Travis County Commissioners Court
December 20, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 19
19 is smoking policy.
do we have the right people here on that one?
>> yes, sir.
sherry is coming down.
all right, we'll take up the other item that we just mounds involving cdbg later.
1, consider and take appropriate action on proposed amendments to chapter 57, Travis County smoking policy, of the Travis County code.
we indicate this may be taken into executive settings under consultation with attorney.
>> good morning.
sherry fleming, health and human services.
I'm not sure we had open court discussion on this item.
I believe it scheduled for executive session.
>> we posted it in open court with the footnote that it may be taken into executive session.
we had a discussion last week.
>> yes.
and as a reminder for those who may be watching, this -- the modifications to this policy have been proposed under a grant that we received as a recipient from city of Austin.
your acceptance of that grant and the subsequent staff work that has resulted in the proposed policy before you and that we have scheduled for a public hearing in January does not bind the court to changing its current policy.
it is just simply a recommendation that satisfies our deliverables for this process.
so you may continue deliberating, you may approve the policy, you may direct staff to do additional work on this policy, or you may do nothing in order to satisfy your deliverables for this grant.
>> if we face the reality that not all of our employees will stop smoking immediately after adoption of this policy if we adopt it, I mean when they ask us where do I smoke, what's the answer?
>> I think you -- staff could provide you any number of options.
we have looked at other partners in the community.
some have designated smoking areas and so do not.
my preference would be, you have to look at the lay of the land and determine where would be an appropriate spot.
because the intent of tobacco cessation policy is not to subject the public to secondhand smoke.
so we would have to be able to identify each of our locations a place where smokes would be able to smoke but also satisfy the intent of the policy which would be not to subject folks to secondhand smoke.
>> do I anticipate at some point to ask the top manager at each facility to recommend smoking areas?
I'm thinking of this building and I'm also thinking of the third floor where I exit daily and people are there smoking.
>> yes.
>> and so -- and last week we talked about okay, if they can't smoke there, last week we talked about the county's inability to regulate city sidewalks.
>> right.
>> so like in this building, once you exit, you are on city property, but now the city ordinance governs smoking in the city.
>> 15 feet from the door.
or a window that can be opened.
is what the city ordinance says it.
>> so if you have an office window that can be opened.
>> you have to be 15 feet from that window as well.
I think people are not as familiar with that part.
>> I'm certainly not because in your own office, but 15 feet from your window.
and that will presume you will open your window when you.
>> you can't identity in the office.
if you were on the sidewalk out here and there was an open window, say, on the first floor and that window was capable of being open, then not only would you have to be 15 feet from the doorway, you would have to be 15 feet from that window.
again, the secondhand smoke is not going to come into the building.
>> I guess my position is I see the policy language and the most recent draft is broader than the initial draft I was looking at last week.
but I guess my question is, you know, we can anticipate sort of basic questions from smokers.
>> yes.
>> and it seems to me we ought to put together a list of options or put together our recommendation before the public hearing.
because they ought to have an opportunity to respond to that.
so if we have three options listed and our position is that we want you to choose one, then my question would be for smokers which one do they prefer.
>> three options relative to location -- to places where they might be able to smoke?
>> yeah, that's the one that's most obvious.
>> all right.
certainly.
staff can do as much legwork as possible to provide that information with, you know, an additional reference to my previous comment that in some buildings we may find that it is difficult to assign a location that satifies our intent to not subject folks to secondhand smoke.
so that, you know, is just a reality of this kind of policy.
>> because one of the
>> [inaudible] smoking.
>> I think that's number one.
but I'm sort of thinking a lot of people heed that advice and a lot will think they cannot.
>> this is a very serious health issue and the secondhand smoke is very serious as well to people who have other health issues.
so I mean it really is -- it's a necessary thing to stop.
>> it is.
and you know, staff can share with you, we recently had the opportunity to interact with counties across the country who have also received a few at least who have received this funding and who were certainly faced with similar actions as you have been and have echoed many of the comments that you have heard, you know.
people feel very personal about tobacco policy and there's certainly other health concerns that we have to deal with.
so be mindful of that.
staff is prepared not only to provide as much information in advance of the public hearing, but if we have additional work to do following the concerns that are expressed at the public hearing, there is opportunity to do that as well.
your action is your action whenever you choose to take it.
we will have met our deliverables once -- as a matter of fact, we have met our deliverables now because we have proposed to you a recommended change in policy.
>> then the question is, court, are you serious about this or not?
>> yes, sir.
>> that's the problem with the grant.
one thing is meeting the terms and conditions, the other thing if we think we ought to proceed in a certain direction, we really ought to.
the other big area is how do we enforce it.
and I think we ought to let employees know.
I mean if it's a workplace performance issue, they ought to know that.
if it's a -- something that may result in disciplinary action if you are on county property, we ought to say that.
the question is legally how far can we go.
one thing is our attention, the other thing is legally what's permissible.
>> yes, sir.
we could little look at what a graduated change in policy might look at.
there may be some pieces of the policy that we could implement that -- that begin, you know, first and then, you know, by the end of the year say, for example, we have full implementation, if that would be your choice.
so I hear -- I think I hear a clear direction on options related to smoking locations and also enforcement, and we can certainly have that information.
now, is this something you want to deliberate on prior to the work -- prior to the public hearing in January or we want to have it available in a handout for staff and have it outni to the county prior to?
>> I think we ought to see it beforehand.
>> happy to do so.
>> because I think in terms of enforcement we ought to be realistic.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> ...
if we would have time to get it on the agenda before that.
>> ms. Porter, do you plan to be working on Tuesdays between now and -- and January 10th?
>> [laughter]
>> maybe.
I don't know.
>> let's not do it next week, but let's do it after that.
>> we'll get it to you asap, sir.
>> public entities and determine what -- what we think the best policy -- practices are.
>> yes, judge.
this is
>> [indiscernible] the projects manager of the grant and we have looked at best practices at public entities.
in public health, as a practice towards encouraging people to go towards health.
as far as enforcement there's no punitive action that you take when you are driving people to health.
you help them to attain health.
so when you have an issue with tobacco use, you try to work on it and he create all kinds of systems as diane blankenship spoke about last week in guiding people towards health.
the punitive sanctions could become problematic because that's contrary to public health.
that's one thought on what other public entities have done.
now, that's a slope, though, when it becomes personnel policy.
so we have looked at that and -- and we -- we've documented those practices.
another practice that's been documented is that if -- if smoking, secondhand smoke is actually very problematic and dangerous to anyone, then there is a notion that you cannot place anywhere for a secondhand smoke, for smoking, in order to make it -- make it seem that it's safe for anyone.
so it's a -- it's a bit of a contradiction in terms to allow a place for smoking when you know that it's a dangerous activity.
however, we understand the issues related to tobacco use and there are some people that do -- do allow for smoking place.
as a progressive, as sherri mentioned, this may be a progressive issue.
but what we have seen in policy in public health is that when you create a policy, that policy itself drives people towards a smoking cessation kind of mindset.
>> created a community standard.
stated a community standard for your workplace.
>> I would also add that what we have seen in much larger communities, we do know of one community in particular that has implemented policy -- has -- has newed from policy into -- moved from policy into practice as it relates to their health insurance.
so if you have certain behaviors, you have to -- to undergo education, a certain amount of testing, to receive the best plan for your health insurance.
and once you achieve certain milestones, you get a discount on your health insurance.
so there is a spectrum of things from the -- from the I guess -- from -- from something as simple as a policy that we're looking at now up to really -- really focused, policy that translates into health practice with some organizations.
so -- and we see that that may be not a best practice right now, but it certainly is something that more entities are looking at because of the real cost of the illnesses that are related to, not just tobacco, obesity and other health concerns that we hear a lot about right now.
>> another issue for me is how do we get elected officials to cooperate or does the Commissioners court ultimate manager of county facilities have the authority to basically mandate compliance with the policy on all county property, whether occupied by appointed officials or elected ones.
I mean that would be -- I'm -- normally our elected officials would cooperate with the Commissioners court.
for the betterment of -- of the workforce.
but a good question is whether we basically are left to try to encourage cooperation and collaboration or whether we think we can mandate that because it's county property, excluding the jail, by the way.
I think we've got enough legal opinions on that to know that the sheriff really controls that.
but it may be the same with the other elected officials, too, like the jp's.
they have been good about cooperating 110%, but I'm sure this question will come up.
>> as a reminder, your buildings located within the city of Austin are subject to city ordinance.
>> unless we have stricter policies, right?
>> right.
>> so we have to at least meet theirs.
>> you have to at least be in compliance with city ordinance.
>> does that apply to facilities occupied or managed by elected officials, too?
>> if it's within the city of Austin, yes, sir.
>> huh.
>> public building.
>> local, state and federal entities.
>> but if it's a county building, it's a public building.
>> yes.
>> the only question is whether it's in the unincorporated area in the city.
>> all right.
>> object.
I'm glad I don't smoke now y'all.
anything else on this item?
do we need to go into executive session on it?
>> I don't think so.
>> I'll get you some answers on that.
>> okay.
should we have this back on, is it the third of January?
that too soon?
>> no, sir.
we will have it all ready for you.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
y'all.
>> do we have the -- are all here on another item?
>> clean air force?
we need to at a time into executive session.
t.n.r.
has been pretty consistent with its position the last two or three years.
so I think we ought to get those legal questions addressed in executive session.
looks like it will be this afternoon, then come back into open court.
do you think we need staff back?
>>
>> [inaudible] part of that.
>> if you don't mind, if you prefer to make a motion to go ahead on this and it will be handled as automatic like you just did for the envision central Texas of allocated reserve.
>> if that's appropriate when we take action, we will.
>> I just wanted to request that.
>> I agree.
>> judge dietz, are we ready for that item or should we wait until 11:30?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> let's give them a few minutes.
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.
