Travis County Commissioners Court
May 26, 2009,
Item 27
>> the other item, I just want to --
>> mr.
eckstein -- 27 is to consider and take appropriate action on Commissioners court intent in adopting intergovernmental relations recommendations regarding pending legislation.
this is to be more helpful during the next session than this one, I take t.
>> I take that also.
this was just a matter of confusion that came up last week.
i want to explain it to the court and just make sure I'm on firm ground here.
typically in my memorandum to the court about bills, I have almost a formulaic statement where I say the court should oppose or support this bill and direct igr and the legislative consultants to communicate the court's position as appropriate.
i have been -- I've been using that phasology as a way of clarifying that the court not only has a position, but wants us to communicate it.
i have been asked on a couple of occasions within the last couple of weeks whether if the court simply says, I move we oppose the bill, whether that motion implicitly says, and -- gives the direction to igr and to the legislative consultants to communicate that position.
and I just wanted to clarify for the court that I am understanding the court to giving us that direction.
and unless -- I suppose unless the court has some comment about that, I would want to assume that that's what the court is asking us to do.
>> well, I don't understand.
you've come here on several bills asking -- as far as your recommendation that we support bills, and sometimes the court don't support, but -- don't support what you have recommended.
that's happened before.
i'm not understanding what you're saying now.
>> first of all, Commissioner Davis, with respect to the court not taking a position on a bill one way or the other, that would be -- as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it in terms of trying to represent a position for the court.
the court has no position.
the situation I'm talking about is a situation where the court -- where I've asked -- where the formula that I've asked the court to do is to say we support senate bill 100 and we direct igr and the legislative consultants to communicate the court's position.
i have been asked a couple of times in situations where I've put that in writing and included it in the backup materials, but a member of the court, perhaps you would make a motion and you would say I move that we support senate bill 100 and the court votes on that motion.
the question that has come to me is, well, did the court authorize you to communicate that position?
>> let me give you a good example.
senate bill -- house bill 1195 came before the court, which was the landfill deal, which is sponsored by representative dukes.
even though you recommended that the court support that particular bill, I made a motion to support the bill, and of course the court didn't support house bill 1195.
you need four votes.
two people voted for it and three people voted against it.
so I'm still trying to understand what you're saying.
are you suggesting that we as court members are not authorized to make motions?
>> no.
>> I don't understand what you're saying.
>> I'm sorry, Commissioner.
certainly in that circumstance where the court has not taken a position on the basis of its four vote super majority practice, then as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion for me.
i may go back to the court at a later time with more information or a different recommendation, but that's the end of my advocacy or our legislative consultant's advocacy on that piece of legislation.
there has been some confusion internally about whether if you do say -- for instance, on house bill 1195, if you would have made that motion and the court approved it, but the motion didn't include the magic words, and direct igr and the legislative consultants to communicate its position, whether the court in fact had simply taken a position in favor of the bill or whether the court had also directed us to do that, to communicate that.
so I just want to make sure -- I asked the judge if I could put this on the agenda to make sure that if the court simply says, we support this bill, that it is okay for igr and the legislative consultants to communicate that.
assuming that the court does that by at least a four-member vote.
>> I would suggest that the super majority makes that implicit.
that there are no magic word requirements.
>> right.
that's what we have said in the past.
>> for or against.
>> for or against.
>> if we vote against it, anybody else can hold out that the Commissioners court is against that bill.
for the world on tv we have basically done it.
and if we like ways support something, I think it's fair to hold out that the Commissioners court supports whatever it is.
>> right.
>> so your question is that if we don't direct your staff and you to do a certain thing, if we take a formal position, you are free to hold out that position that we have taken.
>> right.
is that implicit in you're taking the position.
>> I think it is.
>> okay.
well, that's what I wanted to hear.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
and we'll call up the other item this afternoon for discussion.
move that we recess until 1:30.
all in 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:
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:00 PM