Travis County Commissioners Court

March 6, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 20

View captioned video.

Item number 20, consider and take appropriate action regarding proposed changes to chapter 1 of the Travis County code Commissioners court rules of procedure and citizens communication.
mr. Reeferseed.
well, what we did, court members, was to get our intern to do a three-page summary of the 26 pages of recommended changes.
and I sent those specifically to dr. Kim and mr. Reeferseed.
because I know their schedules are so busy.
we have called up item 20 and we are about to take action on it.
any comments?

>> judge.

>> yes, sir.

>> morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I just wanted to mention that I just wanted some clarification because other than the little colored papers, the pink and orange, I don't know if you remember they came out the first day when you had that.
what's the consequences of carrying a sign?
other than not being able to speak.
is this a resolution backed by any statute, kind of like a city ordinance, the county has a resolution versus a city ordinance?
is there a penalty for bringing a sign in here?
other than the fact you wouldn't be called on?

>> well, probably I would ask security to come and remove you from the courtroom.

>> remove the person or the sign?

>> one or both.

>> one or both.

>> my thing is really the sign.
mr. Reeferseed brought his in the first time and we just put his sign in the back and when he took he took it and -- when he left he took it and left.

>> the only thing I was saying when I read it, the reason I'm asking that question, when I read it, I interpreted it to mean the only consequence would be that you wouldn't be called on.
but when you are saying is you would remove the person and/or the sign or both.

>> well, it's speculative.
it would be -- it would depend on the circumstances, but in 99.9% of the case, it would just be don't use the sign.

>> but that was -- to me I guess if you are going to institute a new policy, that that seems so vague and ambiguous and speculative and then not knowing, you know, normally when you pass an ordinance or a resolution, things are pretty clearly defined.
you know, like the red light camera issue, it's a voluntary compliance.
there's really no penalty.

>> this isn't a criminal provision.
this is just protocol in a court.

>> okay, well, anyway, I just did want to get that clarification because to me it appeared by the way, that one-half page, the only convince convince you wouldn't be called -- only consequence you wouldn't be called on to speak.

>> important to be added to that if your sign is so large that it violates that policy we would first ask you to remove the sign, and then if you did not, we would get security or law enforcement to move it outside the courtroom.
what you do on the other side of that door is unaffected by this.
but if we have a hard time getting the sign removed, then we would remove the person and the sign.

>> you know, that was one of the things that, you know, certain places, you know, they all have different rules, u.t., everywhere you go there's -- lbj, the thompson center even has different rules and everything and some people, you know, you can go to the back of the room and all that.
but this is only during citizens communication so like on agenda items you could have a sign.

>> if there's a particular item that you are here on and there's a sign relevant to that item, the size is not regulated.

>> like they do at national night out when they bring the banner in.
so the citizens have the same opportunity as anyone else as far as, like, government.

>> right.

>> and so you wouldn't be restricted from if someone carried up an easel up here and did a presentation.

>> on a particular item.

>> right.

>> right.
no regulation whatsoever.

>> but you could do that during citizen communication.
that's the vagueness.

>> during citizens communication the 8 1/2 by 14 rule kicks in.

>> if somebody wanted to bring up an easel and use a marker on a board, you wouldn't be able to do that during citizen communication.

>> right.
mr. Reeferseed.

>> thank you.
yes, I'm ronnie reeferseed.
the point I'm trying to name is this is audaciously unnecessary.
it's admittedly aimed at me for my political expressions using placards.
I'm a devoted Ron paul enthusiast and have been for decades.
but regardless, as a citizen, I'm offended and baffled and really confused.
what is -- what is being accomplished by denying me my first amendment rights, in other words, how have I destroyed the continuity or business done or even maybe some people don't like Ron paul.
that's fine.
everybody has a right to feel that way.
but to enforce that on me by denying my first amendment rights is just nonsensical.
so my question is what is accomplished.
why -- what was -- what was -- was -- what harm was I doing by having a Ron paul sign in here.
I understand some people don't like Ron paul, but if people are sosatie pedestrian that they can't look at the screen when things are happening here and somebody has a Ron paul sign and that confuses them and thinks the whole court is for Ron paul party of some kind, it's -- you know, they are just -- it doesn't make sense to me.
so I'm wondering if somebody could explain to me what -- what authority -- I mean, the first amendment is real clear on this and I know that businesses -- I've researched this.
businesses have the right to exclude somebody like me with a Ron paul sign if they think that it somehow messes up their business.
as it turns out, there's almost no businesses in this wonderful city that bother to do that.
but I understand they do have the political -- the legal right to do that.
that's under the law.
but this is a political, a political event with political figures where we talk about political ideas, and why are -- why -- who gave you all the -- anybody here the authority to take political rights away from political activists in a political environment during a, you know, political meeting?
does anybody -- can anybody give me a clue as to where that -- I mean, the constitution is real clear on that and, like I said, they've already made rulings about businesses, but this is not a business, this is a political place where we carry out political ideas and thoughts hopefully and conversation.

>> I have five responses for you.
or about five.
one is that there is no answer that will satisfy you.
we have tried that.
two is that I consulted with our lawyers repeatedly before announcing the judge's rule.
three is since that rule has been in effect, your right to comment here has not been affected at all except the large placard that was so distracting.
you still wear your Ron paul t-shirt which you have on today.
you still campaign for Ron paul and there's been an added person, mr. Dafoe.
during your three minutes I think you ought to have a right to do that.
but that large sign was really distracting because you used it throughout the meeting.
and so that large sign if there is an agenda item that it's relevant to, you can bring the large sign in.
the other thing is that you view this as being a political meeting.
I don't.
we're here trying to conduct county business.
there is a big difference there.
in my view.

>> okay, I'm sorry.

>> in my view.
and the other thing there is a reason why you have been sort of kicked out of city hall and barred from some other place.
what I sought to do was restore some decorum, some order, some civilty to the way we conduct business here at Travis County.
the other thing is that you were surveying people to find out if you were distracting, right?
how did that turn out?

>> one person did tell me that I was distracting to her.

>> how many did you ask?

>> I asked everybody but I only got one person who said, you know, I agree it does bother me.
so, you know, I can't say it's universal.

>> was that one person mr. Dafoe?

>> no, no, it was -- no.
it was someone who is here.

>> I'm sorry?

>> you looked at cyd.
I thought maybe she was the one --

>> no, no, the person actually sits where cyd is sitting right now.

>> let me say this.
during the month that rule has been in place, I have felt a whole lot better at the beginning of the meeting and at the end of it and in my view your rights have not been affected adversely at all.
the other thing is that the population of Travis County is a million 26,000.
that rule applies to all of them.
now, I don't know that I'd give you credit for it, I'd give you credit for the bad things, the distracting things that were happening, but if you want to take credit, that's fine.
but that rule is imposed on all Travis County residents that come to this court and give comments under citizens communication.
and whether you want to accept the credit or the blame, I leave to you.
but in my view, we apply the rule across the board, it's legal and sufficient and it's minor in the grand scheme of things.
and compared to the other policies in other courts, cities and counties throughout the state of Texas, it's a minor requirement.
and we intended it to be that way.

>> yes, sir.

>> that's my answer.

>> well, you -- you certainly have a right to have those opinions and -- but just on the basic point on whether this is a political entity or not.
I mean, these are politics.
this is what politics is where we determine policies having to do with taxpayer dollars and how they are spent and so these are political issues.
you might not feel this is a political event.
I mean there's all kinds of different political events, but this is part of our political system, our political system of interaction with the citizens.
and one way to do that is some of the ways I've tried to do it.
and again, I really question whether it's really -- I'm glad you are feeling better.
that's always a good thing.
I'm happy to hear that.

>> and I give you credit for that too.

>> for not having my sign.

>> thank you, mr. Reeferseed.

>> for not having my sign makes you feel better.
it's confusing to me and I don't think it's worthy of stomping on my constitutional rights, frankly.
but we'll have to examine that at some other time, I suppose.

>> did you get your three-page summary of the 26 pagees?
I emailed you a three-page summary of the changes we are recommending.

>> I have been looking.
I'll go back and check once again.

>> email.

>> okay.
I'll do that.
thank you, sir.

>> okay.
anybody else on item number 20?

>> excuse me.
on the appointment section, did we get the sunset provision put in that we had requested?
I didn't see it.
perhaps I missed it.

>> I didn't know what to put.
I know that you all talked about term limits; is that what you are talking about?

>> there was a reappointment the first time that that would just -- if they met the requirements, the assessment it would move forward, but I think we said two terms that we would automatically put it back out.
the person could apply again, but we would go through an interview process.

>> [inaudible].

>> the only other issue I have with two terms, it's difficult to find people to serve.
and then when you finally find someone who is committed to serve, then they go off and it's real difficult to find somebody else who will spend the time, who has the time to serve and to attend the meetings and especially people of color.
I mean, they have a really difficult time.
and so that's the only thing that I have issue with has been term limits for volunteers, you know, to work on issues that are important to the community.

>> we're not talking about term limits.
in other words, if the person couldn't serve after, we're just saying we would open it up for a full applicant process after.

>> and they just reapply.

>> that I way, if we feel like we need a change.

>> I don't want to cut them off completely.

>> so at the top of page 14, and really it kind of starts at the bottom of page 13, that if the county judge's prerogative that if you have an existing member, that he can simply ask for the igr director to go ahead and check on the status of how they've been performing and whether they are a good member, good attendance and things like that.
if that report comes back positive, then the judge could schedule for reappointment.
or the judge could say this one has been kind of rolling for a long time.
let's go ahead and call this one for -- for application.
so I left it -- I couldn't see a strong intent one way or another and so that's why I've got it as leaving it up to the prerogative of the county judge.
and so if one of you had a strong opinion and it would be perfectly acceptable under the open meetings act to give the judge a call and say, you know, this is one where I think we ought to call for application.
this person has been on the board for 10, 15 years and hasn't really made a big difference, so hey, couldn't you consider this one a call, couldn't we schedule this one for a call for application.

>> saying after two terms we do open it up for applications is we would build a pool of people interested in that particular subject area.
which would be beneficial.
it would make applications easier, particularly when people say they need to roll off midterm for personal reasons.
it would be nice to have some folks in the chute.

>> the judge may feel differently than i, but if I were a judge, it would be a lot cleaner and easier to have an automatic review process rather than putting -- I wouldn't want to be put on the spot to say let's go ahead and put a full application process up here.
so to me it just seems like it's a little cleanerment I don't have a preference of two terms or three terms. I just think we need a point it would be helpful to have a point, a full applicant process.

>> I can write it any way y'all want to write it but I need clear guidance on what the intent of the court is.

>> are most of the appointments for two years or do we know?

>> there's six of the -- of these ones and I'd have to look, put the statute and provide you a report on each one and what the term is for each one because I think they are all different.

>> some of them have no terms.

>> essential help is three years.
some of them have no term.
it's a difficult --

>> let's do six years and do the reappointment process and move from there.
and I'm thinking --

>> twos and three-year terms anyway.

>> six year will pick up the health care district.
so on the others, I mean I do think there ought to be one number that applies to all of them.

>> would we apply those six years even to those who have no term stated?

>> yes.

>> that would be good.

>> in time I think we ought to move toward specifying a certain number of years for a term.
mr. Reeferseed.

>> just one comment along those lines.
might be too late, but seems for you all to give term limits to these volunteers from what I understand largely is without having term limits yourselves, I don't know, it seems not too nice.

>> this is not a term limit.
this is a term after which an open application process would be utilized.

>> meaning that their term would be over and it would be open to others?

>> meaning they can reapply if they chose to and others could apply as well.

>> and that's not possible to say if circumstances come up and say somebody is on a two-year term but their mother dies and they have to go home or something.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]

>> these aren't like ad hoc committees, these are obligations to -- to appoint Travis County representation to standing statutory bodies in most cases.
like, you know, the health care district.
the health care district isn't a committee that's going to go away.

>> okay.
so it's long-term participation, volunteers.
the mhmr integral care.
the central Texas regional mobility authority.
these aren't like subcommittees on, you know, the issue dejour.

>> like the judge said, all righty.

>> okay.

>> are you here on this item?
you are setting up for -- okay.
anything else on item 20?
let's put the six-year reappointment process begins.
with that I move approval of item 20.

>> second.

>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

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.