Travis County Commissioners Court
December 13, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 23
23 item 25, consider and take appropriate action on request for Travis County to notify -- no, we call it up this afternoon.
the one I was looking for, 23, consider and take appropriate action on policy governing court appointments and reappointments to various boards and committees.
john hilly nearby?
>> I have a couple of sick kids, but --
>> why don't we recess for lunch and just do this this amp because I think we have to have all of us here.
and john.
actually wouldn't hurt to recess until 1:30 because the other request was for them to be here at about 2:30.
so that will give them a chance to -- that will improve their chance of getting back from san antonio.
move we recess until 1:30 for lunch.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> 23 is consider and take appropriate action on policy governing court appointments and reappointments to various boards and committees.
we did get from mr. Hilly via email his draft document.
let me ask this question.
we have i.g.r., and that's mr. Eckstein, right, involved in quite a bit of this.
and have we been doing it?
is that in fact what we've been doing?
>> no, it was -- it's kind of a centralized clearinghouse, so to speak, because sherri fleming had done the last couple of appointments dealing with health care, central health and seemed like one other.
deece may have handled -- he was here obviously last week handling the r.m.a.
it's totally up to you how you want to handle this.
I tried to write this so I would have to coordinate with a county executive involved in the process.
I was just looking for some centralized entity that would be able to be near you who could keep the process moving.
he and I talked about reservations that we both had that during the legislative session if one came up, it may be difficult for him to push this thing through unless he had some help.
I don't want to speak for himself how he feels about that but I was looking for some kind of repository to keep things moving.
>> you talked to him about this new and heavier responsibility?
are you aware of this?
>> judge Biscoe, members of the court, deece eckstein from intergovernmental relations.
there's no thing the court could ask me to do that I wouldn't gladly do, judge.
>> we need more managers like you in my book, mr. Eckstein.
>> I make a point about once I'm actually doing it, but there's nothing I wouldn't be glad to do.
john and I talked about this last week.
as you know, last year when we did the cap metro one our office took the lead in terms of getting the word out about the appointment and getting the information in and then distributed to members of the court so that they could review them and create a short list from that.
we're happy to do that as a function.
we're really talking about six boards or agencies to which we will make one or two appointments a year, so we feel it is well within our capabilities right now to do that.
>> okay.
my other question is on b 1, b 2, we say should the Commissioners court order a call records management will advertise on the county website.
the position offered, the position criteria.
if the position criteria, would the average person understand it?
>> the average person may not and sometimes it would deal with what's in the statute of whatever entity may be considered.
you can be sure -- if the court would be willing they might want to aid different elements what the criteria would be.
I tried to write it generically because I could see each one of the positions may be different on how it would be advertised.
so you would want to telegraph what you are looking for.
>> what's the difference between qualifications and criteria?
>> qualifications would be more the statute and criteria what you would want to see advertised.
>> why wouldn't qualifications cover both?
>> qualifications would normally be someone who is 18 or over.
someone who is maybe a city of Austin resident, Travis County resident.
whereas criteria might be something like for that position you are looking for someone with a financial expertise.
I've heard you mention that you are looking for perhaps one of the
>> [inaudible], this time you want someone who is a doctor or nurse.
I've heard those kinds of things come up during previous discussions.
>> and they change depending on who else is already on the board.
>> the qualifications may not change between different members, but what the court's criteria looking for employment might change from one employment to the next.
>> okay.
it may not matter enough to -- for everybody, but I also looked on later we discussed qualification and I pulled the packet of information we've used historically and had a hard time distinguishing them, to be honest.
but it may not matter anyway.
now, if we include -- looks like six boards and committees.
>> these are the ones that sherri fleming had presented to you and I think that the court endorsed these six.
>> I understand.
I was about to ask the court whether five and -- we have done differently on 5 and 6.
we have appraisal board and housing authority board.
so are we committed to those?
I think we ought to because I think they are important enough to increase their significance and spend a bit more time sifting through individuals who would like to serve on the boards.
the other thing is that they do require quite a bit of effort and they make real important decisions.
that involve millions of dollars in mostly federal money.
but that money comes with a whole lot of strings and commitments and responsibilities.
so looks good to me otherwise.
now, we have a simplified reappointment process, though.
>> yes, and I -- I would like to submit one possible edit on -- and the formatting of this, I'm wondering you might take a look with lisa rush about the standardized formatting, 1.17 small b, 1 large b, I would suggest that in the fourth line down --
>> what's the heading for that one?
>> call for application.
actually the fifth line down.
it starts on the next page.
after Commissioners -- there's a typo.
a Commissioners court agenda, it says Commissioner county agenda, for a call for application, comma, I would actually just put a period there and strike everything in the rest of the paragraph.
and the reason why I would strike everything in the rest of the paragraph is that it essentially requires a no confidence vote of the Commissioners court before you can even go to an open application process and find out all your options.
it requires in order to open up the application process when you have an incumbent, you have to have a vote of Commissioners court of no confidence first.
>> was that the intention, mr. Hilly?
>> no, it was more trying to get the process started.
I didn't
>> [inaudible] of an implication that it may be pending but I can see --
>> it does require an open court vote of -- of three or more saying that they don't want that person any longer before opening up the application process.
and I think that that's probably -- that's too harsh formalized and uncomfortable a process just to put out a call for applications to see what our other options might be.
because, again, there are instances where through no fault of the incumbent the preferences of this body may change with regard to what kind of qualifications we need.
we might want more diversity, we might want a different skill set, we might want just a different balance among our sitting representatives on that body.
it might have nothing to do with the quality of service we've gotten from the incumbent.
>> okay.
so you would say a Commissioners court -- Commissioners court agenda item for a call for applications, period.
so we would vote in court on whether or not to issue a call for application.
>> we would just treat all -- all appointments the same whether there's a willing incumbent or not.
>> treat reappointments that way too?
>> uh-huh.
>> I don't agree with that because I think it would cause a lot of unnecessary work.
>> how would you suggest we decide whether or not to go forward on an open application process when we have an incumbent?
>> well, my recommendation initially, and deece would be fine person to do this, is that we would contact the incumbent, find out whether the incumbent is interested in being reappointed.
and if that answer is affirmative, we would then contact first county staff, and I'm thinking of, say, one of the boards, I typically would get county staff to contact the agency to make sure the incumbent has had good attendance, has been engaged.
and generally the evidence is one sided.
if they want somebody off they've been good about saying that.
the worst thing is saying to the incumbent reappointment is problematic.
normally I would say we can get an open vote in the court, but it looks like the agency would like to replace you.
but in my view if we think that the incumbent is performing well and there is no reason to vote that person off, I'd reappoint the person.
what we've been doing in court is simply coming in with an updated bio or resume and making the reappointment.
where there's been problematic, I have kind of pulled the person to the side and disclosed the facts.
in only one case was that person who adamant that person said basically I'm not stepping down voluntarily.
but at that time it was like
>> [inaudible] and I'm visualizing her because we had a heated discussion and I said we can do it now or I don't think the court would reappoint you once they get all the facts.
I think we ought to avoid a whole lot of work to reappoint persons unless we really believe we ought not reappoint that person.
so I wouldn't go the formality of this process when we know that in all probability reappointment is likely.
>> I've utilized the process for my own appointments irrespective whether there is an incumbent, at least in my smaller world it's worked out fairly well because it's giving the sitting incumbent the opportunity to gracefully bow out if they are overburdened and it also, frankly, gives me a graceful way to replace them if I see a need.
and again, sometimes it has nothing to do with the incumbent, it's that the circumstances of the organization have changed.
>> I've had that same experience and I have a question, judge, because I hear where you are coming from with a the informality of it and sort of the ability to do it gracefully and formally.
the question I would have is given our constraints of meetings, how can we be aware of what the feelings may be from the court in the informal process?
>> well, if deece and the county executive are working on specifics, we figure out a way to get that communication.
but in my view where we find an incumbent has been active, in good attendance, a positive contribution, I'm assuming we want that person to keep serving.
and I think that on the other hand where I've had some pain is when people have served forever.
>> and the
>> [inaudible].
>> yes.
but when we start issuing the call for applications, that involves a whole lot of work if we do it right.
and so I'm thinking that on reappointments, if we can avoid that work, fine.
but if we don't think that we ought to reappoint, then I'm thinking then we go through those steps, but we left that person know this could be an ugly, dragged out process in open court.
because we don't knowsly have to be of one mind on how we evaluate a certain incumbent.
and john, unless there is something illegal or that involves some violation of law, we don't have the legal right to go into executive session, do we?
>> on appointments?
>> right.
>> some of these organizations you do.
>> reappointment.
>> right.
>> to the extent we can go into executive session, then, you know, we can have a full discussion of the facts and get a pretty good idea of how we seem to be leaning.
not voting, but just discussing.
hearing questions asked and opinions given, right?
seeing what the law provides.
it's when we cannot go into executive session and must have that deliberations in open court that it could be embarrassing and offensive and other bad things.
>> okay.
>> I don't know that our reappointment process has really caused any problems for us.
>> it hasn't.
>> although we have had instances where we've had people serve for a very, very, very long time because we have passed if not policy of practice of delegating to them as to whether they want to continue serving.
and then we also have had some problematic appointments in the past.
that -- that we perhaps didn't attend to quickly enough.
so it -- if you are ready to entertain a motion, I can make a motion, my hope was that we would have one process sort of a one size fits all and have a periodic
>> [inaudible] would make our appointments much more active with the court.
we very rarely see ourni appointments come back to us and report on their activities without requiring some -- some procedure for the appointment, I don't believe they will feel any obligation come back and report to the Commissioners court.
>>
>> [inaudible] and they update their bio, but I always ask if they -- you know, are you interested in staying or or do you want to, you know, if not step down.
just communicating with people is really good.
you hear it straight from them.
>> the other thing would be we could have a policy that provides that if you serve three terms, we automatically issue a call for applications.
but if you want to reapply, do so.
you see what I'm saying?
it gives us at least flexibility, it gives us an opportunity to determine whether a better qualified person should be appointed.
and I think that if you had that and maybe some of the incumbents would conclude they are hinting it's time to move on.
>> I ask straight out, you know.
do you want to step down or do you want to -- are you tired of this, tired of doing this particular thing.
>> I offer up that -- well, I believe all our appointments are working very hard at representation on those boards and if we had a formal review process, they might work harder and more closely with us so we do know what they are doing.
>> it's not their work I'm worried about.
>> what I was going to add, I don't know, I haven't seen any of these where we just were flooded with applications.
and one of the benefits at least on the appointments that I make like the emergency services districts is even though I do an equal for applicants and I do reappoint if it's appropriate, I'm building a resume reserve too when we do need a replacement and I actually talk to those people if I don't appoint the emergency service and say may I keep your resume on file.
I don't think we're overburdened with any of these with hundreds of applications.
>> we're picking up two fairly heavy agencies, though.
the appraisal district and the housing authority.
>> I put out a general call for applications on the appraisal district through an email list I have of about 5,000 with a -- you know, the legal criteria as well as preferred criteria.
even they we had an incumbent that I feel very good about and we didn't get any applications.
so the only additional work it was was sending out the email.
>> but heretofore when we've not not gotten application and it's been there regularly we've had to do additional work just tone have rate the application.
then there is work to short list, then there is interviewing.
we interview three people, you are looking at three hours just to interview, roughly, and you are also looking at involving and sometimes working to make decisions prior to the interviews.
>> although under this policy as it's drafted it's discretionary whether we want to do interviews at all.
we may just base it on the applications that we get.
>> I don't see is that we all making appointments to these six boards without any, one.
two is I think we can anticipate making -- having to make some calls, getting staff to help us get out the word of the availability of a service opportunity in order to get four or five applications from qualified applicants.
and you know, that's my concern.
it is not the reappointment process that causes problems except incumbents don't like to step downtown I think if word gets to us they are really not serving well, then the board leadership would like to see them off, typically we can figure out a way to make that happen.
and if we can't figure out a way to make it happen without a formal vote, the law requires that we put it on the agenda and -- yes.
when we do that, I think we ought to check with legal and see if we can, you know, if we can take it into executive session, I would feel a whole lot better off.
if not, we would let the incumbent know that.
Commissioner Eckhardt was about to make a motion a minute ago.
>> I would move adoption of the process laid out by john with the striking of the last part of the -- 1.017 little b 1 big b the last part of that big b roman numeral 1 where it says or in the case of the existing organization member, strike everything from there to the end of the paragraph.
>> the import of that I understand is to make the call for original applications the same as a call for reappointment.
>> yes.
treat all -- all appointments the same whether there's an incumbent or not.
>> that was seconded by Commissioner Huber.
any more discussion on the motion?
I'm against it for the same reasons I expressed last week back in March and today.
any more discussion?
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Eckhardt in favor, opposed show Commissioner Davis, yours truly and Commissioner Gomez.
I move approval of the proposed policy, but that we tweak the language that Commissioner Eckhardt would delete and we bring that language back next week.
>> second.
>> and this may be -- if there's a way to avoid action except as a last resort, that would be my preference.
and I think that the whole court should be here when we do this.
we may be looking at the first part of January.
hopefully no reappointment will come up between now and then.
if so, as usual, I will use my routine county judge authority to make the call.
that's a joke.
>> [laughter] so my motion is to approve the proposed policy after taking out the language or in the case of an existing on down through the end of that which is the original term, which we will try to tweak and get the court a copy of before we act out, and we may be talking about the first part of January.
>> second.
>> any more discussion of that motion?
that's really kind of let's see if we can do better.
nothing personally intended, john.
>> I think it could be broken into two separate thoughts and resolve some of her concerns.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioner Davis, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against a consistent Commissioner Eckhardt.
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.
