Travis County Commissioners Court
September 1, 2009,
Item 11
11.
consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
and -- and records management from allocated reserves, 23,080, move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
down at the bottom, the -- the interdepartmental -- intra departmental transfers, in the sheriff's office into the medical services line item, a substantial amount of money, that's needed to complete the fiscal year.
for the precinct 3 constable, there is -- cameras, $30,000 from salary savings, and it was a law enforcement equipment that I wasn't sure about.
>> right.
>> judge, on that item I'm just wondering if we -- you know, last time this item came up I was kind of concerned about -- about the consistency as far as using maybe a common vendor for -- for the cameras that we are looking to purchase.
it's -- just -- just kind of -- you know, seems kind of -- kind of unusual I think, maybe to some degree, especially with the -- with the way things are, especially with the cameras that involve the sheriff's office came to us and of course we ended up using -- using -- a vendor whereby they were able to go ahead and -- and install cameras, so I'm just wondering are we going to piecemeal this situation because really when we first started here, when I first started here, there was a lot of variance as far as different departments buying different computers from -- from different vendors and we had such a -- such a cross-section of -- of hardware, software out there, until it just didn't appear that we should go in that direction.
what we ended up doing was centralizing.
we central leased whereby we could all be on the same page with our computer equipment and software and -- across the county.
so I'm concerned about the same centralization as far as looking -- if we're going to use cameras, we purchase cameras, which we are.
why not use the same vendor.
and so that's my concern.
i'm not saying this shouldn't go through, but just somewhere along the line, I just think that we should centralize those cameras since we had problems before with -- with -- with the -- you know, with vendors as far as our cameras are concerned.
so that's -- that was the only concern that I had about the $30,000 for those cameras, are we going to the same vendor, are we going to get other vendors where we are not centralized.
>> the answer to those questions.
>> pardon me?
>> I know p.b.o.
was discussing those with the precinct 3 constable's office.
what's the answers to those questions.
>> regarding the cameras.
>> cameras, yes.
>> the --
>> I understand that there are continued discussions going on this morning specifically with the sheriff's office as it relates to their cameras and the issues that they've had.
there's a resolution that I believe that is coming very quickly.
and -- and our position has been, I think, if I heard the Commissioner as we were coming in it's key from the long-term perspective from maintenance and upkeep of that equipment because its will be tasked at some point to maintain that equipment and we believe that it's important that it be standardized.
>> stacy?
>> stacy suits, Travis County constable precinct 3.
at this time we are just trying to gets working cameras in the cars.
as the new cars come online and replace the worn out or broken equipment.
i've -- details, the pros and cons of why we think our system is more cost effective and a better product than what the sheriff's office uses, but it -- at this point, I -- I think that it's more important to get the cameras in some of these vehicles than it is to -- to fall down on one piece of equipment.
i would suggest that we what the sheriffs used currently and used in the past are known quantities.
what we are using, if we could look at it as -- as cut it off at this batch, say we are doing a pilot project on this vendor, this equipment, how it works, and then not do any more until we fall down into a standardized piece across the board.
>> have you all gotten together on this camera, its and the sheriff.
>> not with the --
>> what do the other constables use?
>> these and older and newer mobile vision, we are, too, it's kind of a mixed bag, judge.
>> we already have six of these units that are working with these digital cameras with the system.
>> I'm learning here.
it is a legal requirement that constable vehicles have the video cameras in the car?
>> that's a question for our attorneys.
i'm not sure, I don't know the answer to that, Commissioner.
>> I got to -- I need to research it, but you -- we will get you an answer.
>> there is a wide variation of among the constables who has cameras and what kind of cameras they have, correct?
>> I have since found out that actually precinct 1 did do the -- do the camera grant from d.p.s.
in 2002 and then in precinct 2 and 3 did the cameras in -- in 2003.
i have talked to the chief deputy howard on the precinct 1, they might have three or four operational cameras out of that original batch that they got in 2002.
>> so recapping your e-mail from the 18th of August, precincts -- you said precinct 1 has no dash cameras, but now you are saying they may have.
>> yes, three or four operational.
>> precinct 2 has newer mobile vision vhs.
>> they have a mixture of vhs, older mobile vision and newer mobile vision.
>> precinct 3 has 6 digit tall ally and nine older model vision vhs.
>> that's correct.
>> precinct 4 has two older dash cameras recycled from the sheriff's inventory.
>> that's correct.
>> and precinct 5 has no dash cameras.
>> that's correct.
>> I am concerned about this -- about the -- the inconsistency among the -- the -- the -- the inventory.
and also the usage, because we had discussed before what is the -- I am -- I am sort of -- at least tangentially aware of protocols for preserving video evidence with regard to jailable misdemeanors.
but how are y'all preserving the video from -- from these traffic offenses?
>> I have got the deputy en route that could answer that question and do the whole thing.
but he's putting it down on the hard dry.
we are taking them -- hard drive, we are taking them off on scan disc.
>> my understanding is at least for jailable misdemeanors, its, county attorney's office and the d.a.'s office are involved in the preservation and distribution of those --
>> right.
it's my understanding that the -- the d.a.
and county attorney's office are wanting to move to digital files.
for courtroom purposes.
and what we're doing is -- is moving in that direction.
our equipment is upgradeable in that direction.
>> how likely is -- we don't have many -- we don't have many criminal off fences that are brought to trial at the county attorney level of the constable's office.
>> we -- we have effected 10 dwi arrests this fiscal year.
>> again, I stand by the statement, there are not many and --
>> the -- the point is it's kind of like it's -- the -- is when you need cameras, you really, really need 'em.
>> although, my concern is that the -- the equipment that is standard on a tcso law enforcement vehicle is considerably more expensive than what is now the standard equipment on a constable's vehicle.
about $10,000 difference.
>> no, about 1500.
i had a quote for 6500 for digital cameras for tcso vehicles.
>> I'm not speaking just to the cameras, though.
the complete package, my understanding.
>> well, that's what we're trying to
>> [indiscernible] through --
>> besides, I understand from your e-mails that -- well, that is not germane to this specific topic, you're right, just to the cameras it's about 1600 per vehicle.
>> the -- any information for us?
>> well, the -- I agree with the comments that the -- if we're going to put cameras and systems in all of these cars, they need to be standardized so we can support them without fragmentation.
the -- the cameras that stacy had earlier purchased that currently has, we looked at those cameras and their intention then was not to be saving the video to the sheriff's system or to use our -- our network services to upload or anything.
so it was a kind of a stand alone deal.
so we didn't really see any problem with that.
now they are wanting to hook into the network, they are wanting to hook up to a -- to a wireless upload.
that changes the picture.
so we need to -- we need to look at trying to standardize these things.
if we're going to do them in all of the cars.
>> where we're at at this point is -- we're trying to get to that end result, but right now until all of the other global issues are resolved and the -- and what its will support or not support and how much money we're going to have to spend on servers and digital equipment for the prosecutors and the judges is we're trying to put together a stand alone system that meets the law's requirements.
on -- on racial profiling and traffic stops.
and that can upgrade to -- to being put up on service later.
but we're not asking you to do that now.
>> okay.
how long would it take for the right people to get in one room and come up with a recommendation?
two weeks?
>> two weeks.
>> all right.
because we're looking at -- I mean, I have seen with a camera system for the sheriff and the same in the constable's cars.
>> yes, if we're going to support that in the cars.
precinct 3 is -- is -- precinct 3's goal is if we're going to do this, you would like for us to do it this fiscal year which is before October 1.
why don't we give ourselves a two-week opportunity to get together and come back with a recommendation to us.
now, there may be a discussion of whether we need these cameras anyway.
so I would go ahead and spend a paragraph or two addressing that issue.
now, we are bringing back the fleet item two weeks from today.
>> on the 15th, yes, sir.
>> > we're scheduled to meet tomorrow to kind of talk about the beginning process of who needs to be -- you know, we have tentatively talked about who all needs to get together and have that discussion.
tomorrow's discussion is really around, you know, agendizing, if you will, some of the discussion topics and finalizing those topics, so that we can get together and expedite that meeting to come back to you on the 15th.
>> okay.
why don't we just bring both of them back on the 15th then.
what we are saying I think is its, the sheriff and constables I guess and p.b.o., does purchasing need to be involved, too?
>> absolutely.
>> purchasing in the same room and hopefully -- the recommendation that -- that has achieved consensus.
i used to try for unamity, now consensus is fine for me.
if we can get consensus from that meeting, I think we're all better off.
how's that in stacy.
>> thank you.
>> so what we are doing then is on t 1 and t 2, indicate our intent to bring those back --
>> t 2 and t 3.
>> I'm sorry, yes, 2 and 3.
the precinct 3 constable's items and hopefully in addition to precinct 3 it would just be constables in general.
see what I'm saying?
>> yeah.
>> our ultimate goal is to get cameras in constable law enforcement vehicles.
>> okay.
so, legal, the question is legally what's required, then what's discretionary, and I guess from a constable perspective, what just down right makes good sense in this day and time in terms of having camera capability in the vehicles.
all right?
okay.
then t 2 and t 3, we will have back on in two weeks.
along with the other fleet issues.
>> okay.
>> so I move approval of t 1, which would be transfer into the medical services line item at the sheriff's office.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> a 1.
on the amendment.
>> yeah.
>> the amendment.
i'm sorry, I missed that.
>> did that.
>> never mind.
>> I'm sorry.
>> I didn't know that you had already taken that out.
i'm sorry.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> I was wondering about the $10,000 one, has that been postponed, also?
>> yeah, I just postponed both of them.
t 2 and t 3.
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 1, 2009 3:14 PM
