Travis County Commissioners Court

March 20, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 29

View captioned video.

29.
consider and take appropriate action on recommendation to transfer the facilities department to the county executive of planning and budget.
Commissioner Gomez and I came up with this idea as the subcommittee of the Commissioners court over planning and budget.
we have been trying to find a home for facilities for a few months now.
and I'm not abandoning the idea of doing an assessment.
but it does seem to me that an assessment is a few months off.
and so the question is what steps, if any, might we take immediately to promote a bit more harmony than we have seen during the last few months.
and I think that it's fair to say that Commissioner Gomez and I concluded that if we were to give the new executive, county executive of planning and budget an opportunity to work with facilities, that it would be a move in the right direction.
and ms. Broader was in charge of facilities down at the city of Austin in her previous life.
and mr. Manila has agreed to, well, did agree to work with us on that and in my view has done an admirable job, while it's been under his supervision, but there has been a little friction that probably has not served us well and so in my view, if we can give facilities a fresh, new start and take our time making a decision on whether or not to do an independent assessment and how that independent assessment might be done, then we would -- we would be best served.
so -- so in short, that's -- that's my view of it.
it would be an opportunity for a -- you know, for a fresh start in a department, in an area, a little bit different than t.n.r.
and I think it would be a move in the right direction at this time.
Commissioner Gomez, did you articulate that fairly well.

>> I think so, I think so.
I would agree that we need an assessment.
but I really think that maybe enough time has gone by since 1994, when we did the assessment of the internal organization and perhaps we need a more comprehensive assessment of our internal organization and see where all of the different departments and functions belong and that will take a little time because I feel like if we do it any other way, it's piecemealing.
and so it would -- it probably would serve us well to go ahead and see where we are today after -- after 18 years of operating the way we've been operating and maybe truly it's time for -- for, you know, some positive change.
and so -- I would be open to that as well.

>> I did discuss this with ms. Broader.
I think it's unfair to say that she enthusiastically embraced this opportunity.
but after that discussion, she agreed.

>> [laughter]

>> gracefully.

>> we also chatted with, I told stephen about it and he was a lot more gleeful than ms. Broader, probably.
and I also chatted with roger, who thought it might be good to try.

>> with regard to an assessment, I am absolutely in agreement that overall organizational assessment would be good.
perhaps we could ask the operational planning team to look at a scope or a phasing of -- of organizational assessment, since we are currently engaged in -- in an assessment of contracts for the -- or the assessment of its, that would be part of an overall.
and perhaps, you know, in the big picture, it might be nice to go ahead and schedule, just as we do market salary surveys and now have come to the point that we have realized thatting a overall market salary survey is important on a regular basis, perhaps we should also consider a -- an organizational checkup on perhaps a five-year basis.
rather than a -- let's see, it was '94 when we did the last one.

>> '94 is when it was done and implemented in '95.

>> so that would be 17 years ago.

>> the planning team has a whole lot on its plate.

>> uh-huh.

>> the planning team seems to be looking at this anyway.
just because it keeps coming up.

>> in my view the planning team ought to clear some of the items on its plate before we add others.
the other thing is that a lot of these items are taking a lot longer than they should and I don't know that time helps us.
it seems to me that -- that if we direct that a group of core managers help us with this, then we ought to make sure that they have time to do it immediately.
or we ought to delay implementing it.
we are not really posted for that today.
but it does seem to me that it requires a little bit more thought and whatever action we take we ought to impose some deadlines on ourselves, as well as the team.
at the same time, we ought to be mindful of what's already on the team's plate.
there are some kind of big issues that we have shifted to them that I think they have been working through them painstakingly.
any time you've got five or six managers working together, it's un-- it's unrealistic to think that they will be of the same mind.
if they reach that point, what I have learned is that typically it's months and months later, right? And a lot of those discussions generate more friction than anything else.
now, I'm not summarizing what ms. Flemming told me.
those are -- those are observations that I have made from a distance I must say.

>> sherri flemming.
I think that all period of time comments are on point.
however, the organizational planning team, you know, did have some discussion around this and we will be happy to continue to discussions around this at your direction.
but at a minimum, I would want to remind you of a rather significant cost that we identified in having something like this done in a way that you would perceive it to have usefulness for you.
and so it could be that -- that we could revisit those costs and have you consider some potential earmark or some other action during the budget process that will prepare you to make a decision in the future.
if -- if, you know, you feel like once we're able to clear some things off our plate that you would want us to revisit this subject.

>> how many employees currently are -- are I guess within the -- within the -- the fmd facility manager

>> [indiscernible], how many employees do we have --

>> we probably have 170 -- about 130 full time, another 40 temporary or so.

>> okay.
you know, I've -- I've struggled and I've looked at there have been friction type of situations, ain't no doubt about it.
of course with the way it is now.
I think today to make sure that we can kind of minimize a lot of things, I think efficiency and a whole bunch of other things go a long ways.
especially if you don't have situations where you do have -- where you do have friction? And, of course, I can support this particular move, and -- and as you know, I've really -- I'm really not a real big proponent of a whole bunch of organizational things.
I have probably

>> [indiscernible] no reorganization -- voted no on a whole bunch of things, probably more than anybody else on this court.
of course but when I see things that I think -- I think that's a workable situation, I'm saying me, I speak for Ron Davis.
and when I --

>> who do you speak for?

>> Ron Davis

>> [laughter] I see things the way I see it.
that's it.
I just think that this is something that will be workable, something that we can move in the direction on.
I would like to go ahead, an item not placed on the agenda per se, but here before us today, I can support.
and move on.
so that's -- that's my comment at this time.
thank you.

>> court members, questions, comments? Commissioner Huber?

>> okay, folks.
you know, we as a group on this dais agree on many, many things, probably most things.
but we have been polarized on this issue of facilities for several years now.
I have been trying to work with the system internally at the county to move forward with what I believe is a major department that we need to have a serious look at how it's organized and how it operates.
we have nine architects in this department to the tune of 1 -- about 1.1 million in overhead.
and that does not include their support staff.
I think that is extremely excessive use of taxpayer money.
I am not targeting this at any individual, any individual.
but we have an oversized department that does not function in a way that many facilities departments that function well now do.
evidenced by the fact that our department does not even look at the construction manager at risk.
which is a standard industry practice.
we did it in 700 lavaca with the outsourcing that we did on the first three floors.
to try to bring that learning curve in.
because we're polarized in our approach to this, we bounce in department around for three different departments now in the last year.
we have major facilities programs going on.
we need to get this department shaped up where we feel in sync as a court for it.
I have a problem that we keep changing it just because the facilities department is not happy where they are.
we have senior county executives that we have hired to run this county and their departments because of their expertise.
if we don't empower our senior executives to do what they think is right, we cannot -- we're not running this county well.
we cannot let a department under a county executive come to us and say "we don't like it here, we want to be somewhere else." if there's no other reason that we need to move quickly into an assessment of the facilities department, I think that says it right there.
we have -- we're being very penny-wise and pound foolish.
when we are looking at all of the facilities programs that we have coming down the pike, including the civil courthouse, that needs to have a good, well-run facilities department internally.
I don't claim to have the expertise to know it, but I know that we have problems. And I think that we must move forward with a complete assessment, whatever the cost to get a good one.
and I do not think that it's fair, it's political charged, internally, as this department is, to put this under a new, brand new, on the job less than a month county executive.
as the -- as the -- to try to solve the problems because -- she's not good -- never been through a budget before here at the county.
she brings all of the expertise we need.
it's her first budget process.
she needs to hire a new assistant to work with her.
it's great that she has facilities experience, it may well end up being the appropriate place for her.
but to put in politically under a brand new county executive is unconscionable to me at this point.

>> well, I think that I have three or four responses.
one is that I think we would be foolish not to recognize and fully appreciate the place in this department under t.n.r.
was a mistake.
that placing this department under t.n.r.
was a mistake.
looking back that's my belief.
second is that there's no reason in my view to prolong that mistake, we ought to try to clean it up as best we can.
the third reason is that a minority of this court believes that there are inherent basic problems in facilities, not a majority.

>> have we been counting votes?

>> we take votes.
we don't have to count votes.
we take votes on motions.
also, we hear statements made by members of this Commissioners court.
but the other thing in my view is that we talked about an assessment.
and if we're going to do one, let's do one.
there are a whole lot of ways to do it.
we have to reach agreement on how to get it done.
but I don't know -- us not taking action doesn't improve the situation.
I never, you know, I have seen facilities operate since I have been on the Commissioners court and I don't have any basic issues with it.
in terms of the architects, we brought them on one at a time.
there wasn't a single architect brought on that was not approved by the Travis County Commissioners court.
and every budget cycle we approved the funding to keep the position.
but at the same time, I'm not -- I don't know that we ought to have half the number or twice the number.
but I'm willing to look at that fairly and objectively.
and sitting here and giving, you know, emotionally charged speeches won't solve that.
we know how to do that, and, you know, this court, in my view, doesn't act on stuff that it ought to act on.
we ought to transfer facilities somewhere away from t.n.r.
and we ought to do it now.
if -- if the planning and budget office is not where it should end up, I'm willing to entertain anything else.

>> judge --

>> I --

>> judge, can I respond to that.

>> Commissioner Davis and then we'll get back to you.

>> thank you.
you know, I have looked at this over and over again.
I have had direct relation with facilities management for a number of years.
and -- and the relationship being that I have noticed projects in precinct 1, that the facilities manager was involved in, that saved taxpayers significant dollars by finding ways to -- to bring projects under budget.
which is the savings which we could use for other things in the county.
that is the experience that I've had for a long time with facilities management.
I look at it like that.
what has this department done to -- to bring about a product at a cost that is under budget? Now, I -- I -- and in saying that, I -- in my opinion, I mean really, to relook at it, I think we ought to be an independent organization all themselves, all the executive managers, everything else.
because we hired these folks.
we hired these folks as architects, engineers, a and e, or whatever.
we hired them because of their ability to do just that.
if we're saying we don't need them, we paid the paychecks every week.
just like everybody else around here.
if we're going to do selective assessment, which appears to me, we need to assist every dad gummed department in Travis County, every last one that we have, everybody needs to be assessed at the same time and see exactly where we are with all of them, not to selectively select one because of whatever.
now, there has been some -- again, the -- not only in precinct 1, but other areas in this particular county on projects has been cost savings realized.
again, I can say that I haven't really been all excited about some of this reorganization stuff, I have voted no on a lot of them, probably all of them, probably more than anything else.
but I know what I do -- what I need to do to do the right thing at the time, a workable situation to make things more efficient and better for the taxpayers of Travis County.
that's what I'm all about.
whether it's a disagreement, fine.
it's a 1-4 vote up here sometimes, 2-3, I'm on the minority on a lot of things, but at the end of the day I can live with it and move on.
I move on.
let's go to the next item.
so let's go to the next item.
this is something that I think we need to move, get behind it.
if we're going to do selective, if we're going to do assessment, I think it ought to be general not selective.
that we look at every department here.
every department, every department.
every executive manager.
if we are so concerned about -- about taxpayers' dollars and things of that nature, let's go ahead and hit a home run with it.
let's don't hit a single.
this is a single because it's a selective assessment on one department, one entity, I think this should be, as again, independent organization doing its own thing like all of the rest of them are.
where we can do a job for Travis County dealing with the facilities of the -- the facilities is a big part of this county.
this building we're sitting in is a part of that right now.
under facilities.
in my opinion, let it be autonomous, except direct them, give direction they need taxpayers of Travis County.
I have a lot of confidence in fmd.
because of the delivery of the services that they have been able to render for years.
for years, all across the county.
that's from experience, though.
so I'm --

>> Commissioner Huber?

>> first I would like to say that the -- that the Monday tra of -- mantra of under budget, on time and under budget is packaged by the facilities department.
I have serious questions about the fact that we are consistently under budget when you look at the -- at the ongoing modifications to previous previous contracts.
let me just talk about cost savings to the county, because the most recent experience where in my opinion the facilities department did not -- did not do a cost savings which should have been and was recommended was the glazing of 700 lavaca, which they chose to bid out, not including the first three floors.
ultimately that whole project will cost us more because of the need to have to go back and add those first three floors.
assessing selectively, we are currently already doing assessment of an its department.
there is not a singling out for punitive purposes by requesting assessment of a facilities department.
this is emotional.
there is no question, this is an emotional issue.
and it starts behind the scenes with the head of that department coming independently to different court members.
it's time that we get moving with this because we cannot have a department that -- that acts on its own without concert and repeatedly does things that are not the process that should be considered.
when it comes to bidding and going out for contracts.

>> I would favor the Commissioners court taking action on county executives and then getting out of the way.
if all five of us do that.
so we should have an agenda item in the future that allows us to discuss that and land on it.
I must confess, though, that when a manager comes in my office, I speak with the manager because I never know what the reason is until I've heard it.
and to be honest, I've been here long enough to know, if you have advice to give, give it.
but I don't -- I don't -- like anybody is doing, as far as I know, managers that come chat with me, also chat with other members of the Commissioners court as appropriate.
I mean, I have too much to do to worry about that.
but if we want to -- if we want to consider how we conduct business, the five of us, as to county executives and I think that ought to be another discussion, and -- and, you know, typically when I single out a manager to chat with, it's about something positive.
not something real, real negative.
you know, we have different styles as the managers do.
and the t.n.r.
and facilities I think has styles that clashed.
and I don't think that we could overlook that.
and the change I think we ought to make is set forth in item no.
29 here.
there are broader issues, obviously.
this is narrowly focused.
this is just transferring the facilities department to the county executive of planning and budget.
and whatever we can do to facilitate that transfer, we ought to do as a Commissioners court.
and whatever issues pop up, that are brought to our attention, I think we ought to look at them as fairly and objectively as possible, then vote on them.
if I get outvoted, I get outvoted.
if I vote with the majority, I'm thankful and I recognize that, too.
but the five of us have different points of view on different departments.

>> you are right, judge.
we have different styles of communicating and my door is always open.
and -- but I don't know that -- that I have a lot of visits.
I have calls.
and if I have a question about something, I'll pick up the phone and call the person who can give me the answer.
I don't like bureaucracy.
and I'm not going to go through all of these different chains to get the answer that I need, so that I can give it to my constituent.
I'm going to call the person who has the answer and I'm going to deliver that -- that message.
we attended the cuc conference in bastrop, there was a very good speaker there talking about organizations.
and he said that five percent of our time of our employees and our time is spent resolving issues and giving the information to the constituent.
the other 95% is trying to figure out all of the bureaucracy, all of the loop holes on the policies and how to get through those policies in order to deliver an answer.
to a constituent.
that's -- that's not my idea of -- of democracy.
and that's not what I like to do.
that's not my style.
so I'm not going to do that.
but I take calls from everybody and I think that I have been around here long enough to understand what we did in the past and why we did it.
and if it makes sense, we keep doing it.
if not, we bring it to the court to make the -- to make the -- the changes that need to be made.
but I won't undermine any county executive.
I won't do that.
I will say that I will call whoever I need to call to get the answer that I need because I simply do not believe in bureaucracy.
I won't let that hold me back from giving an answer directly to a constituent.
so -- but I mean other than that, I -- I just -- I don't -- I disagree with some of the county executives on some of recommendations.
but I don't go after you.
to try to -- to try to -- to cut you off at the knees.
you know, I just don't do that.
I understand that we're going to disagree at some time or another.
but, you know, there's another issue.
that's one issue.
there are other issues take we like to keep working on.
I like to always remember that we are all sent here to do a job for constituents and taxpayers.
we don't have to like each other.
we don't have to like each other at all.
but we can respect each other and try to get the focus on those things that are really important to our constituents.
that's what I'm focusing on here.
my constituents.
and the taxpayers of Travis County.
with you I'm ready to move on this item judge.

>> I just have one comment.

>> Commissioner Huber then Commissioner Eckhardt.

>> this in my opinion is bureaucracy perputation at its best.

>> I have great confidence in leslie, leslie taking on facilities management into planning and budget, I have always thought it would be t.n.r.
and planning and budget where facilities should move.
it is not an inappropriate move in my mind from an organizational standpoint.
there will need to be the support of the full operational planning team, though, I think, to -- to bring our newest manager up to speed on the history of the organization.
and how it=6 go.
in order to best assist facilities in becoming the best that it can be.
I -- there's wonderful talent inside facilities management.
and, yet, we have a million dollar consulting contract that did -- that did outside survey of how our facilities are perceived in the community.
and that the result of that survey from user groups of our facilities came back saying that we are not perceived well.
with regard to -- with regard to the look, the utilization, the -- way-finding, at least with regard to our central business district.
I think we have to be honest with ourselves that we do have a -- a reputation in the community for not having the facilities that we -- that we ought to in order to -- in order to best serve not only our internal users, but also our external users.
I do feel that it's important for us to do an assessment to facilities management.
so that facilities management can use that assessment to be all that they can be.
I would ask purchasing how long would it take us to get a request for services on the street.
we have taken -- we might use the its assessment, rfs, as a -- as a -- a measuring stick for how long it would take us, because I think that it would be useful to leslie, it would be useful to roger, it would be useful to the operational planning team in figuring out how to assist fmd in the improvement that fmd wants to make.

>> I would say a couple of months we could put something together.

>> and -- and is there -- was there ever a -- a funding source identified for an assessment?

>> nope.
but as the Commissioners court, we will know what sources to tap.
now, my own view is that if we give ms. Broader this responsibility with one of the -- with the assistance of one of the best county historians around, leroy nellis, she can get that history.
I don't know as a court we ought to keep trying to micromanage this deal.
it seems to me that we ought to give ms. Broader enough leeway to go in there, manage as best she can, identify gaps in performance and then make specific recommendations to us.
so I don't know that we ought to rush into another assessment.
I mean, our role ought to be minimized except for the funding.
and at the same time, though, the -- the experience ms. Broader has and the -- in working with facilities at the city, which -- which has to be much larger than our operation, ought to serve her well.
so I'm thinking that there will be aspects of this that she recognizes and appreciates that we don't.
but I don't know that we give her that opportunity if we speedily move on down the road.
now steve manila didn't ask for this assignment.
we asked him to take it and he graciously accepted it and I guess did the best he could.
we will relief him of a burden of a sort, won't we, steve, about transferring this to another --

>> well --

>> [laughter] judge, even with that, though, you know, let's look at -- I said about selective assessments and of course my concern is that we hear complaints from our constituents on every department we have here.
every department.
every executive manager before us here today, I've heard a complaint from a constituent somewhere about ya.
and hearing those things we try to take those situations to you, we try to facilitate the things that we hear from our constituents, we work out the differences, well, Commissioner Davis, dah-dah-dah, dah-dah-dah, wrote this dah-dah-dah, hhs, emergency services this, dah-dah-dah, all across the board.
of course they said well I think you all can do better than what you are doing.
so at some point, if we're going to assess where we think there are deficiencies, I think we need to assess everything, I really do.
otherwise, otherwise, everybody else is perfect.
in this world.
it appears that, I know that we have some problems, I'm not sitting here realizing that we don't have problems. We do, but let's be fair about it.
let's be -- everybody has problems in your departments, one way shape, form or the other, no one is perfect.
I hear a lot of it.
if we need to look at this, we need to look at the whole nine yards in my opinion.
that's not what's on the agenda.
the -- what's on the agenda is moving to the p.b.o.
I'm ready to act as soon as y'all are.

>> Commissioner Huber?

>> if indeed this department is transferred to p.b.o.
today, I would just like to know how we're going to safeguard or set up, keep from setting up our new county executive of p.b.o.
for failure because of the politics and emotions involved with this.
in other words, my question is, if her recommendations for how to, for whatever with facilities, were not met with the liking of facilities, which is the ongoing history, how are we going to deal with that as a court?

>> I think the best thing that we can do is get out of the way.
and I think we ought to -- if we transfer it to county executive of planning and budget, we ought to give that manager an opportunity to do the right thing.
and we ought to be on stand by to assist if called upon.
we have found that hard to do.
historically.
but we ought to start doing it would be my answer.

>> what if the -- what if the recommendation is an organizational restructure that's similar to the organizational restructure recommended by

>> [indiscernible]

>> that -- by steve.

>> that's counts for ms. Broader, steve didn't recommend that.
we asked for an assessment up front, we never got that.

>> I believe he did send out a draft reorganization, which was what --

>> [multiple voices]

>> it was not after an assessment.

>> no it was not.

>> it was a recommended merger, basically.
but in answer to your question, I think that I will commit, if you will, basically to receive seriously any recommendations from the county executive of planning and budget.
but I'm not assuming that I know what it will be.
if it comes, I'm assuming it will be her best efforts.
I will give the review and appropriate action my best effort.
that's why we're here.
but a threshold position of ours should be get out of the way.
if we make -- if we take this action.
and we don't want our managers to be tell tales, but if the court wants that to happen, we can put that down.

>> no, I don't want that.

>> we expect you to tell the whole court any time a court member contacts you about this issue.

>> I for one, I've expressed this with regard to the suggested reorganization in t.n.r., if -- I believe the new executive manager should manage their shop.
and if their decision on their organization or their hiring or their firing does not meet with my approval, I will express that in my evaluation of their job.
but I will not tell them not to hire or fire or reorganize.

>> we never have done that.
I also don't want to poison that well for anybody.

>> I suggest that we have

>> [laughter] and that we are currently engaged in that.

>> like the judge said we need to pull back then and stop doing all that.

>> okay.

>> any other comments? Now, I have a motion ready.
unless there's a member of the court who wants to delay this a week?

>> I'll second.

>> okay.

>> no delay request? I think the outcome will be the same.
either it's going to pass or not.

>> is it part of the motion to give the planning and budget county executive the full authority over this? That we won't interfere?

>> yeah.

>> it's mine.

>> that would be friendly.

>> it's mine.

>> do we get in blood a commitment --

>> [laughter]

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> no.
that's not posted.

>> but --

>> my motion is to transfer the facilities department to the county executive of planning and budget as the item says.

>> second.

>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion on the motion? Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> with regard to the -- what you considered friendly from Commissioner Huber, is it the intent that if ms. Browder decides an assessment is appropriate, that ms. Browder has the authority to move forward with purchasing on the scope of an assessment?

>> that is not posted for today.
but if you were to bring that back, ms. Browder can't go anywhere without money, right, ms. Browder, she is going to want to know the source of funding.
this operates like the city in a whole lot of ways.

>> [laughter]

>> that's why -- that's the nature of my question was -- that is the nature of my question.
what you found friendly in Commissioner Huber's -- Commissioner Huber's comments was apparently not the authorization today, along with the transfer of authority, to move forward with an assessment.

>> you are absolutely right.

>> I find that unfortunate --

>> we can stay out of the way was the question, I said that I would agree to that if the whole court was.

>> we apparently are not able to stay out of the way in that regard.
okay.

>> this item doesn't change the law.
we limit it to items that you have posted.
if there are other items this we want to consider in the future, all we've got to do is submit a posting, we'll put it on.
be happy to do it.
I don't guarantee what the vote will be.
but I guarantee you we'll put it on the next available agenda.
Commissioner Huber?

>> if you considered my comments friendly, I would prefer to hear them articulated them in the motion.

>> articulate your request again.

>> in the transfer -- in the transfer of facilities to the county executive planning and budget, that she be given the full authority, without interference from the court, to manage this department.

>> that's friendly.
ms. Porter? Commissioners court clerk? That is friendly.
as part of the motion.

>> does that include all of the scope of managerial authority, hiring, firing, demotion, promotion? Reorganization?

>> that would be on --

>> that doesn't include reorganization, it does include the ability to higher and fire.

>> then I withdraw my comments.
if we're going to mess with reorganization in the future, then we are messing with the authority of our county executives to do their job for their department as they see it.

>> you all talk about reorganization, assessments, the rest of that stuff, but I'm saying hey I'm on the program, let's bring back the specific agenda item.
this is -- okay.
so you withdraw the --

>> I can't support the motion unless it's articulated as such.

>> all right.
if you can can't articulate what you want friendly, so be it.
my motion is without the -- without the qualification from Commissioner Huber.
any more discussion? On the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Huber voting against.
ms. Browder, we do not accept any requests to resign

>> [laughter] from new county executives for at least 90 days.

>> my condolences.

>> mine, too.

>> mr. Manila,.

>> sir?

>> thank you very much.
we're looking for a new assignment for you by the way.

>> I would like to make one statement.
my negative vote was -- was in no way an indication of my lack of support for our new county executive.
leslie browder.
I think that she's fully up to the job and brings talent that we desperately need.

>> I second that emotion.

>> amen.

>> welcome aboard, ms. Browder.

>> thank you.

>> now y'all, moving to a more routine and friendlier item,

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.