Travis County Commissioners Court
October 20, 2009,
Item 28
Number 28 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the composition of the capital metropolitan transit authority board of directors.
a, process to comply with new law including adoption of a process for filling county vacancy, and b, determination of desired professional background to compliment other members of the board including a call for applications.
>> judge and Commissioners on, this item the Travis County Commissioners court has the opportunity to appoint a member to the reconstituted board of the capital metro transportation authority.
we must do that by -- within 72 days.
it must be done by December 31, 2009.
let me just tell you the packet that you have in front of you has a description of the overall process and status of what's going on with that, and then it has four attachments.
attachment a is a summary of what the other jurisdictions who are making appointments to the capital metro board of directors are doing so far in their process.
as the agenda item reflects, it is the court's desire to make its appointments at least cognizant of what appointments are being made, what other qualities are being looked for, so this is an update as of last Friday in your pack.
attachment a says what's going on with the appointments in other jurisdictions.
attachment b is a list of the board of directors' responsibilities and a proposal for qualifications that the court might look for in its appointment to the -- to the cap metro board.
c, a timetable tore making that and attachment d is a proposed packet that the county would use in its call for applications and in asking people to apply for that appointment.
so this packet was given to you last week.
yesterday we supplemented the packet with a revised version of attachment a that simply updates the information that we received from the other jurisdictions about where they are in their process.
the most significant development being that the campo nominations committee met yesterday in order to consider 10 applications it had received for its -- two of its appointments, the person with extensive experience in executive management and the finance professional appointments.
so there is an update that you received yesterday afternoon.
we have additional copies if anybody can't put their hands to it right away.
that explains the current state of where the process is.
cap metro will do interviews with its finalists -- I'm sorry, campo will do interviews with its finalists next Thursday.
and I believe it has a policy board meeting in early November at which presumably they would make their appointments.
so what we're looking for the court to do today is to make -- is to formalize a decision as to whether or not the court wishes to appoint a member of the court to this position, and if it decides not to do that, then to determine what qualifications it seeks in a member of the board of directors, and third, to approve a process for seeking out such a person and making that appointment.
>> I had three things that I would like added to the qualifications that we're looking for.
in having done at least a cursory glance of those who had applied to campo and also trying to be mindful of the specific type of skill set campo is looking for as laid out by statute.
it seems that three areas where we could perhaps fill some -- fill some gaps would be knowledge of the federal regulatory process and having received a briefing from doug allen yesterday, it appears that the federal regulatory process was one that cap metro has in the past had some difficulties with.
>>
>> [inaudible] as far as paid staff that --
>> staff I understand --
>> no federal guidelines?
>> I understand staff has developed some expertise in house, but perhaps some knowledge or appreciation of that at the board level would be useful.
what do you think, Commissioner Gomez?
>> the board usually gets briefed by the attorneys as to the regulations that -- that the authority comes under.
and especially the one about the board has nothing to do with star tran.
capital metro has nothing to do with star tran, and that's definitely a federal regulation that is there.
and I think it's going to be very important to get that point across to the public because it's one that has been very difficult to get across to people.
and -- but the attorneys usually do the briefing of the board members as to the federal regulations, especially the one that relationship between capital metro and star tran.
and then after that there are other federal laws that pertain to -- to I guess any -- any policy-making body that is public or quasi public.
>> I was thinking more in terms of the understanding of the f.r.a.
regulatory theme particularly over rail.
>> if you ask this court which one of us has such expertise, which one?
>> good point.
>> I think our first challenge ought to be to decide whether or not a member of this court will represent us or whether we're looking for a citizen.
>> I that's decision point number 1, judge.
>> thank you for agreeing with me.
now, I have not heard any member express strong enthusiasm for taking advantage of this service opportunity.
>> neither have i, judge.
>> therefore, I move that we select a resident.
>> second that.
>> and indicate that no member of the court will represent us.
>> second.
>> not to steal your thunder, but if we do that, then we go to citizen representative.
any discussion of that motion?
now, I did say yesterday that -- and I think the Austin city council in terms of other appointments, now, two of those have to be on the city council anyway, right?
>> the Austin city council has two appointments, one of whom must be an elected official.
>> okay.
the mayor sort of indicated that he didn't think any other councilmember wanted to serve, but they have several opportunities.
but back to our motion, any discussion of that motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners hueber, Davis, Eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Gomez --
>> I really believe that a court member would really be good on that board.
>> okay.
so the question now is what kind of citizen representative should we look for?
and if we are looking at a citizen, I think that if we require knowledge of the federal regulatory process, we can -- we really greatly limit those who can step forth and serve.
>> I think it's a point well taken.
i'll withdraw that.
>> we may want to put in there that we want our appointee to commit to learning applicable provisions of the federal regulatory process.
>> absolutely.
>> that way we at least stress the importance of it.
>> okay.
>> all federal regulations.
all federal regulations.
>> okay.
the other item that I wanted to put forth was --
>> hold on.
>> I'm sorry.
>> what if they say applicable state and federal --
>> regulations.
>> -- legal requirements.
is that real general?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> legal counsel?
is that okay?
>> uh-huh.
>> any objection to that?
okay.
>> the other I was thinking of was a knowledge of the funding sources and mechanisms including their political and equity impact.
because another item that came up in yesterday's briefing was the -- the packaging -- the need for financial packaging around transportation projects in the region and that it -- it's becoming more complicated in requiring a higher degree of collaboration across governmental and quasi governmental operators.
>> okay.
what's the language again?
>> the way I would put it is a knowledge of funding sources and mechanisms including their political and equity implications.
>> key be funding sources.
>> uh-huh.
>>
>> [inaudible] funding sources, Commissioner?
>> yes.
but I -- being mindful of our discussion we just had a federal regulation, perhaps it should be a commitment to learn funding sources and mechanisms including their political and equity implication.
>> I think that's better.
any objections to that?
you have a third recommendation?
>> no, that was it.
>> now, during the meeting yesterday, the campo -- by the way, of the 10 applications submitted, three were disqualified because they did not meet the residential requirements.
you either had to reside in -- was it Austin?
or the capital metro service area.
>> two of the three campo appointments must reside inside the city of Austin.
>> or the campo service area or and the campo service area?
we discussed both of them.
anyway, as a result of that discussion, from 10 we went down to 7.
>> who was disqualified?
>> griebel, skaggs, and stacy.
simply for failure to meet the requirement that you either reside in the city of Austin or capital metro service area or both, I think.
so when you look at the broad categories they are supposed to represent, it really was, what, executive experience, finance, and applications either selected -- applicants selected one of those or indicated that they wanted to be considered for both.
so two of the seven indicated they wanted to be considered for both.
and one of those was excluded.
because the mayor did.
i have not heard interest or knowledge of transportation issues in these discussions.
transportation ought to come up somewhere, shouldn't it?
>> uh-huh.
>> alternative modes of transportation, bus and alternative modes of transportation.
i just think that not necessarily that you need just a world of experience, but it seems to me that you ought to have experience or a keen interest in it because if -- to the extent that you don't have experience in it, I think that you do have a learning curve from day one.
>> I would say keen commitment rather than interest.
again to learning everything about the alternate modes of transportation for this area, for this region.
>> did you have some suggested language that went to that?
>> if you look in appendix -- attachment b under those proposed qualifications, there is a bullet point regarding knowledge of and experience with transportation issues or enterprises, and also a bullet point that says commitment to capital metro and mass transit in a rapidly growing urban environment.
and those were based on the court's conversation last week about what were some of those characteristics that people want to see.
so judge Biscoe, those criteria you just mentioned were highlighted by the court last week.
>> okay.
and I think that covers what I think --
>> are you suggesting that wasn't an original idea by me?
>> no, sir, I'm suggesting great minds think alike.
>> I think it's also important and I think that includes the important thought that the commitment to the entity that was created by the voters in 1985.
and it was the voters also allotted the sales tax as the source -- I guess the main source of revenue for -- at that time it was just a bus system.
and so -- but I think they need to work and I guess that's why the financial experience comes in handy for them to try to figure out how to make that -- increase that source of revenue.
but I think the commitment needs to be kept with the voters.
they created it.
i think we need to honor that.
>> now, what surfaced yesterday was a little issue.
apparently the statute now requires that you be employed in Travis County.
or capital metro service area.
my question was, well, what if you are retired?
>> you are still connected to the retirement system.
>> if I can speak to that, judge, that's a requirement for the Travis County appointee to the cap metro board is that that person either be a qualified voter in Travis County or have his or her principal place of employment or business in the portion of Travis County that is within the cap metro service area.
so anybody who is a qualified voter in Travis County is eligible for appointment by this Commissioners court to the cap metro board.
even if they don't live in Travis County but their principal place of business is here in Travis County, as long as it's within cap metro service area, that's the other criteria, but either of those are acceptable.
>> as distinct from the campo employees.
>> you are saying retirees are eligible?
>> if that retiree is a qualified voter in Travis County, he or she would be eligible for appointment by this court.
perhaps not by the cap metro but by this court.
>> remember, when capital metro was created, only precinct 2, the rural area of precinct 2 voted itself into the service area of capital metro.
precinct 1, 2 and 4 did not -- I mean 1, 3 and 4 did not.
and so therefore the only time that my precinct or the other precincts are covered is when the city of Austin annexs that area and by virtue of the annexation service is extended.
>> to that point, judge, should we add in our list of desired qualifications the ability to devote -- devote the time necessary to provide the service on the board?
>> I think that's an important point.
>> I think we ought to state it.
because otherwise --
>> it takes a lot of time.
>> is there an attendance requirement at capital metro?
>> not any more than there is here.
>> that means no.
>> [laughter] so if we add these four to the long list, we end up with 12 or 13, don't we?
i see why no member of this court wanted to be on.
>> I think we have -- I think if we added -- I think we've talked about three, and I would make a total list of 10.
>> was yours with regard to transportation -- knowledge of transportation policies?
was that captured by those other two bullets?
>> well, it's captured by one of the bullets.
i'm count ago whole lot more.
you are looking at pages 5 and 6 of attachment b?
>> yes.
>> one, two, three, four, five, six, seven eight.
number 7, knowledge of and experience with transportation issues or enterprises.
you still stand behind your pages 5 and 6, right?
>> yes, sir.
way behind them.
no.
>> [laughter]
>> okay.
so all of these are given equally weight, you think?
>> the with employees weigh worded it -- the way I worded it, you seek a candidate with a history demonstrating skills in a majority of the following areas.
so you know, I would hope that candidates would speak to which of these criteria they think they are strongest in.
it would be up to the court to decide if it wants to in advance say, well, numbers 1, 2 and 6 are going to be the most important.
that obviously is for the court to decide.
>> okay.
we have two that are mandatory, must either, those are pulled from the statute.
>> those are pulled from the statute.
>> okay.
so instead of with a career history demonstrated, da, da, da, the Travis County Commissioners court will give preference to applicants who possess one other all of the following skills, experiences and/or abilities.
is that the same thing or is it better?
>> I think it sounds better.
a little more clarity.
>> it sounds wonderful.
>> the big question mark for us who will the other entities end up selecting and how can we best choose a person to compliment those individuals.
if you look at finance and management, those are really pretty broad so you really could end up with a person with any number of employment experiences or abilities.
what says the court?
>> I'm ask.
i guess the only thing I had a question about was when we talk about mass transit, does that define alternate modes of transportation?
or is that just buses?
how do people understand that -- that term?
is mass transit just buses?
>> when I think of mass transit, I just think of vehicles that will carry multiple individuals not privately owned.
buses come to mind.
rail.
>> bicycles.
trails.
>> I don't know that bicycles come to mind.
>> well, because if we're --
>> they have those bicycles built for two, but otherwise bikes are not typically mass transit vehicles.
>> why don't we strike the word "mass" and just say transit and alternative modes of transportation?
how does that sound?
>> that's the first bullet.
what substitute language did you recommend?
>> role of transit and alternative modes of transportation.
>> because I think -- as capital metro works with the city of Austin, trails are being put in along the rails.
and that -- that enables walking and probably also bicycling.
>> mr.
geiselman, as our transportation leader, should we read something into your absolute reticence?
>> I think transit covers exactly what you are saying, rail, pedestrianways
>> [inaudible] if you want to mention --
>> [inaudible].
>> the only thing I want to make sure that it's clear to people when they read it because, you know, my experience has been too that somebody will read it this way and somebody will read it this way.
and so if you put it down there very clearly what you mean, it's a lot better in the long run.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> uh-huh.
>> not to belittle your input, mr.
eckstein, but since we had our transportation leader sitting had the courtroom, I thought we would press him into duty.
>> I wouldn't dream of doing this without him.
>> and your last four bullets I guess are intended to go to personal characteristics more than anything else.
>> yes, sir, I listed these from the county's package that it developed for both the ctrma and the health care district board of directors, board of managers.
>> so don't give you credit.
>> no, sir.
i'm following in the footsteps of greater minds than mine.
>> if we did them before, we'll do them again.
what else do we need to do?
>> I think if you are comfortable with where you are at on the qualifications, you may want to make a motion to that effect or I can bring new language back next week.
the other thing I'd ask the court to do is approve at least the broad process for going toward.
>> okay, I was hoping to get this language back this afternoon.
>> that certainly can be done.
>> because I think it would be good for us to go ahead and give final approval to this.
in terms of we need to get out basically the notice of invitation to apply, whatever we call that.
and we typically would post this, if our goal is to meet the December 31st deadline, we need to have this out, I would say at least three to four weeks, don't we?
>> I had proposed a timetable where we would try to get the word out as quickly as possible and have all the applications in by the day before thanksgiving.
>> that's right around the corner.
>> that's November 25th.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
and today is -- that will give us about a month.
>> now, judge, also on the changes that the court will approve as far as process is concerned and some of the requirements that we're looking for, how will that be announced or given to the public, those persons that may be interested, how will that mechanism take place?
what will be the avenue of that information getting to the public for those that are interested in --
>> Commissioner, my understanding is that on the ctrma appointment and on the health care district appointment, I believe the county took out an ad in the newspaper.
i have to confirm that, but I think we took out an ad in the newspaper about it.
we also posted on our website.
i'm going to flog the reporters who are here and ask them to get information out about it as well.
but typically what the county does is, as I understand it, is a newspaper ad and, of course, posting it on its website.
>> and if we could have -- I'm looking at a two or three pager.
if we could have that, we could distribute to those interested who phone or contact us in any manner.
>> if you look at attachment d in your packet, there is a -- essentially a one-page document that is what we're calling the call for application.
and that would be what we would publish in the newspaper and on our website.
we would obviously revise the skill set desired in order to reflect the court's conversation today, and the final set of qualifications that the court approves.
but that would be our call for application.
and then -- and then behind that is the packet that anybody who asks for we would deliver to them and either print it or electronic form.
>> are we able to update the call for applications to include changes made today?
>> yes.
>> okay.
let's look at attachment c, the proposed schedule.
it looks good to me.
this has us conducting interviews December 10th.
>> I haven't checked with mr.
loftis, but I do not believe there is a work session scheduled for December 10th at this point so I'm hoping we could put that on an agenda.
>> that's on a Thursday.
>> that will be a Thursday.
>> okay.
it would help.
but if --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> but if we've got four, you want us to schedule it at a time when you will be here?
>> it doesn't matter.
>> the other thing I need to look at is we may have a final meeting at capital metro that day.
let me check on the calendar and I'll get back to you quickly.
>> I think if we have the applications in by thanksgiving, then the court will have an opportunity to look at the applications, vet them, select who they want to interview and schedule a time to do that, and we can adapt that portion of the agenda.
i wanted to leave the court a couple weeks once it had its short list, a couple weeks to finalize the decision.
and suggest making the appointment on the 22nd.
>> instead of December 10th, if we move it to the next Tuesday, that will be around December 15th.
and do the afternoon -- do the interviews in the afternoon.
how is that?
>> yes, I'll be here already.
>> that sounds --
>> will that next Tuesday be the 15th?
>> yes.
>> 10th, 11th.
i was going to do it Tuesday afternoon.
we would try to finish the other court business.
we will challenge ourself to short list down to three or four.
which I think we can do.
okay?
>> and judge, with that session on the 15th, that would be a work session?
>> no, sir, that would be the voting session of Commissioners court.
we would interview that day and select one.
and actually if something happens between now and, say, December 7th to cause us to change this date, we have a few others to play with.
>> that's correct.
>> we could move it to the Tuesday earlier.
>> and I imagine, judge, that most of the other appointments will have been made by then so the court will have a good idea of what particular skills may still be lacking on the cap metro board.
>> okay.
if we make that change, does attachment c look all right in terms of our schedule?
move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and on d, the call for applications, let's update it.
>> that will be updated to reflect whatever the court's final set of qualifications is, and then the documents in the back, which are the application forms themselves, are, again, just taken from the process we use for the ctrma and for the health care district board of managers.
>> okay.
mr.
reeferseed.
>> ronnie reeferseed, and I just wanted to say I'm sorry that I nominated morris priest, and he told me that he's not -- he can't -- it can't work for him for whatever reason.
so if his name was even in the mix, I don't know.
>> does he reside in Travis County?
>> he does.
precinct 2 resident.
>> and I forget what the reason -- I don't even know if I ever understood why, but he just said he wasn't -- wasn't able to or something like that.
instead, I'll throw my own name in the list, but anyway, thanks.
>> even you have to follow the requirements, mr.
reeferseed.
>> oh, yeah.
>> there will be a formal application required.
>> and the formal application I can get from this gentleman?
>> once it's approved by the court, it will be available -- we'll figure out how to get it on the website and make it available.
we're going to run all this through our office so people can contact us at igr@co@travis.tax exempt x if they are interested.
-- igr@-- I'll write it down for you.
>> I think, judge, that everything is done except the revisions to the actual qualifications that we're looking for, which was attachment b.
i would propose leaving that pending and bring that back to court after lunch.
>> you know, in terms of these -- okay.
what else do we need to do now?
>> I think we're fine for now, judge.
>> so let's indicate our intention to call this item back up late this afternoon.
>> yes, sir.
>> to take a look at revisions that we approved this morning.
so we hopefully can take final action on what we need to do to advance the ball.
is that okay?
>> uh-huh.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> thank you.
>> now, do we want to -- I guess we ought to leave that comprehensive plan to go this afternoon.
give us time to discuss both of them.
28.
consider and take appropriate action regarding the composition of the capital metropolitan transit authority board of directors: a, process to comply with new law, including adoption of a process for filling county vacancy; and b, determination of desired professional background to complement other members of the board, including a call for applications.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, before the lunch break, the court asked us to look at revising language that we discussed with the court.
prior to that break, we have provided to you that revised language.
the language is highlighted in red.
i think at this point we would simply ask the court to adopt the changes to the qualifications and the final list of qualifications and also the process for recruiting, screening and electing a member to the capital metro board of -- of directors.
>> okay.
>> so moved.
>> mr.
priest?
>> yes, sir, judge, Commissioners, morris priest for the record.
i did want to say that I think that one of the qualifications should be an individual, not from a governing body.
i know that -- I believe that this court will have very little influence, if any, on the appointments made by the campo board itself.
but I think the value that an individual in the community could bring, I would hope that this court would choose someone that was opposed to -- to toll roads as well as rail, so that there would be some reality brought to the capital metro board.
i did know that -- that general daugherty on the transit working group did bring up some items pertinent to the discussion.
one thing there wasn't any funding available from u.t.
and some of the other places that the board are constantly bringing about.
helping with -- with other parties that they work with.
now, I think there's an absence of reality on the campo board and capital metro.
and I think it would bring balance to the discussions, if you had someone that was not for rail, not for toll roads because presently at this time that's pretty much what we have.
and the only other thing that I was going to say is that I am opposed from someone take on traffic being on the transit working group.
which I know this isn't a part of this discussion.
but this individual that the county should pick should not be affiliated with take on traffic, which is just nothing more than a lobby group for the chamber.
so I would hope that those qualifications, to bring balance and discussion, that you would choose someone that is not -- that is not, you know, in favor of -- of rail or tolls.
thanks.
>> thank you.
>> well, the good news is that we did approve the first part of your request this morning.
we did vote to -- to make this opportunity available to a resident rather than one of us.
>> right.
>> that passed by a vote of 4-1.
okay?
>> glad to hear it.
>> on the other part, I guess we'll have to see what unfolds over the next few weeks.
okay.
now, we did -- you did give us language and did we change on page 2, did we add the words knowledge of or commitment --
>> on the bullet points --
>> yeah, did you say that.
>> I did not bring that up.
i understood that was going to be an amendment.
>> I think our directives were what he put down in red and when I was reading over it, it seemed to me like we didn't want to preclude the fact that someone might have knowledge.
if we just added knowledge of or commitment to learning to those two bullets to start the commitment.
>> second and -- third one from the bottom.
>> right, yeah.
>> so the first two in red.
>> those are the only two you recommend, any problem with those?
>> no, no problem.
>> any others?
>> and is there a motion to approve this.
>> there's a motion and I second it.
>> distribution.
>> or this one as corrected.
>> right.
>> as corrected.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
and I think we took the other actions this morning, didn't we?
>> yeah, we did.
>> I just want to show the court that you mentioned moving the interviews with the candidates from a work session on December 10th to the Commissioners court meeting on the 15th and that -- that change is reflected in the document that you received.
but I don't know if the court needs to take action on that.
>> well, let's do it anyway.
move approval.
>> second.
>> to the corrected version.
discussion of the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> we presented to the court this morning a draft of the application packet, the call for applications and the application packet.
we will modify those to conform with the changes that the court has made today.
>> questions, comments?
move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
i do think that before we do the interviews, we ought to -- to come up with a -- with a list of standard questions that we would ask in all of the short listed applicants.
so -- so.
>> I think that the process sheet that we laid out contemplates that you would have a set of questions that would have been prepared beforehand that would be asked of each of the interviewees.
>> I was thinking to the extent that the application doesn't get everything, we can always have that covered in questions.
>> yes, sir.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thanks for working over your lunch period, mr.
he could stein.
>> happy to do it, sir.
>> I would buy you lunch if I thought that you would accept it.
please make sure that you have lunch today.
>> thank you, sir.
>> 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, October 20, 2009 1:40 PM
