Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 18, 2011,
Item 32
32 is to receive and update from its on the formation of the its advisory committee.
I asked mr. Harlow to come down.
he's been sitting there patiently.
we will call what items you asked about.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> okay.
we'll call them up next.
>> joe harlow, it director for Travis County.
the topic today is more of a status report of where we are on establishing the outside advisory committee and to get any additional direction from the court that you might have today.
we have five candidates that have been recommended by various Commissioners' offices, and we've contacted three of them with very positive feedback.
plan to close the loop on the remaining two this week.
we've got a written response from one of the candidates that describes how he would envision the policy
>> [inaudible] working, and we also have a written email from Commissioner Eckhardt on her thoughts about how that would work.
I have that available for you today if I can pass -- -- if you'd like to take a look at that now or --
>> judge, if I may, I had actually requested this agenda item in part because when we had this before the court several -- several weeks ago, there were some additions to -- categorically to the proposed committee at the time, and in conversation afterwards there seemed to be some concern that that committee had ended up being too large to be really workable and that perhaps we should revisit how these committees are structured -- this committee is structured or maybe in the event of perhaps even having two committees, one being a purely outside advisory board and the other being an internal governance or operational advisory board.
so one of the reasons that I thought this would be good to be on the agenda was so that we might have a little more court dialogue on it so that joe could get some ideas of what our individual thoughts might be along those lines as well.
my concern with the way it came together last time, and I was guilty of adding another member to that.
>> [laughter] and making it larger, is that there were only two or three outside advisory members in the charge of that committee as proposed at the time was rather intensive, and I did not see that we would get the maximum benefit from outside advice by trying to get them into many meetings and long discussions on our internal operations.
so my preference is that we consider looking at a purely external advisory board of professionals that can be a group that the it department can bounce off its decisions and recommendations on and that also provides the court as a backup for candid comments on proposals that come to the court.
>> that is pretty much the way that the written comment we got back from denny hamill, that is one of the candidates for the advisory board.
he felt like we needed two committees as well, and the operations committee, he called it, would be internal, and I think that what we had recommended from the executive manager's planning sessions, a couple weeks ago when that was established, is that, you know, all the financial systems in the county, I think we'd need to have the auditor on that board internally.
and then 70% of what we do is just in public safety planning.
so roger jeffries can represent that group.
then where we go and what projects we do, funding has a whole lot to do with that, and so we recommended that the executive manager over planning and budget be on that committee.
so that's kind of where it was when it came to court the first time, along with the it manager involved in that as well.
so I guess I知 looking for some direction to --
>> well, and I think it's helpful to have some internal folks who have an institutional memory of county where we've been so that we can know where we're going, because I知 sure there would be a really healthy dialogue take place in that manner, have the external folks deal with the internal folks about where we've been and where -- I expect recommendations of where we need to go, and then the court will need to be ready to take those actions.
>> are you talking one committee with the external people on it?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
my concern with that is the way it was structured before you had two or three external people and you had a majority internal.
>> I think it's the other way.
it was the other way.
but -- but I think you mentioned three folks who are really good internally.
>> right.
>> you know, and with some history of where we are, how we got where we are, and then the capacity that the county has in order to meet some of the recommendations.
I fully expect that there are going to be some recommendations for us to take, you know, make certain investments that I hope we're ready to make.
>> I agree, but I think that we had five, didn't we, and what I -- my vision is that these -- the internal operational board as the executive managers and audit that he outlined, are the ones that will work on the planning, bring the history and offer up what the decisions are, and then from a purely technical standpoint, the external people could say, you know, here are some flags, here are some opportunities, and have it separate, because if we have -- my concern is that if we have a vote or a recommendation come out of that committee, that we don't get the benefit of the court -- of the court on purely outside professionals' suggestions, that it's all melded together in one body, and it's not necessarily reflective of a broader range of expertise that might come from a five or six-member technical advisory panel.
>> I agree with the need to have -- the benefits of having two separate groups, one that is essentially a users' group or an e gov committee, which we've long discussed the need for.
>> right.
>> and then having a separate group of outside individuals that are perhaps -- outside individuals that may have one or two internal folks as well working on the committee to help them navigate the byzantium of the government structure.
but I think it's important that these it advisory board have a specific doable charge, they know when they're done, it doesn't go on and on forever.
it goes on for a year.
it's for a transition from our existing executive manager of its to a new executive manager of its, and that that advisory committee of mostly folks from the outside provides us high-level input.
because what we're seeing and what I think -- joe, if you'd like to speak to this, as far as what we're seeing in the it world, is that it changes much faster than what goes on in our other sectors of government service.
personnel changes much faster.
tenure is much shorter with executive managers in this type of work, and we're going to, I believe, and we certainly ought to hear from the blankenship to this regard, that our recruiting challenges will be of a specific species unlike our recruiting challenges in other areas.
and I think we need to use outside folks to help us with those challenges.
>> sure.
>> and use an inside egovernment committee to help us with our day-to-day challenges of get our work done.
I don't think that -- that certainly doesn't mean that they ought not interface and hear from one another, because I think it would be a really education for us, but -- but I think that this -- I think the document that was sent out needs some work, and what -- what would be most helpful to you, joe, as far as the procedure to get that kind of in -- input from the court.
because at the end of the day it appears to me that the egovernment committee is to help the it department in providing services, whereas this advisory committee, while it certainly helps it, it's really an advisory committee to the Commissioner's court.
>> I would both, you know.
we would certainly be working closely with that advisory committee, and, you know, things like where are we going to go with our email system, you know, things like that that the market conditions are changing daily on.
>> uh-huh.
>> and so I think there could be some invaluable advice from them.
I think internally restill need to have some coordination.
it doesn't need to be every elected official in the county, and it needs to have -- which I think with jeffries there, that represents a lot of the elected officials.
then that -- that kind of advice in terms of what projects are we going to fund?
I mean, I can show you some charts of what we've asked for in the budget and what was actually approved and a big gap.
>> right, and we definitely have these circumstances, but my question to you, joe, is you expressed to me like you're not getting a clear message from the Commissioners court, and I agree, because it appears that this document seems to be a little bit of a mishmash.
my understanding, and perhaps I was just off the beam, was that the it advisory committee was a short duration predominantly outside committee to help us recruit the next executive manager of its.
>> well, I think it can be more than that.
>> I think it can be too.
but this has things in it like -- and this concerned me, that the it advisory committee is charged with implementing a cohesive technology service department.
I don't think the advisory committee should be charged with implementing a cohesive technology service department.
>> right.
and that's why we put the document out.
let's talk about what these two committees should do, if there's going to be two committees, and then we can put together some meat on the bone, so to speak, in terms of --
>> right.
and just, you know, on that further, under the charge includes, and I知 just going down it, most of these look to me to be things that an advisory committee should not do, but actually the future executive manager should -- you know, the current executive manager should be working on, develop an it strategic plan that aligns with the county plan.
I don't think an advisory committee should be developing it.
I think they should be commenting on its development certainly.
>> there's another piece of this that we haven't talked about, and that is I think some members of the court wanted to have an it assessment done, so those things would all be looked at in that assessment, I would think, and then you would look to the -- maybe to the advisory board to review that assessment and give you their input as well.
>> perhaps I知 too wrapped around an axle of semantics here, but it seems like the verbiage that's used in the charge and the charge includes is beyond the scope of what we would -- what we would want an advisory committee to do.
it's within shooting distance of it.
we certainly want them to comment and advise us on these things.
>> right.
>> but we can't turn to these private individuals or these executive managers who are being asked to participate in this to develop it performance measures, to develop the strategic plan, to prioritize technology projects.
this sounds like we're asking another group to do what we really need our executive manager of its to do.
>> I agree.
well, no more than -- I do -- we don't have the correct posting for this item, I don't think.
it's really a poster for a briefing.
>> right.
>> and what I知 hearing is we need to reconsider action previously taken by the court, which is fine with me.
but if you ask the five of us you will get three or four ideas about how this ought to work.
>> that's right.
>> I知 agreeable to whatever the court wants to do.
so it seems to me, based on what I致e heard, is that Commissioners Huber and Eckhardt probably should work with you to put together some documents for the court to respond to, and because I have had -- I had one set of ideas when I met with you and your staff.
>> right.
>> modified by our court discussion and action taken.
since then, though, I致e had other ideas, and I don't know that any of those ideas are right.
but it does seem to me that we ought to know exactly what we land on so we can give them to you in terms of discussion and direction.
now, one question is what do we expect the it department to do, then what do we expect the core managers to do with the it department.
then how do we use the external advisers.
we went from what I thought was a bigger number down to three, and at some point talked about fewer than that.
if we want a separate committee of outside people, which I guess outside people come and work with our cash management office and we said at one time
>> [inaudible] after them.
they are appointed in a service indefinitely.
which one runs out of patient or time, that member simply gets off and we appoint somebody else, but they've been around ten years, haven't they?
I mean, ten or 12 years.
I never had in mind an advisory committee for one year.
I had in mind an advisory committee of people who would work with us indefinitely and especially as long as we need them.
if we need them once a year, so be it.
if we need them once a month, we expect them to do that.
we look at our post, we're not really receiving an update.
we're considering action previously taken, which is fine with me, but I think it would be a lot more productive if we had something in writing to respond to.
and if we want two separate committees, one internal solely, which I think we need because there are departments that are heavily it intensive, and we may as well give them an opportunity to provide their say-so up front rather than after the fak.
and the other question is how do we use outside experts who would volunteer to work with us?
and really I知 amenable to whatever we can get from them and whatever they can decide to do.
there are different ways to shoot at that, and I think that what we ought to try to do is put together the best proposal we can, have that discussion in court on the eve of taking action, well, minutes before.
then take action so at least we know how we're going and where we're going, and if we want to modify that we bring that document back and change it, basically.
so I really thought this was more than anything else an update on how we were coming with getting those three people.
it may be that we need more than three.
you know, this may be one of those deals where the more the merrier, especially if they onto meet once a month and really serve in an advisory capacity, which is a whole lot less work than some of these verbs we have here.
so that's how I see it.
you know, we go from an update to really consideration of action previously taken, and the idea that I知 hearing are good ideas, but if you were to ask me for feedback on the same ones they'd be different.
now, I知 not really wedded to mine.
I just have these ideas based on my experience and what I致e been hearing and how I think we ought to proceed, but I will respond a whole lot better and more efficiently if there were documents for us to look at.
so I知 close to recommending that the two members of the court, because only two of us can do it and you-all have work on it quite a bit already, that we come up with some indication of how we use the core team to work withettes, then how we -- its, then how we use the outside folks.
then how do they interact.
how do we get the outside folks to interact with its plus the core team.
>> right, because I think that's a necessary step.
>> them to be real productive and for us to keep them engaged.
if they're not engaged, I guarantee you after 12 months they'll be ready to move on.
but if they're engaged and they see us making progress and they see their work as being valuable, my guess is they'd be in a much better position to continue to assist us.
and we're talking about people who do this every day for a living anyway, right?
so it's really like bringing your skills to us and your opportunity to do some public good and help us promote good government.
you know, I知 convinced there are people who are willing to do that with us.
>> yeah.
>> we have some good candidates from these five, I think.
>> good.
not to hog the show, but we're kind of way beyond update on the formation of an it advisory committee.
right?
>> right.
>> now, I知 -- I知 kind of shifting the work to two other people, but you get the whole court involved and it will take us a whole lot longer to get it done, I think, and a lot of this work has already been done, but the question is who will do this piece?
and in terms of the advisory committee, we're kind of to the point of exactly what will they do for us, who will they be, and we've done some work to go about getting them, and maybe we want to back off of that three number.
you know, maybe we want five, six or seven.
you know, there is -- you can get too many for it to be manageable, but if you have a separate committee of advisory folk and you really want to get their input, seems to me that a number closer to five or six war better.
>> and also a factor in that -- would be better.
>> and also a factor in that is if you're getting people busy in the private sector, they may not always show up at the meetings, because they're running other businesses or doing other things too, so you've got five or six, then, you know, you're more than likely going to have a quorum, so to speak, when you do have meetings.
>> that's how I see it.
clearly based on the language that we have before us.
we're kind of limited to what we can do.
but we can give direction about what work we need to do to have an appropriate item back on in the future, which is what I was trying to -- trying to get to, after kind of considering input that was provided today.
>> sounds like a plan to me.
>> and I know the core team members will want to provide some input at some point anyway, right?
of course the question is in the it area, how can we use their expertise since they'll be impacted by the decisions that will be made, you know, how can they provide that input up front?
and the other thing is, and I would give special attention to the county clerk and the district clerk, because they've got those technology funds, that money, but we need to make sure we know what they're doing and the court approve that because we have to agree to the expenditures of the technology funding that's available by statute.
at the same time, though, you know, they're doing their workday in and day out and know what their needs are.
but I still think that, you know, there are requests being filtered by a larger committee before it gets to the Commissioners court is probably a bit more appropriate than how we function historically.
>> sounds like a plan to me.
>> sounds right to me.
>> more like direction than anything else, but that would get us -- and that's likely to get us where we want to go based on what we've heard today.
so I知 hearing Huber and Eckhardt, you-all agree to accept this opportunity.
>> sure.
>> you've already done most of it anyway, looks like.
>> still working on it.
>> you're a mighty persuasive person, mr. Harlow.
>> [laughter] let's proceed in that direction.
if you need any kind of help let me know, or any other member of the court.
>> thank you.
>> all right on this item?
next time we have it back on it will be a little more specifically.
>> yeah.
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, January, 2011 2:47 PM
