Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, March 1, 2011,
Item 11
>> 11 is to approve modification 11 to contract number p.s.
970315 ml, vincent and el kins for legal services.
>> judge, Commissioners, we wanted to get a modification about 200,000, to have the managing bond council assist us in looking at strategies for the development of our civil courthouse blocks.
and as you know, vincent and elkins assigned different experts when we hired them.
they've assigned some top rank bond experts.
and so this is to get that work done.
>> and I only ask that it be brought up because I have a general concern about our professional services contracts, which we've discussed some staff to staff.
and I would like to see us -- I don't mean to single this one out it's the first one that came up since our conversation about it.
this professional service contract has been in place since 1997.
and I have absolutely no beef with the representation that v.
and e.
has been providing to us, particularly with regard to bond council.
I think that gwen opal has hung the moon with regard to bond council.
but I do note that in the last several years that contract has been modified to include representation with regard to -- representation with regard to negotiating the b-6 contracts and now representation regarding public-private partnerships and other alternative financing mechanisms for facilities.
I think that we should consider adopting a policy or a practice of doing the little comparative shopping after five years on a professional service contract.
worst case scenario for v.
and e.
we would find we might want to use another law firm for some portion of this type of work.
but I've also recognized that with regard to bond council we are likely to find that we've made the right choice.
so I would only ask that with regard to these contracts, particularly when we're amending them to include other areas of expertise beyond what the original contract was for, which was bond council, that we do some comparative shopping.
and I did have a question with regard to this expansion of the contract.
was the county attorney's office involved at all in looking at the subject matter expansion?
do we know?
>> right, yeah.
I drafted the document and consulted a couple of attorneys in our office as to the services we're going to be looking for specifically.
with david escamilla.
to get a picture of the contract, the be fit portion of the work, we shop that very closely.
and we found an expert who has since moved from vince and elkins.
so you'll see his new law firm on the agenda probably in the next couple of weeks a new contract with that firm.
so we're looking for specific attorney expertise.
and often times a law firm that is as large as vince and elkins has that expertise.
>> that's true.
I wanted to p make sure vince and elkins is an excellent firm.
I've never had a beef with them.
it's more an issue of general service contracts generally.
it raises the antenna when I see the contract has been in place for over a decade.
not that that's a bad thing.
it may be totally justified.
>> I think in my memory we only have a handful of those.
mr. Patello, the vince and elkins.
and those are the long-running ones.
and there's a long past of trying to get these contracts centralized and managed, administered effectively and efficiently.
>> so I guess per Commissioner eckhart's request, has there been any rendering of the number of professional service contracts that we have in house now?
and if that's not made available, I guess the point is when.
and then to review them.
>> we have a lot of contracts.
there's only a few that are long-standing contract that we have.
our social service contracts in a sense -- they're a group in their own, too.
we could consider those professional services but they're social service contracts.
but I can get you that data.
>> it would be good to have that.
and then I guess the tenure -- well, not tenure but the list of service that these particular contracts have been utilized by Travis County.
I think that's a pretty good point Commissioner eckhart is bringing up.
>> we'll try to draft some sort of policy in cooperation with the county attorney's office and bring it back at some time.
>> I move approval of this item.
>> second.
>> miss paterno?
>> my thinking is being on the back end working with the day-to-day operations of these contracts is that what has happened is, the government's business has just become a lot more complex than it used to be with regard to issuing the bonds 15 years ago was a whole different deal than issuing today.
the other thing is, as we got into line 700 where we also had private entities in there, those issues became more complex.
and vince and elkins has done a superior job of working with us as the complexity of these issues have grown.
they are working on disclosures which 15 years ago my office did disclosures and weren't worried about having legal look at them.
they're very complex now.
the federal tax law as it comes to issuances and what we do with our land and building.
that has become a large issue and came to the forefront when we started dealing with 700.
when we get into, as we're looking at a piece rea public-private partnership, in some respect it's a joint venture real estate deal in some respects.
but in other respects because we're a government, we've got all of the issues with debt -- the issuances, constitutional law, state law, and those really do marry.
I mean, to me they do fit together.
and I think john's right.
going to a firm that has the depth of if we need something they can get someone who can provide that.
and we, too, have been very satisfied, not only with the quality of service from vince and elkins but the speed at which they have responded.
and I think I would be remiss if I didn't say, we got services for them far beyond what we probably compensated them for.
and they did it.
I mean, I think that that's a good thing.
and I feel really good forward that firm because they have given us the service we want.
so just from where I sit, I think that these are complex issues that best serve us by a firm that can bring us what we need, for what that's worth.
>> the only thing I would adis that some of these legal services we can get in house.
david escamilla indicated he wanted to get some outside help for his office.
it seems to me we ought to be precise on when we ask outside legal counsel on legal advice.
to the extent we can get it in-house we ought to do that.
>> sure.
>> well, I had suggested that there be something added to the contract that there was a point of contact directly with the auditor, directly with the county attorney's office, and maybe others, only a couple of designated people are court members that could call him to control that sort of everybody just picking up and calling for legal advice and maybe have only some designated representatives.
john, you might want to talk to that whether you agree or disagree.
>> we can do that.
I mean, do I think that's a good point.
>> and that has additionally been the focus that our office has had communication through the law firm.
>> there's a motion by Commissioner eckhart to approve, seconded by Commissioner Davis.
any more discussion on the motion?
mr. Rhodes, any critical information we need to get?
>> I want to point out, judge, as a point of this modification it's not just for the civil courthouse project but a number of -- susan pointed out, petry related projects and other types of efforts not just specifically to the civil courthouse.
I just want to point that out, judge.
>> okay.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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
