Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 25, 2011,
Item 9
Number 9, to consider and take appropriate action on the matters related to the Travis County healthcare district board of managers.
a, designation of committee to review applications and create short list for interviews to fill current county appointed vac can i.
b, proposed questions for interviews with candidates and time line and other related issues.
>> good morning.
sherry flemming, executive manager for health and huge services.
we are in the process to move you towards selection of a Travis County representative to the healthcare district board of managers.
as the court requested, we provided you with a summary of the applications.
I would like to note for the record that as we were preparing this summary, we noticed that we miscounted.
we actually had 23 applications instead of 21.
absolutely.
the gift that just keeps on giving.
so we did prepare a chart for you to describe the employment and professional experience of each applicant, their education and their community and civic experience we thought might be relevant to your deliberations.
>> is there a recommended time line?
>> my understanding of your direction was that you were going to select a subcommittee at this session today to co late your ram--recommendations for a short list, which we anticipated would be about ten, then the subcommittee would have the responsibility to reduce to about five to seven.
that was our expectation today.
we did look at your calendars, and the question for the court would be whether or not you wanted to have these on a Thursday work session schedule or do them on a Tuesday, which as you are well aware would require to you finish a lot of your business in the morning and spend the afternoon doing the interviews.
>> how long, can you recall how long we were doing that last time?
>> yes, we actually scheduled them about 45 minutes per interviewy.
and I believe we interviewed about six the last time because we had two vacancies.
45 minutes with about 15 minutes in between.
the court did a really good job of staying on time.
so it can be done.
>> thank you, ms. Flemming.
>> at this point we are looking at February dates.
so we do have some dates from your offices, but the critical question for you today would be a Tuesday or a Thursday.
>> I would suggest a Thursday in order to give it the time it needs.
>> do we have any idea of the Tuesday agenda loads coming up?
>> I expect them to be pretty full.
now, on Thursday, we probably ought to look at the 10th and 14th.
not 14th, the 24th.
for work sessions anyway.
if we want to dedicate one of those to interviewing applicants that would be appropriate.
but there is a list of work session requests.
so what if we, let's aim for February 10 or 24 and just check those, okay?
I guess we can really decide that next week.
>> historically you have not had any other items when you have done interviews in a work session setting on a Thursday afternoon.
>> with regard to, sorry, had to step off the dias a moment, but with regard to the short listing my understanding of our current board members serving wells other bother members who are not our appointees is that there is some concern that they are looking in physician credentials with the current roll-offs?
so I would suggest we short list to those with physician credentials, which would bring us to, I believe, a list of nine.
>> including the two new ones?
>> sorry, I don't know if the two that were added were which two?
>> two more added from last wee.
>> one was an attorney and one was a trect--architect.
>> they were on the matrix.
yes, based on the matrix, I believe if we short listed to those with cre if is shan credentials there would be nine with those two.
>> these two applications came in before the deadline?
>> yes.
>> I have been advised that February 24 is not good for me.
so why don't we look at the 10th and the 17th.
I’ll be out of town on the 14th--24th.
let's look at the 10th and 17th.
>> the 10th is not good for me.
>> not good for you.
let's look at the 17th.
while we are at it, let's look at, okay, the 8th is a Tuesday.
next Tuesday is the 15th.
let's look at the 15th, a Tuesday, and the 17th on Thursday.
we'll just have to try to make one them work.
okay?
>> okay.
is it your intent to approve that date next week?
because we will not contact your potential short list until you have settled on your date.
so we can schedule the appointments.
it's youren tent to approve that date next week?
>> right.
>> okay.
>> I guess my issue with the short listing to physicians is that we kind of went out of our way to invite people with health related experience.
>> sorry, perhaps physician is too narrow.
I would say physician, rn, psychiatric.
might be too narrow.
>> but are they down to how many physicians on the board?
>> yobble --i don't believe there's any on the board with the current roll-offs.
>> yeah, I would have to look at the list.
I think we are, I don't think there are any physicians dr. Cooperwood is on the board.
he is a physician.
>> how many did we have before?
>> dr. Cooperwood and dr. Patrick.
I believe those are the only tw.
>> we had two and now down to one.
>> right.
katrina daniel is a rn and have an insurance professional.
>> judge, I just checked with staff.
the 17th do look favorable at this point for me as far as scheduling a work session.
>> okay.
scheduling is one of those things we can do by e-mail without violating the open meetings law.
so let's look at the 17th and 15th, both of those.
if you are unavailable on one them, if you would just let me know.
my preference would be Thursday, 17th.
if that doesn't work for somebody, we'll have to do it on a Tuesday.
>> all right.
>> it is possible for staff to resort this list based on your direction.
so is there any additional direction?
physician credentials, we can also sort by medical.
we do have, for example, you have a healthcare executive on the list, which more like a healthcare administrator.
someone who is a high ranching official in a healthcare organization.
a couple r n.
we could sort that we.
woo e could sort your physicians and your healthcare professionals.
>> that is what I would do.
>> okay.
>> well, I know i, didn't our invitation express a preference for health related experience?
>> it was among a long list of preferred characteristics.
>> okay.
>> we did not specifically solicit for healthcare professional.
>> those I chatted with I just said health related.
why don't we get a subcommittee of the court to work with staff and try to bring back as short a list as possible with an explanation of I guess more than anything else the ones that we keep in and the ones that we exclude.
how many volunteers do we have?
we usually need two members of the court.
looking at trying to get this done between now and next Tuesday.
>> I would be willing to serve, judge.
>> next Tuesday is February 1.
>> I would be too.
unless somebody else wants to.
>> that is fine woo me, we have Commissioners Huber and Eckhardt who enthusiastically volunteered for this service opportunity.
>> to reduce the list to ten or less?
or--
>> I would say if you can get it shorter than ten, I would say do so.
so as short as possible using this criteria.
now, I think that--
>> using the criteria of?
>> I’d say health related.
what I would do too is look at the current eight members and see what their backgrounds are.
>> staff has that information, judge.
>> I know we got that before.
>> uh-huh.
>> now, we received before some criticism that we did not have on the board an advocate for--
>> neighborhood.
>> neighborhood people, consumers, et cetera.
I don't know that it has to be a consumer.
I guess I would, if in fact that is a void, then I think we ought to take that into account.
>> you did add to your list of interview questions, question number 5 was added during the last interview process, related to the role of neighborhood and home owner's associations as a source of public en--input for the district.
it says what role if any should neighborhood and home owner's association and other sources play for the healthcare district particularly when considering any future clinic locations or closings.
that question was asked during the last process.
>> okay, why don't we bring b back, proposed questions.
>> okay.
>> next week, maybe an additional week to mull over.
if we look at trying to do the interviews on the 15th or 17th, reverse order preferable..
we have the subcommittee to short list.
move that we appoint, that we accept the volunteering of Commissioners Huber and eckhard.
>> second.
>> to serve on the subcommittee, and we shoot to do the interviews on the 15th or 17th.
>> second.
>> and next week decide definitely.
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
we will bring back b and have an appropriately worded way to look at the, to approve the short listed applicants.
>> yes, sir, thank you.
>> anything else for us today ms. Flemming?
>> no, sir, thank you very much.
>> thank you, ms. Flemming.
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 2:19 PM
