Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 32
Number 32, consider and take appropriate action on update from staff and charge regarding the integrated justice system committee.
a, briefing on electronic disposition reporting and b, creating an office of court administration, oca, subcommittee for stakeholders utilizing the edr committee as a model and receive briefing on oca reporting status.
good morning.
>> good morning, sir.
for the record, I'm steve capel, assistant county attorney but I'm not here in that capacity.
I'm here in the capacity of he elected chairman of the electronic data committee which is known statutorily as the data advisory board.
if you recall in may of last year you approved the creation of that board for statutory reasons, we are required to do that, and since then and actually before the creation of that board, we have been meeting both formally and informally to solve some of the data reporting problems. The board is made up of the representative i.t.s., the district clerk, county clerk, district attorney, county attorney, tcso, and the a.p.d., although a.p.d.
has been in attendance, they have not shown up for every meeting.
we meet at the first about every week it seemed like.
about 12 to 20 of us, and since then every month we've had a meeting.
the purpose of that, as you recall, is that we report statistics and always have reported statistics to d.p.s.
as required by statute, and d.p.s.
then formalizes that and accepts those.
the goal of this committee is statutory and that is to have a 90% disposition, acceptance, reporting right by January of 2013.
that's what the statute says.
to understand what that means, you need to also understand as we explained to you when we created this that d.p.s.
looks back two years for your statistics.
so it's a two-year -- a look of two years back every year.
and so what we're talking about in 2013 are the statistics for 2011, 2010.
they kind of double years and report it so we're looking at 2011 and 2010 and some of 2013.
so to give you an idea where we have been and where we were, in the January 10th report, the five months prior to the commission -- Commissioners court approving appointment of this committee, our percentage, according to d.p.s.
recording completion rate was 38%.
when I say that, let me explain to the court what that means.
>> that was January 2010?
>> January 2010, yes, ma'am, 38%.
we have not been disposing of 38% of our cases.
we've been disposing of a lot more percentage of our cases.
this is not a grading of how well the courts operate, how well the various prosecutors offices operate or how well tcso inputs numbers on arrests, it's a grade based on the reporting system that d.p.s.
has.
and when I saw the reporting system d.p.s.
has, you also need to understand that for every case, every item is reported to d.p.s.
that requires a total of 116 separate fields for each person that is arrested.
tcso is responsible for about 40 of those.
the prosecutors for about 20, and the clerks for about a little over 40 again.
so of those you are graded based on whether all 116 of those points not only agree but are accepted into the computer system at d.p.s.
as all computer systems are set up, they operate on a code system.
so each offense in the penal code has its own code.
not just each offense, but each possible out come for that offense under the penal code and code of criminal procedure has a separate code.
each of those codes is eight digits.
so once you get past the name of the individual, the county where they reside is a code, I think we're at 227, if I can remember correctly, then everything else, most everything else is an eight-digit code.
I can show you those codes.
we have now 2,000 active codes at d.p.s.
and we have 5,000, approximately, inactive or historic codes.
so any case that's older than those two years when they change the codes has to be reported on the old code.
so we deal with about 7,000 possible codes, eight digits each, so you can do the percentages and know enough about computers and input from looking and reviewing your letters or emails of how often a stroke of a key can send you off in a different direction.
so the computers burp out the wrong percentages and there is also human error.
as a result of appointment of this committee, we have worked diligently talking about how our system, business practices work in the county from the input at tcso levels when they are booked at the jail through the prosecutor's decision on the filing through the reporting by the courts of what happens and how that reporting is reported.
and we've learned a whole lot in that process of how each one of these agencies and independent elected officials' operations coordinate in the computer system.
and as a result of that we were as I said in January of 2010 at 38%.
for the year 2008, keep in mind, 2008, as of January 11 we were at 45% for the year 2008.
and as of the last time that we talked to d.p.s.
and did the numbers ourselves, d.p.s.
says we're at 78%.
we say we're at 82%.
so we're in discussions with d.p.s.
about how they arrive at their numbers because they don't seem to agree with how we arrive at our numbers.
but I'm more than happy to -- the other decision we made not only being at 90% as required by the statute in 201 for the cases in this period, but there was an issue with -- because of the percentages, if they were correct, that we were only reporting 38% cleared their process.
in other words, were totally correct in their process only 38%, what happens to the rest of them.
those are considered to be open cases by d.p.s.
so the committee made a decision to go back from 1998 to the present and to review all those open cases and reported those and see why they had not been reported correctly, whether it was computer glitch, bad code, bad entry, wrong order of the entry.
it won't -- d.p.s.
won't accept it if one of the parts isn't reported in a certain order.
so we were in the process of going through that and we're almost near the completion of that, of going back all the way to '98 to report all the cases that were open.
so we are hopeful and anticipate by 2013 for reporting the year 2011 we will be close to 90%.
if you look at the d.p.s.
statistics for all the other counties, there's only one that's above 90%, that's harris county.
I haven't talked to them to figure out how they do that, but all the rest of the counties are in the range of 80%.
the large counties.
some of the counties, small counties are way lower, but if you only have ten cases and you only dispose of half of them, you are at 50%.
so there's some glitches just based on the number of cases.
but that's to give you an idea where we are and where we've been.
I think we've had tremendous amount of dedication by all the people on the committee.
I don't know why I was elected chairman other than the fact I knew the least so when I sit in these meetings with these 20 people and they start talking codes and xs and os my head hurts, but they seem to be working well together because the percentages are going up.
rod is here from i.t.s.
if you have questions specifically about any of the numbers on the edr stuff, more than happy to talk with you about it.
>> what's our schedule of auditing the data?
>> the data is being audited as we're going back to old cases, that's a constant, that process and the old cases, which once we identify looking at why this case did not go through and was not completed, we can see the data and see, well, it doesn't have a -- this code in it.
well, who's responsible for that code so we go back and look.
can we create a business process.
we found certain types of offenses, for whatever reason, the way that the system, internal systems for the various agencies and various operations didn't enter it.
didn't know we had to enter it or we entered it incorrectly.
keep in mind they get, not me, but the people in my office and the team in rod's office and tcso and the d.a.'s office get on a monthly basis a code update from d.p.s.
so sometimes it's just somebody didn't notice that the code changed.
>> any way that can --
>> they send it to us, Commissioner, by email and they send the other stuff, but some of us are just plain communication, just making sure everybody that's data entering is doing it the same way.
>> with regard to performance audits, and that's exactly the benefit, he we did a performance audit and we saw a leap from 38% to 78% in a year.
that's amazing.
have we ever done a performance audited prior to being required by statute?
>> I have no idea.
since I didn't get involved in this until I went to my present position and until pointed out the statute had passed.
and so --
>> to my knowledge there hadn't been any prior audit done, but what we have in place now is the ability to download the case data or the arrest data from d.p.s., compare it to our system and generate reports to do an ongoing audit.
we can run that monthly.
>> it would be good to take what we have learned from this statue tory required performance audit and apply it to other data that we keep so that we ensure that the effort is worth it.
if the data we're keeping is inaccurate to the tune of being only in the 38th percentile for completeness, then why are we spending the money to do it?
>> janice brown, i.t.s.
there were some reports that were out there, however, even identifying lacking data elements here or there, we had a series of issues.
and one of the issues was also within our business process.
and I think that's one thing that has brought us really forward with this committee is that we all are now kind of on a level playing feed and we all understand where we need to go.
one of the things that we have done with the new -- we built a new application and we have absolutely put in some of those tools that there's a front end web page that you can actually see the data, and we're building a dashboard so that you can kind of tell what -- you know, what is our performance, because it is important to have performance measures going forward so we can see are we lack, do we have a red flag that we need to address.
and so that was one of the things that the committee suggested and recommended, as well as a series of exception reports that we're working on.
so we're trying to build in all these safeguards so that we don't end up in this situation again and that we continue to move forward.
>> that's great.
with regard to the charge of the advisory board that was created in may 2010, that only went to the edr but we have a similar situation with office of court administration.
so based on what we have learned in this advisory board's experience in cleaning our edr reportage, is it -- would you all recommend that we expand the charge of the advisory board to now address the ota issues?
>> well, I think that there's always been movement in that regard, and the office -- our internal office of court administration with deborah and mark irwin along with the county clerk's office has started meeting to kind of take a similar approach and try to address some of the issues that have been identified for oca and move forward.
so yes, I do think that that is a sound approach and so far we've met two, three times and I think that that is moving forward.
that's a very positive movement.
>> so with regard to those who are on the ad hoc committee that was self-created on the oca, what's the overlap between the advisory board and this ad hoc oca committee?
>> the only person that is -- deborah's office, our internal Travis County office of court administration was not involved in the edr other than just in talking to the clerk's office.
oca is the clerk's office on behalf of the courts report to go the office of court administration.
so e.d.r.
doesn't report to the office of court administration, it's d.p.s.
so there's different agencies, but the only one that is -- o.c.a.
doesn't -- it bases off arrests so the sheriff's office is involved in that, but they are taking the data that we have, but the prosecutors are not --
>> directly involved.
>> -- directly involved in the o.c.a.
reporting.
so it's the clerks on behalf of the courts that are making the reports.
I just will say that I can turn my computer on and I -- well, I couldn't the other day when they converted me, but I can turn my computer on and I can get the information that I need to get to do my job, but I'm not anywhere near doing the stuff that the people in the sheriff's department and my office and the d.a.'s office and i.t.s.
with regard to these systems. And I think one of the big benefits of what the data advisory board, the e.d.r.
board did, was we sat for many hours in a room talking about each person's procedure and operation, and sometimes the -- it was the ah-hah moment was, well, if you do that, then that's going to cause x to happen for me.
and you didn't know -- no one knew that was what it was.
it wasn't that anybody was doing anything wrong.
we just didn't know -- the various agencies were trying to report the best way they could.
and you would go you mean that changes how you report it?
yeah, it does.
so it was more the communication and it was the realizing what this operation is -- a little off topic.
but the c.u.c.
projects that you authorized a couple months ago a that we're spending tons of hours, we're the first ones up and the courts are getting ready to guinea think next month is the same kind of stuff.
it's sitting in a room going through each minutia of the business process to figure is that going to work or not going to work if we do that.
and if you do it this way, what does it affect somebody else in the system.
and so that's the I think the benefit of this project that you approved e.d.r.
was we kind of know when we want to make a change, first thing we bring -- our office makes a change, if we do this what happens with the rest of you guys.
>> that's exactly my point.
I think e.d.r.
is an example of success and I'd like to scale that success to some of our other areas where we have what appears to be a failure of communication so that one department says I don't care what the other department over here does, I need this and I need it now and I'm just not going to wait for somebody else.
or another department says I need your help, department x, and department x says you know, really not now.
my plate is too full.
find another way around it.
I mean this is exactly why we get into these sorts of circumstances.
so what I'm asking is for us to scale the data advisory board experience so that it's applicable to o.c.a., for instance, or facts or other issues in the j.p.s that we're seeing because I'm hearing over and over again from the conference of urban counties that unless we know what's going on in each corner of our county, we will be -- we were lucky this time that this piece of legislation required us to do something that was productive.
there are oftentimes pieces of legislation that require us to do things that are not at all productive.
but we don't even know it until after it passes.
because we don't know what each other does.
>> so --
>> I can't elaborate on that, but on the e.d.r.
you want to do with o.c.a., our office will do what you tell us to do.
>> we're supposed to be at 90% by January 2013?
>> January of 2013 for 11.
>> do we expect to be there?
>> I would hope we were.
there has been some debate with the way we do the statistics and the way d.p.s.
does the statistics that I don't know whether that is physically possible.
I will say that the legislation says 90.
our goal is 90.
d.p.s.
dead in the committee hearings they thought the percentage should be 75.
the legislature chose to put 90.
so I think the reason for that is that d.p.s.
knew the state of many systems. They also knew the intricacies and I think we're doing very well to be in the 80% and above range and that's -- you know, we're catching up is what it is and we've already made that and that's a pretty big jump from 38% to 82% in a year.
>> we finally have somebody contact harris county and see what they are doing?
>> yes.
I wanted to get our percentage up so I don't go steal stuff from them, but I want to ask them how they get to that percentage.
>> remind us what the state does with this data.
>> the data is published on a monthly basis and yearly basis.
there's a final report for every county in the state for the two-year period, and it's a strange report in that it talks about the two years in question, but that are final numbers that will stay that way forever, but it gives you a hint because then it goes to the next year to say where you are as of that year that is not the final year yet.
so you have this continuing report with regard to specifically what is -- has been cleared through them.
and that data is used by d.p.s.
this -- this focus is on the e.d.r.
is not so much to generate data to be mined, which you can do, o.c.a.
is kind of that way.
this is the stuff that goes into the criminal court record so that when another law enforcement agency wants to find out whether steve capel has ever been arrested and what for and what happened to his case, they can go look at it and they will see the result of it and it will be accurate.
there's always been the option when -- and we do this as prosecutors, when we go look at a record for an individual and it says they were convicted in cameron county or they were arrested in cameron county and there's no conviction there, we're going to call cameron county and we're going to find out.
and we know that for trial purposes I've got to have the certified records from that county anyway if I'm going to use it for a prior on both a felony.
so you do that, the records are there, it's just a question of whether they are all there and whether they are 100% complete and that's what we're working on is to complete those records.
they go to segis so we know what happened to every person arrested.
>> I'd like to ask for specific deliverables of the o.c.a.
committee.
I'm very gratified the committee has been developed and aleast according the the backup there's at least three i.t.s.
participants on the i.c.a.
committee.
I would like the -- I would like us to formally bless the o.c.a.
committee and have reports brought back to us with regard to as in the e.d.r.
experience what the performance audit of our o.c.a.
numbers is revealing, how we're improving it and what the improvement is over time.
>> since I'm not in o.c.a., may I step back and let --
>> the briefing thus far has been --
>> on e.d.r.
32 a.
>> no action required?
>> no action required.
>> okay.
32 b, dana and joe.
>> would you like to hear about the o.c.a.
committee?
>> we have the list of the people on the committee.
I would just like us to go ahead and acknowledge its existence, ask for reports from it which would include what the performance audits reveal, how we're addressing it and the winning methodology that e.d.r.
applied.
>> great minds think alike.
that is actually how I designed this committee and I'm certainly hoping that's exactly what we're going to come back with.
I so admired steve capel's work and big shoes to fill and I hope we can do exactly the same thing.
I do have a handout.
I was not included in the routeing on this item, but I do have suggestion for you today if I may hand them to the court.
>> we're post to do receive aeda briefing.
who gives that?
>> excuse me?
>> we're posted to receive a briefing on the reporting staff us.
>> I don't know who you would receive the briefing from.
the county clerk is the only office left in the o.c.a.
reporting.
but I was not included in your routing so I'm not sure what the intent of the sponsor was, but to try to make it easy on the court today --
>> just to report o.c.a.
data, correct?
>> correct, however, let me make it very clear.
the district clerk left the i.t.s.
tiburon system.
because of the unhappiness and the lack of being able to produce correct reports.
and they went to the office of court administration years ago.
I should have done the same thing but I didn't, I was trying to be a team player and stick with tiburon, you know.
and so what happens is amelia has a perfectly good report that deborah hale and her team have turned out for several years now.
they've done a great job.
and so when I started having problems with o.c.a.
what we discovered was tiburon was not going to give the county what it should have supplied.
when I asked for an audit, I was told no, I could not have it.
I pleaded three times with this court to come forward and help me with this.
I received no response from anyone.
so I went and established ano.c.a.
committee and I have nothing but the best of things to say about deborah hale and mark irwin for taking the county clerk in and setting up exactly the same kind of committee that they did for the district clerk years ago to make the o.c.a.
report credible, correct and with auditable findings behind each one of those data elements so that we know where the data is coming from that constitutes the report.
and that's one of the problems that we're having right now.
we've already had two meetings of the o.c.a.
committee, and at those meetings what we've had is discussions that have been very similar to the e.d.r.
committee.
what is it that constitutes this particular data element, what's behind it, what are the business practices behind it, what offices are included, who, if you change your business practices in one place, who does it effect.
those are exactly the kinds of conversations that we are now having in o.c.a., and I'm pleased and proud to report that i.t.s.
has now joined our effort and we could not do it without them.
rob brown has been a big help in helping us track that and I'm really grateful that we've got janice to help us too.
the things that I asked for from the court I was able to go and get set up about two weeks ago with deborah hale.
so while I appreciate perhaps what your attempt was today, may I make a suggestion to the court for a substitute action that I don't really need for you to set up a o.c.a.
report for the county clerk who is the only office left for the o.c.a.
report that is having a problem, but what I really need for you to do is to direct i.t.s.
to stay with this project and to make resources available.
and then I do agree with you the intent of our efforts was to come back and provide periodic updates to the court for how we're doing with this report and let you know if we're having problems. This was part of my plea to you for help several weeks ago.
so I'm glad that we are all finally on the same page and I welcome your participation in the existing o.c.a.
committee.
it's terrific to hear.
>> may I make a motion?
>> no, ma'am, I'm waiting on the briefing that the item says we're supposed to get.
and the -- remind me what you asked the court for now?
>> I asked the court for help preparing the o.c.a.
report.
specifically I needed an audit.
that audit needed to describe the data elements that the -- the background behind the data elements that went into each of the reports so we would be able to verify the accuracy of those.
that is now being done.
and we needed to be able to test the reports so we would know prior to sending them out who all was involved in case we needed to make a correction, we could go to the office.
it's now a very small group so we don't have to grow it to as large as e.d.r.
because the offices that are involved are -- okay, you told me.
>> county court at law.
>> remind me the difference between the o.c.a.
and the e.d.r.
what's the difference between them?
>> big difference.
big difference.
it's a much larger group because you are including all of the criminal justice offices.
and with the o.c.a.
report the only thing that's left is the county court at law section.
>> judge, the difference is e.d.r.
is electronic disposition reporting.
what that is it reports the dispositions that end up on a person's criminal history.
okay?
>> okay.
>> so what o.c.a.
is is just a monthly court statistic.
it has to do with the actions -- correct me if I am wrong -- the actions within the court, how many cases, it's a similar -- it's kind of same data with a different twist.
it's recording the activities of the court, how many cases, you know, are active, how many cases are inactive, what's pending out there, what's the movement of the court.
and so this report, o.c.a., is used for, you know scoping what the court's activities for future funding purposes, for, you know, do we need more districts, our county courts, those kind of things.
that's the purpose of o.c.a.
even though it's similar data, distinctively separate.
>> and o.c.a.
is reported to the Texas supreme court where city e.d.r.
is reported to the d.p.s.
it's more been administering court work loads.
>> the office of court administration specifically within the supreme court.
>> can we get that briefing before we get Commissioner Eckhardt's motion?
>> well, I think that everything I was going to say in the briefing has been said.
I think this the problem reared its ugly head like when some of the reports started showing negative numbers.
we were trying to work with the county clerk's office to establish business rules to make modifications to the reporting.
we also learned that the district clerks had been working with deborah hale's group and mike irwin and they were very successful so we suggested that, you know, let's get everybody in the same boat and go forward with that process and work with those folks since they had already solved this problem for the district clerk.
and so that's -- that's kind of how this all has come to head and to the point where it is today.
and I think some of the members of the court was asking that we establish a formal committee so that's why we put it on the agenda.
>> so where are we on b today?
we had a rocket start, but everything smooth today?
>> we're working.
we're working.
>> we're making progress in the same way they were making progress on the e.d.r.
>> that's what I want to hear.
>> that's what I want to hear too.
but because -- especially because I was a little bit confused, you know, hearing about these reports that were not accurate in the newspaper.
when, you know, here I am, you know, I'm -- my door is open all the time for, you know, these issues, internal issues to come up and to be discussed.
and so I -- I kind of just, you know, my antenna went up and are we doing something wrong criminally, you know, or what.
and actually I think what it -- from what I hear, its systems are not working well together and they are not communicating obviously, which always leads to some huge problems. And a lot of -- a lot of confusion, you know, for everyone.
I think thankfully, though, I don't think a whole lot of people paid attention to the reports that, you know, reports weren't being accurately reported internally, but I think that -- I certainly think -- I empathize with dana, elected official to elected official, sometimes you need to be communicated with to make sure that we understand exactly what you are supposed to do as an elected official or required to do.
>> required.
>> as an elected official.
and so I think sometimes we need to be just a little more sensitive to that, and we're all in the same boat together.
I mean, you know, we hire professionals to help us get these reports done properly and certainly -- but I think some of us have some extra requirements on us to deliver these services to our constituents, and then at the same time have them feel comfortable that people that they've elected are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
and so I -- that's kind of what I got from hearing the different sides.
of the discussion.
but I think it comes down to today if y'all are working together and the county clerk is the only one left here to get this reporting done, as it should be, and I've always known dana to be very, very strong about -- being very strong about -- about being very strong about being, you know, getting the work in the way it's supposed to be.
you know, there's no shifting and so it doesn't surprise me that dana, you know, is wanting to get all of this done and properly so.
but I'm glad to hear that's what's happening and it needs to happen.
>> thank you.
>> we received on a some statistics regarding I guess percentage of completion.
do we have similar information for b, o.c.a.?
>> not yet.
>> but we're working on it?
>> we are.
>> do we have similar requirements imposed by the state?
>> no, they are not the same at all.
they are not the same at all.
it's just a correct report or not.
it's a pass-fail class.
it's not the same.
>> but the information is sent to the supreme court when?
>> monthly.
monthly.
>> and what month are we working on now?
>> current month.
>> oh, we're up to date?
kind of?
>> kind of.
kind of.
we're still working on the correct data inside each month.
>> there will be some corrections made to some of the history, but --
>> there's probably one thing the court might want to know and that is that I've asked mark irwin to chair the o.c.a.
committee in a similar capacity as steve and he and deborah hale have graciously agreed to do that and I'm grateful to them once again for doing that.
>> thank you all.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I move that we request of the current o.c.a.
subcommittee a report to us on the results of a performance audit of our o.c.a.
reporting, steps taken to improve and the improvements that are made thereby.
and I ask that the report on performance audit should come back by when?
when can we expect to be able to do the performance audit 6 our o.c.a.?
because for instance back in 2006, our o.c.a.
reportage off the district clerks showed we only had 15 trials in all of Travis County district courts in the year tuition.
2006.
so we have had this issue for some time.
have we ever done a performance audit of our o.c.a.
reporting, when will we have one completed?
>> well, we would like to try to see what we can pull together in 90 days.
that -- that's going to be our first goal.
let us come back to you with what we think the corrected report will look like in 90 days with what our audit findings show and that's see where we are then.
>> that sounds wonderful.
I must state this isn't the first time we've seen this.
we saw it with e.d.r., with the j.p.s, continue to work the j.p.s on it.
this is a continuing problem I'm glad to see got fixed in e.d.r., but the patterns are disturbingly similar.
>> I'll second your motion.
>> we have received a list of committee members.
is that list the same as your list?
>> yes, it is.
>> okay.
>> it may not need to be involved.
civil is probably not going to be there but we can make a final adjustment.
it's not a problem.
>> okay.
okay, now, a whole lot of other departments are involved in b?
or just the county clerk?
>> just the county clerk.
>> let me --
>> court administration.
we're contacting others.
>> and court administration covers district clerks as well because they've taken on that function.
>> that's correct.
>> but in truth our o.c.a.
reporting is all of our court -- courts, period.
>> that's right.
>> reported all to the supreme court.
>> deborah hale, criminal court.
and the reason it helps to have the courts involved in the process between the two, because they've both been working really hard to try to resolve these -- you know, some of the concerns about, this but we know more the business practices and sometimes we're finding out some of our processes are not compatible with reporting the data.
so just like judge capel said, it is painstakingly boring and -- you know, to sit through these meetings because you are talking about codes and little detail things, but that's really what you have to do to get to the bottom of it, and we are finding that you can make little adjustments with the code and it takes care of thousands of cases.
so that's our hope is that, you know, we should be able to identify what we're doing and also, you know, help them look at how this data should be reported and we can kind of all work together on it.
so ...
>> just needs to be a team effort.
>> let me get one thing, is this the county clerk's committee or the Travis County committee or what?
>> well, the county clerk is the elected official who is legally required to submit the o.c.a.
report.
>> the district clerk is also required to submit the report.
I want to be clear about this, the o.c.a.
reporting is required of all of our courts so we want a process that we are utilizing holisticly.
>> we are.
we've gotten to the source that already did the district clerk and we're following that pattern.
the county clerk is the one that's trying to correct the county clerk report.
>> Commissioner, if I could address that, with the district courts, when judge perkins was here, he spent hours and hours going over all those reports on a monthly basis.
like he with a calculator would counted up, so we did our own audits of that, but we were not involved when the county clerk was having to report their data.
so that's where the difference is with this one.
>> okay, this says that I respectfully suggest that Commissioners court need not establish a o.c.a.
committee and that's because the committee already exists.
>> correct.
>> okay.
remind me of your motion, Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> my motion is ask the existing o.c.a.
subcommittee to report to the Commissioners court on the results of a performance audit and then subsequent to that steps taken to address what they find this the performance audit, and subsequent to to that reporting on improvements made as a result of those steps taken.
>> okay, now, this list of people, this committee or subcommittee?
>> I'm asking for a report from the existing subcommittee as it's listed in the backup.
>> all right, because this says ad hoc committee.
but they are the same.
>> it is.
>> and what heartburn does that motion cause you you, miss dana debouvier.
>> none?
>> any more discussion on the motion.
>> because you began it with the existing --
>> the existing o.c.a.
subcommittee as it's listed in our backup, which is -- I understand from this group of people everyone is in agreement that that -- that is the list of people working on this problem.
>> and I second it.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> as a Travis County taxpayer, can't we all just get along?
>> [laughter] thank all of y'all.
>> thank you.
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.
