Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 8, 2011,
Item 15
>> 15 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following matters related to the Travis County healthcare district board of managers.
a, short list of interviews to fill current county appointed vacancy.
b, proposed questions for interviews with candidates.
and c, interview schedule and other related issues.
>> yes, good morning.
>> mr. Ecstein, we'll have your item next.
>> good morning, judge, sherry flemming, executive manager for health and human services.
we do have a subcommittee and I will yield to Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> we have met and first and foremost went over the pool of applicants in light of our conversations last week the see if we had sufficient applicants to consider for a client advocate/neighborhood advocate.
we didn't feel that we had sufficient applicants to really fully consider representation from that category.
although we could, there was a discussion about the possibility of reopening the application period to specifically solicit for that type of applicant.
in the intervening week, the healthcare district has also sent us, in the person of trish young, had sent out an e-mail to address, to at least respond to some of the concerns.
I値l pass that down.
essential her e-mail speaks of their planning process and their outreach process on an interim plan to go through all neighborhood associations that would be affected, to receive inyou before the interim plan went forward into final phase, as well as speaking to the role of the healthcare district's board in contrast with the role of the community care board.
and she details there with regard to the community care board, that there is a requirement and that requirement is with regard to client representatives on that board.
so in having gone back to the list, and also reviewing trish young's e-mail as well as the skill sets of the people currently serving on the board, we again urge as a subcommittee a preference for someone in the medical community, either a nurse practitioner or a physician, to augment the skill set of the current board, with the caveat that we could do additional research moving forward in anticipation of our next healthcare district appointment, to look at the need for and a recruitment strategy for a client advocate, neighborhood advocate.
>> I reviewed the e-mail late yesterday myself and sent ms. Young my response.
basically there are two responses.
first is that my major problem is that when we received zero applications in response to the invitation, we really expanded the qualifications in order to get applications.
we said if you have health related experience, expertise, please apply.
based on the applications that we received, a lot of people responded to that.
and to me, you know, it is unfair to later go back and say, in spite of all the applications we received, that in response to our broader statement of qualifications, we want to narrow that to nurses and physicians.
I personally think that we ought to stick to the qualifications that we said we would apply.
the second one is that I disagree with ms. Young that the average Travis County resident would view community, unity care board service, as being of the same manage today as the board of managers.
the board of managers is viewed as being a lot more significant, a lot more critical to healthcare in our community.
now, it may be that a physician or rn is the best qualified for this vacancy.
if that is the case, it won't bother me if we make that selection.
I don't think we ought to close the door on the other applicants because they are not a physician or r n.
if that were the two criteria, we should have state that had up front and stuck with it.
when we broadened the qualifications, we committed ourselves to consider a broader group.
that is not is to say that we will exclude a physician or rn and prefer some other cat --category.
whatever the majority of the court wants do is fine with me.
however, I strongly believe we ought to stick to the statement that we gave and look at the broader set and make our decision.
the question really is who would complement the board best at this point.
and I think that it would turn on a lot of things other than your title.
the other thing is that the community unity care board, my guess is 90 percent of our residents have no idea of what that is.
even the county judge is a little uncertain about it.
but I am completely knowledgeable of the board of managers because since we expanded healthcare and increased our investment in the taxing authority, we created an entity with a whole lot of power.
that is the healthcare district board of managers.
>> I guess what I would ask the court, some additional guidance to the subcommittee at this point.
because it appears that the category of applicants that we have include doctors, nurses, lawyers, business people.
and would you like us to get one of each from that category?
>> well, if you are asking me can I recommend to the subcommittee two more people who are not physicians or nurses, I can have that to you this afternoon.
and when I looked at the list, I mean if I were on the subcommittee, there are three or four that I would choose.
and if you are looking at four already, two nurses and two physicians, I can come up with two nonphysicians and two nonnurses.
if the court authorized me to do that, give me until one hour after we adjourn today, and I was hoping we would adjourn early and have some time this morning.
>> that would be fine.
that is clear direction.
two nurses, two doctors, and two not those things.
>> the county judge would feel real good if we do that.
now, I知 just speaking for myself.
>> okay, and judge, will you be suggesting the two not doctor and nurse?
or would you like the subcommittee to select two not doctor or nurse?
>> based on your statement a minute ago, I thought you were about to empower the judge to do it.
>> I知 good either way.
>> we need all the help we can get.
>> I walked in this morning feel real down, ms. Flemming.
now I feel a whole lot better.
I feel like I知 part of this group.
one hour after we adjourn, I値l get it to you.
any objection to that, ms. Flemming?
>> no, sir, not at all.
just want to condition this subcommittee update.
in light of our due diligence in selecting our group of interview ees, I would suggest that we might look at a different date for interviews rather than next Tuesday, which is the date that the court had been considering.
I have taken the liberty of checking in with many of your staff.
looks like we're looking at potentially sometime in March, with preference for a Thursday over a Tuesday, unless the court has a different preference that you wish to communicate today.
I do know that there are some scheduling issues underway with maybe some other departments around the 3rd or 10th.
in speaking with the judge yesterday, maybe we should resolve before we attach this work to one of those dates.
would that be correct, judge Biscoe?
>> last time we tried to get a Thursday in February and we ran into all kind of scheduling conflicts.
which is why we moved to Tuesday.
if we need more time, we need a Thursday, then based on what I have heard, we are looking at March 10, not the 3rd, right?
>> yeah.
>> I think there's a conflict with the 3rd.
this is one of those exercises I think it would help the full court to be present if fobble--possible.
if we do Thursday March 10, we could start, say, one o'clock.
>> yes.
>> and get all in by five.
>> I did speak with Commissioner Gomez's staff yesterday afternoon and they did show her as free on that date unless something has changed or had not been noted.
the 10th looks like it may be viable if the court is interested in us trying to sets up for that date.
the plan would be that we would come back to you next week for you to approve the list of candidates.
then once that was done, staff would begin to set up and schedule those interviews for, sounds like, March 10.
>> any problem with that date?
>> no, that is a good date, judge.
>> that will work for me.
now, I guess we need the let ms. Young and the board member in holdover capacity right now know that we won't fill this in February.
>> we can do that.
>> we're looking at March.
and that may require him, this e meet monthly, right?
>> they do meet monthly.
and I will pass that information on.
>> I know his life may be on hold until we fill this.
he really has been cooperating with us and continuing to serve.
okay.
>> okay, then finally, you should have had at each of your places, and you may choose not to deal with this today, but the sub committee did work on the questions a bit as we were directed.
so you will note, you have nine questions, hopefully you have a sheet at your place that looks like this.
eight and a half by four teen sheet.
a couple questions we revised and a couple of new questions we added to the list.
certainly not necessary that you take action today, but this is the final piece of our subcommittee home work that we completed.
I could say, though, that your final list, the final number will impact the number of questions that you will want to ask, in order to make full use of the time that you have allotted for your interviews.
>> I think we ought to ask ms. Young to give us the five most important, most critical issues for the healthcare district.
I think I know three of those, but I知 interested in getting her five.
>> okay.
>> I think we have a little bit more time.
if we schedule the interviews for March, and we can get that in the next 7-10 days, it would help me and hopefully help us.
>> okay, we will certainly make that request.
I知 sure we'll have it next wee.
>> I just have a list, I知 hoping it's something that she can just giver off the top of her head.
I知 not asking, hopefully not imposing additional work.
>> I think she should be able the respond rather quickly on that, judge.
>> okay.
>> thank you much.
>> on so on this, let's look at it and give ourselves a final deadline to finalize the questions.
if we had our druthers, would we choose nine questions?
do we want to try the reduce this to a smaller number?
>> we started reducing.
we got the nine.
>> moving in the right directio.
>> I would say eight and nine are more closout questions.
so the meat of your questions would be in one through seven, eight being limitations on your time.
nine being an opportunity for the applicants to ask you questions.
so 1-7 would be the best place to focus your attention if you wanted to reduce that number.
>> okay.
but if we do the interviews in 30-40 minutes, we think we ought to be able to get all these questions in?
>> yes, sir, woo e have previously.
we have actually asked ten questions.
we have scheduled, I think we had 7 -8 the last time, about 35 to 45 minutes.
we can do it.
>> okay.
thank you.
we can get a net that Commissioner Gomez should be here around 10:30, just a few more minutes.
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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
