
it covers most of the same information or many -- many of the same parts of information.
those books may be a more appropriate tool for patrons who need to spend a long time researching.
we have if you prefer I can go over some of the other changes that we're asking for.
so basically in terms of computer usage we are asking the court to consider a one hour limit per day in the granger library, 15 minutes in the courthouse help center.
in the courthouse we have fewer computers.
mostly what we are finding mostly lawyers working cases within the courthouse, they need quick access to legal information to go down, step in, log on, get the information and go back to what they were doing.
we also have designated computers, one for lexus, one for westlaw.
we would like to clarify in the policy that's the case.
we are looking at computer use log that -- that -- that -- tells us what people are looking at.
not in terms of invading people's privacy.
we don't care what people look at.
but we need to know some basic information about where -- what legal resources are being accessed.
that takes care of the computer side of it.
in equipment there's a policy for any patrons who may be making printed copies and we want them to pay for their copies basically.
what we have done is to ask to restrict the use of combs if they garner fees of $5 or more without paying for them.
there's a clarification about patrons being able to access restricted areas.
we have found some patrons who have wandered off, so to speak.
there's clarification of bag baggage that people might bring into the library.
policy allows us to make arrangement for people who might leave their baggage in the library for longer than 15 minutes.
i'm not happy to say that we've had to deal with hygiene issues and there's a clarification of this policy for believe it or not, spitting, cursing, offensive acts.
we have clarified the use of tobacco.
and further we have clarified the use of the material itself.
we've had -- we had an incident earlier this year where someone was down loading information and transferring that information to another website and it appeared to be in violation of copyright law.
so there's that clarification.
and that concludes my presentation.
i'm happy to take questions.
>> on the equipment and other baggage, those issues are addressed in our policy.
what I have been requested was that either group show me the policy, well here's the policy.
but I think people are getting a little mixed up in they think that we are going to have a separate policy for baggage, separate baggage for the other issues.
and that's not so.
so they get very irritated and then they want to do an open records request, you know, and so it's really hard to explain to some folks that everything is contained in this for you to read.
how to handle that.
>> [laughter] you know, because people get very irritated.
>> our biggest issue with baggage are people who bring in large volumes of their belongings.
and that in and of itself is not -- not terrible except that we're in a fairly cramped quarters sometimes and they may be blocking aisles.
we have requested if people bring baggage in it fit underneath the space.
>> kind of like on an airplane.
>> exactly.
>> where -- where is this policy as far as policy is concerned, as far as regulating the -- the time spent on -- on a computer, can you tell me any -- any other institutions whereby it may be -- you know, governmental or private or whatever, can you -- can you maybe lay out some illustrations of -- of examples of -- of policy that may exist under other jurisdictions?
>> certainly.
thank you, Commissioner.
the city of Austin right now has 120 minute two hour policy limit, but they are not -- they are not dedicated to legal research.
the state law library has -- has two different policies, one for 15 minute quick research like what we have in --
>> state library.
>> the state law library.
>> okay.
>> they have a 90 minute policy as well.
lisa did a little survey state-wide and of the -- of the nine libraries she contacted, five of them have a policy and they happen to be mostly the larger libraries.
tarrant has a one hour, tarlton law library at u.t.
has a one hour.
dallas county has a 30 minute restriction.
harris county has a 20 minute restriction and taylor county has 20.
there are four others that have no policy.
we find in this world they are trending toward this policy.
>> okay.
>> so we have a 15 minute policy in the ned granger building.
>> no, I'm sorry, judge, that's in the heman marian sweatt courthouse.
>> that seems to be working well I guess.
no one has complained.
>> no.
>> I do have a few problems.
one is that I think it's one thing if we have four computers and they are in use and somebody is waiting.
it's kind of like going to the gym.
if you go during peak hours, they want you to spend 20 minutes on the aerobic machines.
if you go mid afternoon, when you are the only one there, they don't care how long you stay on there.
but if you go mid afternoon and stay to the peak time, they want you to respect the time limits.
so my question is yesterday I asked one of my assistants to go down at 2:00, I just picked that because I started reviewing the backup at 1:00 and by 2:00 I had made it to this item.
at 2:00 there was one person on one machine and nobody waiting.
so I concluded well for that to be a rule right now doesn't make any sense.
if I were doing that I guess that I would move from one computer for the other, that doesn't benefit us.
it would benefit us if we got four machines, four being used and somebody is waiting then we ought to have a time limit on it.
why wouldn't it make more sense that if -- if people are waiting than you have got a one hour time limit.
if you do the log I guess we know what time you started.
right?
>> yeah.
>> anyway, think about that.
the other thing is -- is that when I look at the problems that we have had, the problems really have more to do these are the problems that you gave us, they really have more to do with unattended items.
if you count those a lot of unattended meetings, a lot of people eating in there, we have signs posted saying no eating.
>> uh-huh.
>> which I have in problem, you know, enforcing.
the other thing is printouts.
if you owe us money, can't pay us, I think that you ought to be prohibited from printing until you clear up your debts.
kind of like library books.
that makes sense.
the other thing is that I think some of this is a little subjective but the way we make it fair is to do it across the board.
homeless people who have contacted me have complained about people who -- with plenty of shelter being treated favorably, homeless people being treated unfairly.
so we may be being more harsh than we should be, if we ask you to do something and you don't do it, a second time, it seems to me that we ought to be -- there ought to be a shall language.
because everybody that commits that violation a second time, ought to be treated the same way.
i hate to see us giving some folks three or four opportunities and giving other people one or two.
there are some people who think that because they are homeless they are being treated unfairly in the law library because of status.
i believe us when we say they really are doing things that are disruptive and keeping others, you know, from really enjoying and benefiting from the library.
just a couple other things here.
we say on -- on -- under services, that if unauthorized activity is confirmed, about -- by the law, then appropriate law enforcement agencies will be contacted for legal action.
normally you wouldn't do has for something unauthorized.
normally you would tell them what the policy is and expect them to follow it.
if they commit some illegal activity, normally you would contact law enforcement.
just think about that.
what I would do there is say if illegal then we contact law enforcement.
if unauthorized we basically ask them to engage in the proper conduct.
if they don't do that, then I think our action really should be more like keeping you from using whatever service you want to use while placing you on library restriction somehow.
okay.
c, c 2, circulation of materials, the law library may discontinue circulating materials to patrons who fail to return materials.
i would just put shall.
>> very good.
>> do it across the board.
because may is too subjective in my view.
c 4, I would have patrons who violate this policy more than one time.
shall be restricted from -- from returning.
that's the one checking out materials -- removing materials without taking them back.
we ought to ask you not to do that.
next time we do it we restrict you from returning.
the question then is how long.
i don't know that I would restrict them from returning forever.
i mean -- a.
>> a long time.
>> think about that.
now the part about hygiene as you mentioned is kind of delicate.
i wear fabrege.
there's a reason for that.
some of the others don't strike me as being good.
i'm a little offended by them.
especially if somebody puts on too much of them.
but I don't know if that's the kind of conduct that I should be punished for.
so I guess that I would -- if there's a hygiene problem, I would tie, I would use a few more qualifiers here to try to get around the subjectivity, if there's a hygiene problem but nobody is complaining about it, it's still a hygiene problem factually, right?
>> indeed.
>> but it's not distracting anybody to the point that they want to complain about it.
>> right.
>> and then my big question about hygiene, too is legally is this -- legally are we on the solid ground to have language like this.
>> yeah.
we tried to draft it in a way that was in fact objective by stating that it had to be a reasonable determination that they are -- conduct or aroma, action, would be considered offensive.
but we can try to tighten up that language to be even more -- more objective.
>> because I aged out of using old spice.
it got to be too strong an odor in my old age.
when I was young, it was perfect.
couple more I will be done.
what's our definition of children?
38.003 g.
unattended children, what age?
>> we did not define that.
>> we didn't.
i mean, I would be glad to define it now as under 18.
we do -- we have had instances where we have expected that people have dropped their kids off and frankly that's not been a problem except in a couple of instances.
>> no parent tall --
>> shall not be left unattended.
>> for how long?
>> shall not be left unattended for how long?
if you are a male, with your daughter with you in the library, you have to go to the men's room.
>> that's not a problem.
>> you can't take her.
you wouldn't do that normally.
you would leave the child in the library.
you would say something like behave right here.
but we would not expect you to be gone hours and hours, just a few minimum and then back.
>> that's right.
>> so if we said 15 minutes or less or 10 minutes, I think that would be fine with me.
>> but we ask parents don't drop your children off in church either.
you know you don't want them unattended.
they will run, do all kinds of things.
>> not so much children as children who need supervision.
>> that's correct.
>> children need supervision.
>> there's eight or nine-year-olds who are well behaved.
but some 13, 14, 15 who will cause problems if they are unattended.
>> I heard that.
>> some are 18 who cause a lot of problems
>> [laughter]
>> I guess my point is --
>> [multiple voices]
>> apply an age and time limit to that, judge, I think that would be appropriate.
>> do you know whether or not if any of these policies that's already exist that the -- at the other aforementioned establishments that you presented to us, do you know in detail if these are some of the things that they have had to address or is it just the use of the computers and that's it?
>> go ahead, lisa, if you could discuss that.
>> yes, libraries all over the country, not just county law libraries are dealing with children being dropped off.
>> could you speak a little louder for me.
>> I'm sorry.
libraries all over have to deal with children who are dropped off.
parent perceive libraries as being safe and librarians as being good baby-sitters.
people feel very comfortable letting their children go there after school and stay there.
we have had that problem in the library.
>> okay.
>> but something my concern would be if something happened to that child then do we -- are we liable because the librarian didn't do a good job of babysitting?
i mean that's -- you know, that can happen.
>> that's an issue that would arise, even if you loaf a child defined as under 17, unattended for one manuscript, if something happened could the county library staff or the county be liable.
so even if a person asked a neighbor or -- to watch their child, that would -- possibly -- uh-huh.
>> remove that --
>> but if it's in a public substitution or public building -- institution or building, chances are that will be more of a problem than with a neighbor.
>> you are about to make me change a lot of the speeches I give before summer.
i say little kids play but don't play all day.
finds you a library and a good book, in a corner and read and learn.
adults --
>> are the children doing legal research?
>> [laughter]
>> welcome them.
>> it's wonderful to start looking at the pursuing a law degree.
it's a legal library.
a really great one I learned to research at josie's knee.
josie taught me how to do legal research.
one question that I have, with the exception of steven, the people who operate the library are women and I'm wondering about enforcing these rules does it place an undue burden and an issue of security on the women who are running the library.
>> it makes you feel very uncomfortable.
it really does.
especially when so many of our patrons are inclined to argue with us.
particularly -- particularly over what is legal research.
at the computer.
so one thing that will do have a research window in the background that they search with the web, when they are actually active.
if we go up to them and say I'm sorry that's not legal research, they will bring up the other window and say yes it is, look.
and we know that's really not what they have been doing, but it does make it feel very uncomfortable.
>> I know this is difficult, some of this seems self explanatory, it's a little discouraging that we would have to enumerate it in such detail.
i'm also wondering not to load it up, but having spent a considerable amount of time in the legal library here, I imagine that you do get in disputes sometimes with individual that say while I'm not doing a lexus nexis search, this general google search on mandatory chipping of animals, you know, is a legal issue, is there a distinction to be made to say if you can -- if it is general research about a topic to send them down to the john henry faulk.
>> I think we're -- we'll give a little leeway for those people who -- I mean we really are here to help people.
if there's questions about whether or not what they are doing is legal research or not.
we will give them the benefit of the doubt until such time has passed that it's pretty of course that that's not the case -- pretty obvious that's not the case.
>> if somebody is researching a general topic with a google search that's a-okay.
>> we are hoping that they will interact with the librarian because on that topic we might want to start them off with
>> [indiscernible] they may find more information there, then follow-up with the computer.
we would love that give and take with the patron.
>> if we have a time limit on the computers why should we care what you do?
what you are researching?
>> well, generally judge we really don't care what legal research people do.
but what -- one of the issues that we have dealt with over time is that it becomes pretty obvious that some of the people doing this research are not doing research at all and are -- we have people who will spend eight hours sitting in the computer sitting at the computer and quite obviously not doing legal research at some point during this time.
and as lisa described, which confronted with the potential that they are not doing legal research, they will bring up a legal window and say well yes I am.
and at that point without -- without a policy we're stuck.
>> my point though is if you silt there and use a -- sit there and use a computer, why must you be doing legal research, because it's a law library?
>> it's an interesting question.
first off the resource is limited.
>> I understand.
>> there are times that they are full.
>> if they are full you have a one hour limit on it, right?
so I guess if there's a one hour limitation, why should we care whether you do legal research or what?
>> well, you have access to the computer for one hour, why would we care what you do as long as it's legal?
>> that sounds like a Commissioners court policy issue to me.
i appreciate you bringing it up.
>> I really don't recall at any time setting a policy that you had to do legal research in the law library.
>> well, it is what the law library is for.
>> I'm familiar with that.
>> yeah.
>> but -- but a lot of space -- a lot of our space is used for things that you wouldn't immediately think of when you think of the space.
you.
>> huh.
>> it's kind of like if you walk through there during lunch, there's a conference not being used, I wouldn't care if you sat down there and read and magazine and ate lunch.
a different thing if somebody is having a meeting.
>> you want to establish a lounge area separate from the law library for individuals who actually are just needing to -- a safe, dry and comfortable place to be.
>> that is certainly an option.
judge, you are right.
if people would -- wanted to come in there and use it -- the computers, one would have to consider that this is in fact a dedicated law library that's funded as such and primary purpose.
when we were discussing this, I thought well perhaps we should consider a computer center that is open, you know, for the public for anyone to use and that may be a need.
to be -- to be considered.
i think where we get caught, there are people that really do need to use the computers for legal research and as you said, when you sent someone down there there was nobody there, only one person using.
well, in that case I don't think we would have a big issue with that.
but we do have times when we do have pro se litigants and people, attorneys coming in and doing research, that is our primary concern with the introduction of this policy.
>> or seems to me makes sense to have a policy that says, one, this is primarily a legal research library.
so if you are not doing that, you fall under a secondary purpose provision.
right?
>> uh-huh.
>> so if you are here for a secondary purpose, somebody else is here for legal research, maybe we impose a much shorter time limit there.
but then people will say look yeah but when I finish this I'm going to go to my legal research.
there are ways to -- I'm flexible on the deal.
it's just that I don't know if I ever thought if you were not doing legal research you shouldn't be in this library.
i have always kind of complied with the spirit of the law library.
when I've been done it's been legal stuff.
when I looked around me people not just necessarily hanging out but sort of doing their thing, I just noticed their bodies, where they are sitting, they seemed to be writing, real busy, basically I was convinced that I would stay out of their way.
if I'm a librarian I couldn't do that.
>>
>> [indiscernible] law library policy has been the same for years now.
even before we amended the policy a couple of years back.
i think it was in early 2008.
states that the law library is intended for use by persons engaged in law related research.
the purpose of the policy is to ensure that law library patrons are provided a pleasant atmosphere which facilitates the performance of legal research.
so that is expressly stated in the policy which is also available to all patrons by the way.
>> that captures the suggestion.
primary purpose is legal research.
but after that it is a library as well as a library with a legal purpose.
>> yes, it doesn't address that secondary objective or purpose.
>> backing up, right now we are confronted with specific problems.
issues.
that we think we need to refine our policy to address.
and I'm on board with that.
but I think that we ought to make sure that we address the problems.
if the problem is a -- if our problem really boils down to three or four individuals then I think working with the three or four individuals is what we ought to do.
if the problem is much broader than that, then a much broader remedy is what we should do.
when I look at specific violations that -- that you wanted to mention, I guess the little survey that you did, there's eating, bringing in bags that won't fit under the table, there's putting materials without paying for it, there is taking materials outfit of the law library without checking it out, kind of generally computer use.
when I counted them up, computer use was probably fourth or fifth.
so I guess are we coming with a fix that in fact addresses real issues that we have?
we think --
>> judge, I --
>> I'm not saying we're not.
i'm saying when I look at this I'm not sure I reach that conclusion.
>> judge, the best answer that we can give is that we think so.
but the real answer might be that these policies need to be amended again.
the list of incidents that you saw -- that you are referring to in our backup is -- are just those incidents that have occurred within a fairly short period of time.
they don't include some fairly egregious incidents that had not been well documented.
until these problems started occurring at a more frequent rate, the law librarians didn't see the need to document all of the incident.
so we were pretty careful not to put down anything that we couldn't verify within the report.
but we have many other instances that we could refer to such as vandalism, thefts, and things of that nature.
so -- so in answer to your question --
>> we don't deal with those here.
>> well, we do -- vandalism I think was already in there, but I think we may have -- and theft.
there's little we could --
>> do we have a lot of problems with a few people or a whole lot of problems with a whole lot of people?
>> I would say it was the latter, judge.
although it's been both, the few people that we've had that have been a real problem we have found ways to deal with that over time.
what we have experienced is sometimes the characters change so that you are going through the same motions to try to alleviate the problem with just a different set of patrons.
i hope that answers the question.
we have spent a lot of time over the course of this policy and the word homeless keeps coming up.
but interestingly we have banned the word in the law library for the simple reason that we don't care if people are homeless when they come into the law library.
in fact most times there's no way for us to know that.
and we genuinely want the homeless to have a place to do research of this sort, too.
so -- if it ever was, it is not now a homeless issue.
it is a -- it is a -- it's an issue of appropriate behavior regardless of who you are and where you have come from.
good you ask them in the law libraries, they tell you that lawyers are just as capable of bad behavior in the law library.
judge, you had another question of law enforcement side of it, there have been instances in the last six months where they have had to call law enforcement.
the incident occurred when patrons would not relinquish a computer.
they were doing legal research and refused to stop -- actually they weren't doing legal research but surfing the web or whatever and they would just ignore our requests to stop doing what they were doing.
we've had some other law enforcement issues with -- with bad behavior as well.
but --
>> in my opinion I think that we do need to have a policy in place and if we need to -- every once in a while, policies need to be revisited according to conditions and the way things are happening there.
what you have presented here today in my opinion I think we do need to tighten up a few things.
and -- and again it's been some things that have been mentioned maybe redefined or either tightened up according to what the attorney even said on some -- some terms.
that were used within it.
and I guess with that, you know, I would like to look and see what those changes may be, but at the end of the day, just the first part of this chapter 38 basically talking about the policy as far as what the library, purpose and intent of the library for use legal research, I don't have no problem with that.
but it's all of these other things that are -- that
>> [indiscernible] in my opinion we need to have policy for some form of control.
signage, no trespassing, no this, no that, no that.
and but of course sometimes folks don't listen and don't pay attention or don't even hear and of course when that -- when that becomes a problem if you have some type of policy or some type of signage to say not to do this and not to do that, it's not a law period.
and even in your libraries it's quiet.
>> [laughter] be quiet.
but -- I just want to bring that up.
we do need I think we need revisions and we do these to look at these particular concerns and issues that we are faced with today.
>> I would like to ask a question of y'all.
is this really an issue of appropriate use of the law library or is it a security issue?
>> I think it's both Commissioner.
i think we have instances where the -- the resources are not being used appropriately.
we are finding that more with the computers than with the books.
although we may have people who will come and use the -- the library for long periods of time without using the computer, those resources generally are not those that -- that are stacking up and you have a number of people that need to use that, so -- so I think that there is some of that where people will come in and dare I say it's a warm, quiet, pleasant place.
and --
>> and -- I'm glad to hear you say the idea of it being a homeless issue has been struck by the conversation.
>> we are seeing that -- that in fact that's not happening.
because who are homeless come around here with their stuff with them.
>> right.
>> and lawyers don't do that.
all you all do is walk around in the library, look around see that.
stand near the entrance there and you can figure out who is homeless coming through that door and who is not.
where there's a classic example.
there's some individuals with mental health issues.
it's not an easy job.
but this -- but the homeless people hang out in this building, a handful of them I know, a handful meaning five to 10, I know because I have seen them so many times.
and every time I see them they have their belongings with them.
if they hadn't it's because they are either in the library or one of the rooms here.
>> would a significant amount of the issues that you are seeing be addressed by a greater level of security and -- in the building and a sense of -- of backup should you -- should you have an enforcement issue in the library?
>> Commissioner, I think that would go further toward solving 75% of our problems than any other solution that we have come up with in these policies.
>> then I would request that we perhaps agendize the larger issue of security in the granger building.
i don't want to discourage folks from coming and doing legal research.
i don't want to discourage folks from coming and just spending time with county government.
if they need a warm, dry and safe place to be.
but I myself have had some individual circumstances that -- that rather put me on notice that I was vulnerable in this building.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] what your station?
life is.
>> I believe you are genuine when you say that, I know you mean it.
and what we do, we have to make sure we don't distinguish between the homeless and those who are not.
to be honest, I see more women recently who appear to be homeless than men.
but I guess gender doesn't matter if they are causing problems in the library, they are causing problems.
my only concern is we deal with the real situation and whatever we have to do we have to do.
if we have to declare this a law library only, I think that's a policy change that we need a vote on.
in my view there are many reasons why we should not do that.
there are days if you are homeless you are going to find shelter wherever you can get it.
and the Austin law library is in permitted policy, some are good, some are not.
and a lot of folk, it's Austin, it's the county, or it's the state capitol.
on real bad weather days, they will try to figure out where inside they can find.
and if you are a compassionate person, and I am, you tend to attract people here at the county facility.
and I -- you know, I'm not bragging about that, but at the same time I don't know what these individuals are to do on those days.
>> and judge, I'm not sure that anything in this policy would prohibit that.
if you are talking about specifically the use of computers, the one hour, the -- it's only unattended belong, not attended belongings so if a person wanted to sit there with their belongings, that's not an issue.
the spitting, the cursing, offensive acts, that would again impact everyone.
>> the ones that bothered me I highlighted after reading the whole deal.
but it went on to a more general discussion.
is it our intention that the law library be used only for law-relate activities.
and I'm saying my interpretation was never that.
if we declare that, then we may simplify how to solve the problem.
but it's real harsh.
>> I think so too, judge.
i think that's too harsh for me.
>> we finally found agreement.
>> [laughter]
>> and I don't think there is an issue with any designation of who is homeless, who is not, who is this or who is that.
but I think whoever we are, though, I think we need to have certain behaviors that wherever we go we are respectful of other people's time, other people's space.
if it's a public place, I go to a public library, I have to respect the resources that are there.
i can't walk off with them because they are supposed to be available to everybody, I guess in the city and county and probably central Texas, whoever wants to come there.
but it's not -- it's not my place, it's not -- it doesn't belong to me, it's not my private place.
this is a public place.
>> they are part of the public, though.
>> and that's why I don't have an issue with that.
and that's why I would have an issue with stopping people at the front door and you can't come in here because this or that or whatever.
this is a public place too.
it belongs to everybody.
and so I have an issue with keeping people out of this building.
so --
>> in the library because you suspected them being homeless.
>> oh, certainly not.
>> no, that's never been the issue.
>> I don't think that's the case here.
and I know the homeless issue continues to come up and, of course, I have never heard you state that you turned people away because you suspected them to be homeless.
>> also, when I referred to security issues, it's not the idea that people would be prevented from coming into the building, but even at the public library there is a level of monitoring where you know who is coming in and out and a sense that if there were an issue, there would be people there, usually male and in uniform, who would back you up.
and I -- I know the librarians fairly well and if I were them, I would feel vulnerable on the first floor, as I have felt vulnerable on the fifth floor when people have wondered into my office.
>> the biggest issue in terms of security, when we have a security issue generally the sheriff's deputies will be coming from a different building.
and the amount of time from the time that they are called, although they are very quick and we really appreciate them, there's still minutes before -- before their presence is felt.
unlike the courthouse.
now, we also suspect, although this -- well, I think we could prove this, that many of the patrons that visit this library will not go to the courthouse library because they have to go through security.
so there is that -- there is that issue.
but once again, judge, if I could address the issue of law library use one more time.
i really would prefer that we -- we keep our library open.
not just for legal research, but the truth is we don't -- the only materials that we have in there are legal materials.
it's not a general interest library.
but we do have -- we do have people that will come in and just read, and we don't know what they read, and it would -- it would be harmful, I think, to our community and to Travis County if we were to restrict just for legal purposes.
but if we could offer the restrictions on the computers, I think that would really help us.
that's -- that, again, is where we're seeing -- we're seeing the problems.
you want to come in and read law books or sit at a table and read your newspaper, we welcome that.
but the computer is a little bit different.
>> why don't we take a shot at language that enables us to fix what we think the problem is, but leave fairly free access to the computers at other times.
>> well, I think the question still remains, you know, over the course of time with the computers, if we -- since we've restrict just for legal purposes, we've -- we've been able to tell people -- we have numerous county employees that have come down and used it during their breaks and lunch to access their private e-mail.
now, do we want to do that and it's the same issue and we can also tell people -- let me put it a different way.
this is a resource that is being used more frequently all the time.
so if we opened it up to anything other than legal resource, I think we're taking a chance that people are going to stack up even more than they do.
and I think I mentioned in response to your questions yesterday, judge, that the city is closing down for six weeks so we've been ready for an onslaught for all of those public users.
with the nationwide loss of funding for legal aid programs, we think that there is going to be further strain on the law library and these computers.
so --
>> a guy used to come to citizens communication with three minutes of budget related questions every Tuesday.
we finally gave that guy a computer on the fifth floor between the copy machines.
>> yes, I remember, sir.
>> maybe what we ought to do is come up with a couple more computers that are general use computers, put them in the law library.
>> or the hallway.
>> and then put over -- if some of those computers are not just for legal research, legal research only.
and on the others, just general use or general use and legal research.
see what I'm saying?
but if two computers added will solve the problem, I'd rather get two new computers or two old computers.
two computers somewhere else.
we're about to buy 100, aren't we?
i mean that have been used.
two of these computers or three of those computers in the law library for general use.
that is an excellent idea.
>> [laughter] think about that.
and when we come back next week, we'll discuss it further.
>> okay.
>> how is that?
Commissioner elkhart wants to discuss security.
>> security issues, but I think those are larger than just the law library, although the law library has gotten swept up into the issue, I believe.
>> all right.
see how democratic I am, how fair?
of the problems that you have, put them in priority order.
let us see those.
>> very well.
>> if you can get that to us by 5:00 on Thursday so I can mull over it three or four days.
we're here to help.
this is a government state.
>> thank you, judge.
it's always a pleasure.
>> all right.
i wanted to have fun with this item.
thank you all much.
now, moving to a couple of easy ones.
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, March 3, 2009 2:17 PM