Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, December 14, 2010,
Item 20
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners' court.
we do expect Commissioner Eckhardt to join us momentarily.
item number 20 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, modifications to Travis County code chapter 31, risk management division.
risk resolution.
and b, self insuring judges, professional liability insurance under Travis County code chapter 31 risk management division, section 31.061, professional liability coverage for judicial service.
afternoon.
>> > good afternoon, judge, Commissioners.
we're here to request a couple of changes to chapter 31, the risk management division, otherwise known as risk resolution.
and item a is to request the changes that make this management and administration of a risk resolution a little more efficient.
the first is to recognize under the definition of employee the definition to include judges.
this would affect judges of various courts and as we get into item b it will become clear why we're asking for this definition to be expanded to include judges.
the next item is to increase the settlement authority of the risk manager from 10,000 to $20,000.
back in 2002 the settlement authority was raised to 10,000 and we're asking this to be increased to 20,000 at this time.
because of inflation and other matters, it just would affect settlement a little quicker, and if I represent you at mediation it makes mediation go a little smoother.
the next item is the settlement of external claims by authorizing the risk manager and director of hrmd to authorize a risk specialist to settle claims up to $2,500.
that's for fast track claims, mainly 30-party and/or internal claims of windshield and claims that have lower damage figures that we can settle quickly and move them on off our disk and get the departments, their vehicles back in order and settlement with third parties that we can effect much quicker than we are now.
sometimes taking 30 to 60 days to settle claims when we could do them a little bit quicker.
the next item is to increase the maximum hourly rate payment for outside lieu of counsel to $500 an hour.
right now it's $100 an hour.
and it seems a little bit low for some of the defense -- outside legal counsel that we do have.
this is a figure that again will become somewhat more clear when we get into item b, but this is an amount that we're begin to go see more frequently in some of the outside legal counsel that the court is authorizing.
>> now, I can understand how and why $100 an hour may be too low, but there are a lot of numbers between 100 and 500.
>> yes.
>> how did we arrive at 500?
>> well, if you don't mind, judge, in part that was with consultation with the judges.
routinely we're in the position of deciding what's reasonable and necessary in Travis County.
in fact, we told them that for attorneys of the first order that routinely we are approving attorney's fees in the amount of 600 to $700, and they said they were scared about taking that to court.
and so we settled on a figure of 500.
but if you're trying to retain counsel in this town and you want the best trial counsel, you're going to be paying routinely 600 or more an hour.
and that was just us giving them feedback.
it wasn't any demand or anything like that, but it was just given them feedback of what we routinely see.
>> do we have -- do we have the actual numbers of the hourly rates that we routinely see?
>> we could get those for you.
they range anywhere from $275 up to 500 and $600 an hour.
we don't see them that high that often, but it's our understanding to represent judicial cases that -- specialization required, it does demand that type of hourly rate.
>> so should we put to a maximum of 500 now?
right now it just says to 500.
>> it was our intent just to give y'all flexibility in terms of setting it, but also to approximate.
and I’m sure that there are many people who will bargain their rates down, but I think pure language that it would be up to $500 will take you to the foreseeable future.
you may have to adjust this as the rates continue to climb.
>> and the rate would have to come back to us in any case on a case-by-case basis.
>> I was going to say in subsection 31060,-, it defines that you guys approve the outside legal anyway.
this is just giving it the maximum up to the $500.
no outside legal is going to be hired without your approval anyway.
>> shouldn't we add per hour?
>> not to exceed $500 per hour?
>> that's the intention, right?
that's what the backup says.
I would feel a whole lot better with up to.
that way it would give y'all something to fight with too.
>> exactly.
we would like that.
those are the -- those are the changes that we are requesting under item a.
>> okay.
this is not the -- a power grab by the risk manager and his assistant.
this is to promote efficiency.
>> absolutely.
>> in county government.
>> we would have no more power than we have now, which is not very much.
>> [ laughter ]
>> second.
>> improvement definition of employee and adding the judges, gives the judges a chance to argue with those who claim the judges aren't human, that in fact judges are.
>> [ laughter ]
>> despite evidence to the contrary, judge.
if this is appropriate, maybe I can talk about the changes that are reflected under item 20-b.
and that is we have engage understand an iterative process with dan and his office.
we have traded versions back and I have vetted this version that is before y'all to all 16 of the district judges.
and there is no quarrel and we understand why this is being done.
and it does save the county money and we are satisfied with the language in the present form.
and I would like to take a moment to thank dan and his office because I think at last count we were up to something like 40 to 45 e-mails that have gone back and forth between dan and his office and the county attorney's office, but we're satisfied with the language as it currently exists and think that this is a cost-saving measure that will help the county.
>> I really appreciate that.
and this came about a year ago when we renewed this contract and it occurred to us that this could be a cost-saving measure and provide the judges a greater degree of coverage.
so I too want to thank donna and dan for moving so expeditiously on it after I poked around and asked some stupid questions.
I really appreciate it.
>> we appreciate your help.
>> it seems to be pretty straightforward and it is a cost savings to us.
so with that, scruj, if there's no discussion I would like to move approval of 20-b.
>> second.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> it was for a and b.
>> it was for a and sphwhvment your motion, Commissioner?
okay.
I withdraw that motion.
>> judge, thank you all for being so open to the conversation when I first called you about it.
and carrying the message back to the rest of the judges and finding a level of comfort.
I know it was a huge effort and a certain amount of time commitment.
I really appreciate it.
>> thank you.
>> we appreciate judge dietz's leadership and help.
>> we believe that b will save us 46,000 a year in annual premiums.
>> that's what it says here.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> 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, December 14, 2010 2:33 PM
