Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 16, 2010,
Item 22
22 is to consider and take appropriate action on recommendations from the management team regarding county reorganization and related issues.
22.
I move that we indicate our intention to have an executive manager of i.t.s.
>> she could.
>> and this would be -- we would find this position with the money from the executive manager of administrative operations and supplement that amount, if necessary, from reserve funds.
any discussion of that motion?
>> yes, judge, I would like to discuss that.
of course I知 going to vote no for it.
I think it's no need to have ani.
to the manager.
I think a chief ought to be specific and to create another layer is inappropriate in my opinion and I just don't think we should go in that direction.
but, of course, I have to do it according to the will of the court, but I just think right now is not the time, and as I stated before, I think we need to go and fill that vacancy for administrative ops and then we can look at this thing again.
but right now we're going well ahead of what we should be doing.
and so -- and so I don't know if that suggests that we will not fill the administrative op executive management position by creating another one.
in other words, we do end up filling the administrative op position with an executive manager it means we'll have seven or eight or whatever, but it's just too many.
and I just think we shouldn't venture down that road.
I really don't.
I really advice us not to go there, but, of course, I値l yield to the will of the court.
thank you.
>> all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis voting no.
I move that we appoint joe harlow to serve as the interim director at his current compensation until the position has been filled.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and your truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> voting no.
that was number 1 on the backup.
comments or should I just keep moving?
>> keep moving.
>> I move that the hrmd report to the executive manager of budget and planning.
>> second.
>> judge, there's another possibility that we went through when we found the administrative operations position closed, and that was that there was a subcommittee of the court to whom the h.r.
department and staff reported.
I thought that that process was a good process, and aside from that I think -- I just have some issues with departments reporting to other executive managers and I don't want to take up all of your time about that, but I think that can be taken care of if we went through the option that will help us get back to basics.
what we are about, where we have been, where we want to go.
and I think that we can answer that question about where they should report on a permanent basis.
but in the interim, I think that the -- we also talked about the subcommittees of the court being in place to be more functional and to have -- come up with solutions for the rest of the court.
so I would -- I would be opposed to that.
because I think we have other alternatives.
>> okay.
>> I oppose it also.
I remember when this court, we met a little bit ago, I guess back in July, I guess, when this particular charge was given to this so-called m-team, I値l say management team, I値l say m team for short.
and received an email which actually put, I guess, four of the positions -- I guess from cyd grimes at the time, of the positions under p.b.o.
which I thought was a bad idea.
it was not only hrmd, but i.t.s., records management, which I -- and hrmd, which I thought was a bad idea.
and here we are struggling trying to make ends meet and, of course, I turned that particular matter for record to the clerk and here we're coming back again with a portion of that
>> [indiscernible] p.b.o.
and believe me, with the way things are going right now, I think everybody needs to hold on to their pants and hold tight because we are getting ready to go through very, very rough waters.
and I believe that we do not need to bring hrmd and anybody else that need to -- as I stated, let's fill the administrative ops position first and go from there, but we're doing it in reverse order it appears.
I can't support.
that I think it's a bad idea.
the many challenges that we have coming up right now in p.b.o.
with our budget concerns, the legislature coming down, it's going to be a lot of tough issues coming up that we're going to have to figure out ways to deal with our money and our budget situation.
so it doesn't make any sense for you to put another department under the department that's going to be a lot of requirements dealing with our particular legislative session this year.
it's very critical to me.
it doesn't make no sense.
so I can't support it.
thank you.
>> if we recommit and reactivate the organization that we've had in place for years, then we would have the subcommittees.
and so there could be a subcommittee of the court that p.b.o.
and hrmd would work with.
>> right.
>> so far we've sort of had a coordinator doing that and roger jeffries has been the one doing that for us.
this would give it a bit more permanency.
all of this is subject to review by Commissioners court at any time that we deem it appropriate.
but for a year we've kind of had it not in limbo but sort of band-aid in place and I think it's worked as well as band-aids normally do.
this would be a little stronger is the intention of the motion.
>> well, and I think I understand that, the only thing I think it also has worked in that members of the court make up that subcommittee to deal with those issues.
the other thing it's not as difficult to have these department heads report to a subcommittee of the court because it's been pretty obvious that each department head knows what -- what they are doing.
and so I think I found that out.
all other departments that were under the admin ops, they know their business, they know what they are about, they know what they have to do.
so it's not like we're trying to -- the court members would be doing the yoemens work and to make sure we really wind up with an organization that -- that is functional, that serves the public first and foremost and then serves this court.
and yeah, I think that we are going to be in for some tougher times as well to the point where I don't think we want to get into position of laying off people.
because it's going to -- it's going to get tougher before it gets better.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Davis.
I move for the next three to six months facilities to danny highbye.
the intention of this motion is we would revisit it in three to six months after we have made a decision on the t.n.r.
executive manager but we would be free to make whatever additional decision we deemed appropriate.
is there a second for that motion?
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
>> yes, judge, for the same reason that I stated earlier that I still feel very strongly that we should fill the vacancy of the administrative ops position, here is another department that was under the administrative ops executive manager and it's being stripped away so it just appears we won't be having executive manager with administrative ops if all of the departments have been deployed everywhere else.
that's the way it appears to me.
so again, I oppose it because it doesn't make any sense what we're doing, it doesn't add up.
>> my own feeling is it would make sense for facilities to report to t.n.r.
or be part, but mr. Geiselman has previously announced his retirement.
we're this the middle of a selection process, three to six months would give us an opportunity to get that new executive manager of t.n.r.
on board and an opportunity to get accustomed to the Travis County way of doing things.
I致e chatted with mr. Highby and he has graciously accepted on a temporary basis if the court deems it necessary and appropriate.
I should say that did he not eagerly solicit this, but I don't know that there is a better decision at this point.
>> the only thing that I can think of, again, is a committee of the Commissioners court to have facilities report to that subcommittee.
and again, it's not like we're going to have a lot of work to supervise because I do feel like these departments know what they are doing, they have done their job, and so I -- but danny highby being so gracious, I truly appreciate it and I think that's a terrific alternative.
>> I should add that I did also chat with mr. El khoury.
this would be another band-aid but include out intention to revisit it in three to six months.
any more discussion?
>> I would just like to say I知 okay with this too, but as we move forward making choices and selections about who departments report to, I think we need to take the personalities out of it and look at what's best for the county as a whole.
>> absolutely.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I知 on board with this interim solution although I know it's not a tight fit and I知 looking forward to what came out of our work session with regard to moving forward with the business plan so we can take a look at these alignments and what is truly best for the county.
I think that ultimately -- I知 going to make a bold prediction here, but I think that ultimately our internal resources, whether they are capital, human or -- capital or human resources, need planning.
where we are massively deficient in i.t.s.
and facilities have been that we have not been strategic and that I think that we will find that budget and planning for our human resources and our capital resources work very well under one umbrella.
I think that transportation and natural resources has -- has been organized extremely well, it's a very deep bench.
it also has a lot on its plate and I don't know whether capital improvement planning should be added to it, but that will be a conversation for three to six months from now.
>> I should add that in my conversation with mr. Highby, we pulled his resume and dusted it off and lo and behold there was facilities management experience there.
>> really?
>> [laughter]
>> yes, about eight year's worth.
>> see?
at the city of Austin.
I didn't even know that.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis.
>> no.
>> voting no.
>> I move that we encourage the -- move that the executive management team move forward with the creation of a information technology advisory board as outlined in the backup.
I would include purchasing as a part of that as well because of the high dollar volume that's involved with i.t., and I would also include in motion that we look for three external members who are experts in the field but do not have a conflict of interest with the county.
and I would also add that once this board is fully formed that it work with hrmd in coming up with a more well defined job description for the executive management of i.t.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
>> yes, it just appears that we're doing things after the fact.
in other words, doing an assessment, it appears that your whole executive management and the departments under executive manager should be assessed.
you are assessing, of course, i.t.
in this particular case, but ought to be assessment across the board.
this whole reorganization stuff came about because of the termination of a couple of people, and, of course, that happened and since it happened looked like everything turned upside down.
and it really is incomprehensible to me to see the assessment that's being initiated now having been done before to assess all these departments, see if you are up to snuff.
right now I知 really not sure that the assessment that we're looking at now, whether it's outside, internal assessment, should have been done in a lot of instances.
again, we're going to be going through so I very critical times, and when these hard times hit the county, I hope everybody is prepared to face what reality is out there.
so again, I just don't think it's a proper time to do all of this, and again, I do not support what we're doing.
again, I think that -- and you've heard it before during the work session, I think I said it over and over and over again, but I知 going to say it today also, and that is that we need to have filled that position for executive manager for administrative ops.
so I know you've heard that many a time.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> would Commissioners Huber and Commissioner Gomez find it friendly to add items 3 and 4 to that motion with regard on a readiness assessment, mission critical projects currently underway, and then also the creation of internal advisory committee once the e.m.
is on board?
>> I was going to make that as a separate motion, but I知 happy to include it.
I would like to add if we're going to include that that under the readiness assessment that they also take a look at what it would be entailed with a full i.t.
audit of the county.
because if we're looking at pieces, we need to be looking at the whole and we know there's some serious concerns out there that need to be addressed.
so I知 not saying identity, but I知 saying take a look at what it would cost and what the process would be.
>> a better word in place of audit.
>> what we had thought when we laid this out because we had heard concerns from the court is that the first thing we would do is have an outside assessment of the projects that are in stream right now to give kind of an idea when we recruit as to what is on our plate and what that situation is.
and then once you -- once you have your board together and you've got a new e.m., that person would still have some funds left to decide whatever kind of assessment, whether we called it an audit or assessment.
that's kind of the way we worded it here, to give, I guess, credence to where you wanted to go but not lock it in so.
because we talked about doing the whole thing first or after and we thought this probably made sense, do the assessment of what we've got now, will rep us recruit and get the knowledge of the board and a new person.
that was our thinking on that.
>> my thinking is that the job descriptions out there in i.t.
are so broad and detailed in different categories that if we had at least a picture of what our entire needs are, it might help us focus better on the individual that would help us the most.
>> would you like that recommendation to come after an advisory -- an advisory board is set?
I mean that could be something -- are you all right with that?
>> yes.
>> we kind of didn't know when we were talking back and forth, but we could do that and then come back to you, if that's all right.
>> that would be great.
>> the motion before us is to appoint an i.t.
advisory board made up of the core team?
including -- they've listed here.
e.m.
for justice of public safety, executive manage information information service technology --
>> item 1.
>> yes.
>> three external members.
>> who is chief information officer?
I didn't know we had one.
>> that's joe's position, but that would be vacant.
>> okay.
got you.
now it's changed already.
>> so basically 1, 3 and 4.
>> but add purchasing to that list.
>> Commissioner, would there be a problem if we also added danny given the recent assignment for facilities because there will be some facilities discussion as a part of the assessment.
>> that's probably a good idea.
>> would that be okay?
>> uh-huh.
>> not to volunteer you.
>> just be sure -- I have added three for the external members.
I want them to have a good balance with the expertise they are bringing to that board.
>> yeah, and what we tried to do is get it enough to cover all the interests but not so big that it's this massive group that never can meet together and not where we overwhelm the outside.
I moon there wasn't a perfect number.
this is just what we thought.
and the other thing is there's nothing to say we can't come back to have you add or if someone is on there and doesn't want to be on there.
it's not as if this is etched in stone.
>> is the addition friendly?
>> that's fine.
the one about -- which one?
>> the advisory committee.
>> that's fine.
well, the only thing that I have with adding another person, giving him more responsibility is that we wind up with having an executive manager with a lot on her plate or a lot on his plate.
and in addition to that, we want them to -- to continue dealing with the complicated issues that they deal with on an ongoing basis.
and we pull them out and then when they tell us that their plate is real, real full, we just say oh, well.
and so is there somebody else who doesn't have as much on their plate who would take that over instead of danny?
>> Commissioner, if I could, I would like to be on it because of the fact I think the connection needs to be there.
and since my plate is full anyway, you know, I would rather be on it than not be on it.
>> okay.
>> I really appreciate you mentioning that.
>> just so you have a say.
>> yeah, I think it would be beneficial.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and your truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
item 6 and 7 are the only two left on the memo.
I recommend approval.
>> would you consider friendly amendment to include the paid facilitator on the as needed basis?
that was in the discussion at the workshop and I think there are times that could benefit.
>> I consider it friendly when you say administrator, and if we have to pay them.
that's friendly to me.
>> I don't have the memo.
would you read out these items?
>> 6 really is authors permanent creation of the management team with an assigned chair or designated liaison as determined by the team members or Commissioners court.
7 is recommend the management team to work on the following items: completion of the business plan, using an outside -- this is a paid facilitator.
my commentary would just be paid or unpaid.
b, present recommendations on the outcomes of the business plan.
c, commit to an annual retreat with the Commissioners court to discuss outcomes of the goals and objectives established in the business plan.
and d, set annual training for all of the executive managers -- or all the executive -- all the management team and Commissioners court.
>> okay.
>> so that's a hold the court members' feet to the fire motion to.
the court team is getting bolder and bolder.
>> it's time.
>> do we have a second, miss porter?
who was that?
Commissioner Davis?
>> Commissioners court Eckhardt.
>> a little Commissioners court humor.
>> [laughter]
>> I will withdraw my second if you would like to make it.
>> you all know I知 going to vote -- I don't even know why I went to the work session.
you know what I said there I知 going to say here.
but y'all are glad to feed me, look like.
look like you were glad to see me.
>> yes, sir, we were.
>> I don't know if you were.
ain't nobody agreed with nothing I said this morning.
I知 batting a thousand, though.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis batting 1,000.
>> Commissioner Davis voting against.
anything else regarding this item?
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all very much.
appreciate your cooperation.
well, let's see if we can get -- now, julie joe wanted us to try to take the legislative item.
>> we do have the historic commission that's been sitting here all morning.
>> I thought they didn't want to say anything.
>> that was on the grant item.
they also have -- 24.
>> 24.
sorry about that.
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, November 16, 2010 3:20 PM
