Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 20
>> number 20, consider and take appropriate action on request from precinct two constable for additional funds to support a second bailiff for justice of the peace precinct two.
based on what I heard this morning, we need additional information before we can take action on this.
I will need a one-week professional courtesy anyway.
>> all right.
>> now, I guess the law is based on the fact that there is one jp having hearings, and that there ought to be one bailiff present to provide security.
and what the backup says that is in precinct two, two hearings are being conducted same taken usely, there by requiring two bailiffs.
>> that is correct, judge.
>> my question would be how did that develop.
I don't need the answer today.
I'm going to need another week.
how did that develop and was the Commissioners court part of that.
as I recall, the visiting judges that we approved were supposed to come in and provide assistance in the jp's absence.
and we were told that jp's were not allowed to take vacation, sick leave, et cetera, because their case loads would stack up.
and the visiting judges that we agreed to pay for were supposed to help cover those days.
I don't know that I ever thought that we were creating a second court in any precinct.
because there would be additional expenses that we would need to address.
that is kind of a big deal.
the other thing is that when you look at the number of cases, there are different kinds of cases.
the backup here sort of implies that precinct two has more case than others, which might be true.
the question is what kinds of cases are we talking about.
third thing, what we learn from the precinct one request was that the jp's had put their heads together and come up with what they thought was a good remedy.
so I would like the see the system thing --same thing done in this case.
the other thing is the constables.
so I don't know that I appreciate that I think the court should be put in a position of sort of headed in this really dramatically different direction without learning that this is how the constables want to go.
if we do this for precinct two, I think the other constables will what the same thing done for them.
we are using the individualsing judges a --visiting junks here than I thought we would--visiting judges more than I thought we would.
I have not seen a huge budget increase request.
but I guess at some point we need to know how are we paying for this now, what will the additional costs be in the future county wide, beginning with precinct two, so we can really appreciate the fiscal impact in the same manner that we talked about for precinct three.
that is saying a lot, but that is specific information that I think will put us in a position to act and respond appropriatel.
>> judge, on top of that also, if the we go back and reflict on precinct one jp request, judge williams, of course she discussed a the lot of overload as far as caseload is concerned.
in this particular regard dealing with truancy caseload.
in in particular case there's no source of funding.
in other words, that has been laid out here as far as where the source of funding is going to come from.
of course in judge williams' says in precinct one, sh e --she was asking for funding and we looked at it and I made the motion for it to come from allocated reserve.
what I'm looking at is , and all the other judges were involved in the process.
I think what the judge said earlier, everybody looks at the thing and it's again the source of funding.
and the source of founding was not approved by the court even though the motion to be made for the source of funding was to come from allocated reserve.
so I want you had to keep that in mind also, where the source of funding is going to come from.
let's keep that in mind.
nowhere in here that I'm seeing by any shape form of fashion is a source of funding.
the allocated reserve, of coffers, was one situation we looked at in the past as far as precinct one jp, and it was denied.
the motion failed.
motion didn't fail, just didn't pass at that point.
so I want you to make sure you keep that in mind as it comes back.
>> we will.
>> justice of the peace forced this request from precinct two?
>> yes, because it is a deputy possess, it has to come through the constable's office.
>> any other questions?
I think this information is required.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> we have struggled for some time, jp two has, with the considerable docket that is much larger than the other jp's because of the territory and the increased population density.
so that is something we certainly need to address.
with regard to the bailiff thirks certainly under the statutes, that is a core function of the constable's office.
I'm curious, since we have been struggling with this for some time and knew there was going to be additional bailiffer requirements in precinct two, why constable two didn't prepare for that with regard to the diths --distribution of workload among I believe the 39 deputy slots in constable two.
>> Commissioner, in fy 10 we did request a bailiff.
>> that is an additional ft e.
I'm asking about reai just --rearranging the furniture in the existing slot.
>> there was a discussion of a security une ew yit, one to be an additional bailiff.
I couldn't tell you what the decision was.
actually no decision was made.
we did get the three out of the four security units, one the bailiff three for the sipping --single point of entry.
>> these are requests for additional fet--ft e.
what I'm seeing, I'm separating constable five because they are such an outlier.
but of the remaining constables that have law enforcement functions, two has more slots than any of the others.
I'm asking rather than a request for additional ftee what about rearranging the furniture in terms of the distribution of assignment among the deputies?
>> I guess the amount of workload in the civil and warrant side.
it would decrease our area in those areas there.
and we have been doing that, Commissioner.
we have been moving people around, shuffling around to cover the second courtroom and to include a pretrial date two days out of the week.
so we were looking at three to cover that court.
we have been doing that.
we noticed there was a slight decrease in some time, some service times and revenue.
so there are left us with the decision to sit with the judge and constable.
>> maybe we can look at something through planning to my the constables and jp to look at what would be appropriate for capita and docket side metric for staffing and distribution of resources.
I think we are seeing some unevenness.
I think there are probably are some identifiable statistical drivers that we could rely on if we all put our heads together.
so I would ask that in the intervening week, perhaps we encourage a sit-down using roger jeffreys perhaps.
>> he has enough to do already.
we need pbo to give us the fiscal information like the number of deputies.
I think while they have the jp budget, see how the separate court is paid for by all of them.
y'all want us to respond is to this as soon as we can.
>> absolutely.
>> can you wait for this to be a 2012 budget request?
>> judge, the initial reason was to wait for it to be a 2012 budget request.
regardless if we god --got it we were going to put in for it.
we saw the courts starting running in April.
>> who is the second jp out there?
>> we have used judge dias and another judge.
>> your the other judge's name.
linda dias and judge bass.
>> judge bass is a newly ee ect --elected j p.
woo e are using visiting judges.
>> they are functioning two court rooms full time and two dates out of the week pretrial.
at sometimes it's so hectic, people come in, one arrest that has to be made, truancy court now running over the amount of time allotted, which would be eight hours for a bailiff.
>> the second court is operated eight hours a day, five days a week?
>> yes, sir.
>> second court, no.
first court yes.
>> second court is operated how much?
>> again, I would say between three days of the week, two days for pretrial.
>> the county is doing this?
>> yes, we are.
we are.
even myself.
>> how long has that been going on?
>> April.
>> since the end of March.
so early April into March.
>> so I mean--
>> we tried, Commissioners, we tried to balance that and see how far we could go with it.
myself included.
going out there actually working the court.
and whenever I had had free time go in there and giving breaks and relief.
>> the docket is considerably larger.
that is why I think you do have some statistical drivers that we have is to look at.
why is is that docket significantly higher and what should we do about it.
>> randy, we need your help on that.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge perkins bond to also act as visiting judge at jp two.
so now there are three.
>> I never thought they would be working this much.
>> when did we authorize that?
>> that is relief judges.
>> they approved--
>> we all work.
>> this is outside of the court.
>> if there's that much docket, have you to have a judge to hear the case or else there will be back load.
>> randy, we're depending on yo.
>> ready to go.
>> one week or two?
>> two weeks.
>> I'm asking, do you need two weeks or one week?
>> two sound good.
>> two is good with us.
>> I can hardly wait.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your patience.
we will have this court call you much earlier than 10:45.
okay?
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your patience.
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.
