Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 7, 2010,
Item 18
18 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding discussion with the operational planning team in developing a strategy for assessing the organizational structure and participants.
administrative operations items
>> right, I just had a brief question on that.
I just wanted to know what role does facilities have on this team as far as the structure all of these other kind of things.
I have very legitimate concerns about that.
I want to make sure that the team has -- has the necessary input.
I'm not too happy with not having the proper input.
as you go forward, there's a lot of decisions that are going to have to be made.
as you know, we are aware that we don't have an executive manager of admin ops, stuff like that, so it's kind of critical in my mind that -- that we have some say.
I guess my question to you is how do you involve persons from -- from administrative operations as far as one of the departments.
>> remember the court made me the liaison for -- for not h.r.
but the other three departments and -- and agreement was that when we started talking about those specific departments and what might impact them, we would bring them to the table.
we haven't done that yet so they haven't been brought to the table.
but they will.
so it isn't as though there have been discussions involving them, that they have not been privy to.
we have done a lot of talking about business plans, worked a lot on h.r.
the list here.
the idea was rather than their having to sit through all of these that did not involve them, when it did involve them, we would bring them to the table and we intend to do that.
>> well, my concern was having a representative at the table from the get-go.
and -- and my concern is -- my concern is still that.
I -- I'm -- I'm divorced myself from the concerns.
of course I like folks to be at the table and as you go through a process and right from the get go, you don't miss nothing like that.
>> remember Commissioner we haven't started the process.
like susan was saying, once we start the process of looking at it, we will include not just roger, but its.
critical.
and h.r.
records management and then --
>> [multiple voices]
>> when will that happen.
>> when you all give us direction on how to proceed and -- we move forward.
we need some direction from the court on how you would like us to proceed.
>> my whole point is as stay stated whatever the court decide to do, I want to make sure that it's fair representation at the table as we go forward with this.
in my opinion, in my opinion, I just think that representation ought to be there at the table, period.
>> we agree.
>> we agree.
>> Commissioner, that's part of today's discussion is to identify those who need to be involved as a part of this process.
for the strategy going forward.
>> what you are recommending is a work session in October.
>> yes, sir.
a work session in October, we would like to have the full court participation in that work session.
we're targeting October 21st or the 28th as our potential dates for the work session.
latter part of October, that will give us adequate time to lock down a facilitator, which we have been in contact with already.
make sure those dates work for the facilitator, then identify a location, if you would prefer to do it outside of the Commissioners courtroom.
have we identified a source of funding for the facilitator.
>> we have.
>> that would cost 12 to 1500, 12 to 2,000.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> depending the
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> we think that it will probably run somewhere in that area.
>> so should court members indicate to you whether they prefer the 21st or 28th.
>> please.
>> certainly if it's out of the question for one of us, one or more, so we can start working with that -- I agree our goal should be to have a full complement of members there and managers.
>> yes, sir, whoever else you feel is appropriate that needs to be involved in the process.
>> now, reference was made to incorporating the business plan into the -- into the organizational assessment, so do we think that we'll have the business plan done by then?
>> we don't anticipate a completed business plan.
the subcommittee received a copy of a draft business plan that we had been working on for the past 18 months or so.
we have not made any additional progress on that business plan since we had provided a copy of that to the subcommittee.
our original plan was to -- was to have a facilitator assist us in the completion of that business plan and then let the organizational structure kind of work itself out as a result of that business plan.
we -- after further discussion decided that it would be well advised to engage the court.
and to have a full court discussion regarding some potential organizational structures that would include inoperating the business plan, some pros and cons and then move forward from there.
>> well, that may be a bad time for me.
but if the court are willing to go ahead with that, that's fine.
I can also delegate a representative, that may be a bad time for me.
but I'm not trying to stop, you know, the process as it goes.
but -- probably going to be a bad time for me.
>> would a week later?
would that be all right?
is there a date, Commissioner, that is good for you?
>> no, I -- right now, I know that's a bad time.
so I don't know when you want to have your work session now.
but anyway I don't want to hold up anything.
if not I'll have a representative there.
but anyway that's -- that's as far as I can tell you about that right now.
>> back to the business plan, the -- which is -- as a member of the subcommittee I have seen, I think that it's looking good.
but if we're going to discuss that at the work session or the that seems like that would be worm while to have it distributed to the court.
in enough time for them to have a chance to really review it.
>> so what you are looking for today is direction more than anything else.
>> at this point, yes, sir, that's what we are looking for.
we believe that a work session for this discussion would be very helpful for us.
going forward it will provide us with some direction.
it would give us an opportunity to have the court weigh in so to speak on their thoughts and ideas.
and we'll be happy to -- to provide you with -- with work effort to date in advance of that.
>>
>> [indiscernible] I think that I covered my concerns, just what I stated earlier when I opened the conversation.
>> yes, sir.
>> we have been -- we have tried to be very sensitive to that Commissioner in terms of as susan said we've agreed that -- that anything that would be -- impacting any of those departments, we feel it would be necessary to bring them in, have those discussions get their input.
those discussions simply have not taken place yet.
at this point we're looking for the court to give us direction in terms of -- of ideas and -- and what our strategy is going forward.
>> move approval of the going forward and the new york session.
we recommend parts of the backup memo.
and that you work with the court and try to find a convenient date if there's a date optimally convenient to the five members of the court, more so than October 21st and 28th that we basically aim for that date.
>> yes, sir.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
>> I have more -- I have more discussion.
>> oh, Commissioner Eckhardt, sorry.
>> one thing that I'm concerned about, I perhaps wanted to provide a counter point to Commissioner Davis's concerns.
I too am concerned about facilities management and its, but not that they are not at the table.
I'm concerned that facilities management and its both independently expressed a desire to not be under a manager and to be a stand alone.
I wanted to express leading up to this work session I don't think that that is optimal from an organizational standpoint.
we have a November of external service lines and a number of internal service line, I don't think that facilities management and its should be stand alone management columns under internal services.
but very much -- very much believe they should be under an integrated management plan of internal services.
along with budget and business plan and c.i.p.
planning and debt management and investments and -- and h.r.
and -- and so many other things that we do.
I am concerned about -- about our management structure as it currently stands.
we have -- we have tremendously capable managers, but our structure does little to incent collaboration among other various columns, that what I am most interested in, not only internally, but externally so that we can provide a scaffolding for collaborative effort across governmental entities in the region.
if we can't foster that kind of collaborative effort across columns of our own service line, we are unlikely to be able to -- to facilitate such collaboration with external organizations as well.
>>
>> [indiscernible] very important.
I'm not too pleased with the management structure as it exists today.
I'm not.
I don't mind saying it.
so --
>> why don't we have a list of participants for the work session.
>> yes, sir.
>> and an opportunity for the court to opine and then vote on it at a Tuesday meeting before that.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, then what I need to add on to this, regardless of where we land, I think that county government still remains the government closest to the people.
we need to keep that in mind.
we don't need to do away with that at all.
because I just think that that is the purpose of local government.
we ought to keep doing that as our goal.
regardless of where anybody lands, to know, to let folks know that they are going to be responsive to individuals in the community.
and -- and we must do that at least that should be one of the goals that we have for -- for anything that we -- that we do.
it was the goal for the -- for the reorganization in 1995.
and whether people -- communicated cross-sectionally or not, I think it was not because the court didn't say several times that -- that there had to be cross communication, and action.
to respond to the taxpayers and to be -- let's not create buffers that -- that then protect the office holder or the department head from the public.
I just -- we can't go there.
and I don't want to go there at all.
and so that's my only -- my only caution.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
thank you all very much.
we eagerly anticipate the work session with you.
>> thank you, judge.
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 7, 2010, 2010 6:54 PM
