Travis County Commissioners Court
December 6, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 24
24, consider and take appropriate action action on Travis County appointments to the central Texas regional mobility authority board of directors including, a, reappointment of charles heimsath;, and b, acknowledgment of henry gilmore's decision to step down, and c, issuance of all for applications to intend Travis County residents.
mr. Eckstein.
>> good morning, deece eckstein, intergovernmental relations.
last week we had this item on the court's agenda and at that time the court asked for us to get a written confirmation of their wishes from both mr. Heimsath.
I have seen it from mr. Gilmore but not have seen anything from mr. Heimsath.
what we have in your backup today is a proposed process for announcing and vacancy and filling that vacancy based on the process the court used the last time it filled a ctrma vacancy and it's used in similar situations as, for instance, the health care board, the cap metro appointment that the court makes and so forth.
so that process is laid out for you in a series of backup materials for your consideration and action today.
>> I move the reappointment of charles heimsath.
>> second.
>> discussion on that motion?
>> yes, sir.
I think because we have not heard from charles yet -- well, irrespective of the fact we haven't gotten written confirmation from mr. Heimsath yet, I believe that at the end or preferably well before the end of an appointee's term, we should put out a call for applications and ask the appointee to submit an application.
the reason why I ask this is because I feel that that is a graceful way to provide an open space for that appointee to choose not to continue to serve.
if they -- if they should so choose without making a big deal about it.
and also if we as a Commissioners court feel for any reason that we might want to go another way, it also provides us a graceful way to consider that without making it a big deal.
we have considerations of balance on boards that are irrespective of an individual's service and one might have given sterling service but we might want to have a greater degree of diversity on a particular board.
and so I -- I would ask that we go ahead and include mr. Heimsath's position along with mr. Gilmore's in a call for applications, but, of course, consider mr. Heimsath's application very highly because I -- at least my opinion is that he has served fabulously on the board.
it's not reflection of my feeling on his service but more a reflection of a process that I think we could repeat for any board appointment moving forward.
>> the problem with that I think we unnecessarily generate a much greater workload.
typically if you are on a board and are willing to keep serving and the chair of the board say your participation has been active and effective, the experience has been we would reappoint you anyway.
so I don't know why we would make that appointee and the general public go through a whole lot of work when we will probably make a decision to reappoint you.
on any reappointment, any member of the court can ask that it be put on the agenda for discussion, consideration and action and we could take a vote on it.
so I think that if we focus on a policy that enables us to review, considering all applications for appointment, then we have done a fair job.
and it is not like we have droves of people looking for the opportunity to serve.
last time we -- we postponed action on the appointment two or three times, beat the bushes to generate an application.
and so we may be being unrealistic to think that a whole lot of people are interested in these service opportunities.
so once we choose you, my thinking would be that if you want a second term, you got one.
and if we have reasons not to reappoint you, though, then I think that we ought to quietly ask you to step down.
there's not reason to put that on the agenda.
if two members of the court don't want you, my thinking we wouldn't reappoint you.
if one doesn't want you, I would think that one person would have too much influence for the court to defer to that opinion.
so the reason I would reappoint them is I would have no reason to think he wouldn't want to be reappoint.
mr. Gilmore served seven or eight years.
>> but it is additional work and I think it's unnecessary and it would be a work on the appointee, mr. Heimsath, as well as the public.
and I think we will have a hard time finding an individual to serve to replace mr. Gilmore, is my view.
any more discussion on the motion?
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I am totally in support of a reappointment of mr. Heimsath.
he's done a great job.
I do believe, though, we need a formal process.
if we don't get many applications, we don't get them, but it does, I believe in the long run, save us time when we have complicated appointments or an appointment that may be complicated like the fact that someone who has been serving has done an excellent job but we need more diversity and need to consider that.
so I really think that, you know, why not now rather than next week or next month look at a formal appointment process.
I actually have been surprised since I've been in office and started advertising for other positions that I have appointments to that the interest is picking up and the number is picking up in applicants.
that varies between what the appointment is for.
and something that requires so much time like ctrma, we are not likely to get that many appointments, but it does allow us a mechanism for dealing with any problematic issue in the future.
and I just think it's very worthwhile to have a formal process.
>> well, I brought a process to the court six months ago and it was this reappointment part that others had different ideas about.
so we ought to bring the process back where we land on that one way or another and not discuss it every time there's a reappointment.
this is a critical job and a tough one and it's agonizing.
>> judge, I can't recall if maybe you can bring me up to speed, I can't recall where -- if there is two opposing views or the opposing view that will not go along with the appointment of a person that altered or stopped the appointment being made if the majority of the court wanted.
I just can't recall that portion of the policy.
you'll have to maybe help me out on that because I just thought -- I can't ever recall where two votes or how many votes it is, you said one person opposing or two persons opposing, well, we have to go back and maybe bring it as an agenda item.
I'll second this motion.
I'm going to support it.
I second your motion, but kind of -- I just can't recall any policy where it takes two votes to stop an appointment.
>> that's not policy yet.
I'm just saying rather than coming in and having a knock down, drag out, these are volunteers working free of charge.
>> exactly.
>> I would feel a whole lot better if we quietly went to that person and said, look, you got a couple of problems of the five voting so you may want to take advantage of the opportunity just to step down.
you know, these meetings are televised, and in addition to working free of charge and suffering through some agonizing decisions, it seems to me that we're kind of -- you know, we're making the opportunity -- it's kind of like punishment to me.
you know, 3-2 vote --
>> you make it sound so
>> [indiscernible].
>> if two people are being super critical of you and the other three are supportive, a 3-2 vote, I don't know if you feel good about working free.
whatever the policy, I'll support after we vote on iten and I do think we ought to bring it back.
>> I just want to respond to the idea we did have a very difficult time recruiting for this position last time.
we unfortunately had a death in office of a very, very good appointment which caused us to have to scramble a little bit.
part -- and that is part of my rationale for putting out a call for application even if we want the appointee to continue serving.
because we do have multiple appointments in certain issue areas.
ctrma covers transportation, cap metro covers transportation, technical advisory committee appointments cover transportation.
the additional campo representative obviously covers transportation.
so if we put out a call for applications on this position, even intending to reappoint mr. Heimsath, it builds our pool of knowledge with regard to other people out there willing to contract their time toward transportation issues.
and that is -- that is chiefly my rationale.
>> at the risk of sounding like the real estate community who is always wanting certainty in rules, the black and white of the rule helps people with the certainty process.
>> we ought to have it and I'll have it on next week if y'all want me to.
but --
>> judge, I go back into time because when this board was created, the ctrma deal, I was here and we had to go through a lot of applications.
we went through several tedious meetings to try to come up with a board, as you stated, volunteer-wise, that would represent the ctrma because we're talking about two counties, Williamson and also Travis County.
and, of course, the governor makes an appointee of the governor appoints the chair of the ctrma board.
and it hasn't been an easy task just getting it from jump start to where we are now.
and, of course, not being easy as it is, folks want to go serve, my goodness gracious, let them serve because it's very difficult, even from the off set of dealing with the ctrma board creation.
we have had to struggle trying to get -- find good qualified applicants that were willing to take the time to serve voluntarily on this board.
>> it's a tough job.
I mean -- and -- but I do agree with all the comments that we ought to have a written policy that we consider as long as we need to.
we act on it and then we follow it.
and now I tried to make that happen months and months ago.
I will stick this on the agenda next week if y'all want me to for us to do it.
>> I was trying to get a draft done by today and I was trying to put tonight a red line fashion so you could see the old policy and this new one, and I think I've gathered enough of your ideas to put it into a formal document.
I hope I'll have it in the morning for you so you can have it in your backup next week.
>> I have a suggestion including in that that I haven't heard mentioned before is that we give formal notice from the dais so we have --
>> right, and what I was looking for and just to telegraph to you what I've got right now, something whenever you find out there's either a vacancy or about to be a vacancy, give yourselves three months in advance.
you send out a call for appointments.
now, deece doesn't know this yet, but I was going to have him play an integral part of receiving the applications, culling them over with whatever county executives you would be want to go develop short lists on, but it's something -- I'm not going to take ownership of this.
you all tear it up, do whatever you want to it next week.
>> that's fine with me.
plus, who knows how long we'll consider that process before we act on it.
mr. Reeferseed, something relevant?
>> I can't help but get up and yell I'm appreciation of miss Eckhardt and her reason.
>> start raising your right hand and we'll know what you say when you come up.
>> any more discussion on the motion to approval charles heimsath?
all in safer?
those Commissioner Gomez, Davis, Huber and yours truly in favor.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> voting against because it doesn't follow stated reasons.
b, acknowledgment and appreciation for service.
move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
shows Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioner Huber.
c, issuance of call for applications to interested Travis County residents.
Commissioner -- sorry about the promotion, mr. Eckstein.
mr. Eckstein gave us a call for applications document.
you touched on it briefly, do you want to touch on it again?
>> yes, sir.
the backup materials you have in front of you have several components.
one is a proposed overall process and timetable which would have the court announcing today its desire to replace mr. Gilmore and its call for applications, give us some time to promote that, put an ad in the papers, that sort of thing, with a deadline of Friday the 13th to submit applications.
we would then duplicate all the applications we receive and provide those to members of the court for you to look at with the idea that on the 24th you all would decide on a short list who you wanted to interview at a work session on the 26th.
I've checked with cheryl acre and she tells me that the first work session you can have in 2011 in terms of scheduling abilities would be on the 26th.
so if you do that on the 26th, you could make a decision on the 31st for a term that begins on the 2nd.
that's the proposed timetable in there.
you have that.
and then I have some proposed language for what the call for appointments would be and what the legal notice would be that we put into the paper.
I'm not sure what the cost of that legal notice would be, but there is money in the purchasing office's budget for such notices.
and then we have -- you have also in your backup the application packet that would be given to people who were interested in the job.
and again, that packet is based on the packet that had been assembled for previous appointments to ctrma as well at some of the other county boards.
>> questions or comments?
>> yes, sir.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> there's a typographical error but it races an interesting issue.
on the January 31 portion of the time line, Commissioners court elects to cap metro which I think is a typo but it begs the question we have cap metro appointments coming up as well.
so with regard to our process and perhaps saving time, saving money, we might want to look at those appointments, the terms of those and put the call out at the same time.
you may have comments with regard to that, but I don't know if it's germane to this, I don't know, since this is specific to the ctrma.
>> we have one appointment to capital metro.
>> I think we have one.
>> we also ought to indicate what entities it applies.
I don't think we have to apply to all because some of them are minor.
this is a lot of work for us, but I think some of the appointments are so significant we ought to commit to do a lot of work.
kind of like the health care district, we've done that and capital metro we've done a good process and really ctrma is just that I don't know a that we've always done the same one.
our goal is to have a uniform process that we just applied two named entities.
I would think the ones we just mentioned would be ones we would include.
if we adopt a process next week, I think we ought to immediately start applying it would be my thinking.
so if we're -- maybe between now and then we ought to try to figure out when the next terms that expire, what entities they are with and who it is.
the other thing is that I think there ought to be a subsection that addresses reappointment.
and you may be able to tell by now, I don't buy into the same process to reappoint that I buy into to appoint.
but the question is what criteria do we use, but I think we ought to agree on it.
>> so along with our appointment policy, could we also get a list of our appointments and when their terms expire?
>> I think our goal ought to be to do it.
I'm thinking I probably have most of the information.
>> yeah, I believe there is a version of that list that is maintained I think by melissa and cheryl in your office, judge.
>> now, let me -- let the record show the judge did not come in and pick up many additional responsibilities, but I'm sure my staff is listening and shaking their heads no, no, no.
we'll see if we can come up with it by Thursday.
>> and judge, I'll be glad to check on Commissioner Eckhardt's question specifically about the cap metro appointment and when that is due for renewal and report back.
>> when can we get a draft, mr. Hilly?
>> in the morning.
>> in legal he's is like Thursday morning or Friday morning?
>> that would be Wednesday morning.
around 10:00.
>> all right.
sounds good to me.
>> I that I that capital metro appointment is on an annual basis, but seems to me like I remember getting -- kind of going through the list, reappointed each year, seems to be.
>> well, the statute has changed since you were on it.
>> for several years then.
>> uh-huh.
>> how many years now?
two years?
so it's a two-year term.
>> yeah.
I guess to the extent that there are external policies and guidelines, we ought to make sure we bring those back too, huh?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> with that I move approval of c.
>> second.
>> with the draft that mr. Eckstein provided us.
would we get that out before Tuesday, you think?
>> I think we're hoping to get the legal notices done this week.
and effective tomorrow we would have the packet available for anybody to contact at the county.
we would put something on the county's web page.
maybe do some social media posting as well just to get the word out about the appointment.
>> looks like you got a month to apply the deadline is January 13th.
>> yes, sir.
>> if this appointment is like the others, we really need to try to contact individuals personally that we think may be interested or should be interested or we wish would be interested.
and notify them of the opportunity and ask them to apply.
>> and I know that several members of the court do sort of email blasts to their -- to their constituent lists or stakeholder lists from time to time and this would be exactly the kind of thing we could put together a blurb to ask to you include in those email blasts.
>> judge, would you consider it friendly to the motion to -- to say move forward with this process and to the extent it is inconsistent with what we decide next week, to modify it?
>> that's fine.
no problem.
>> second.
>> is that friendly?
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
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.
