e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2~
2:
2~
2!
COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
November 10, 1998
1:30 p.m
Commissioners Courtroom
Kexr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas

PRESENT: ROBERT A. DENSON, County Judge
H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
' T. H. "BUTCH" LACKEY, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
F~hd,~~Dey of ~,A0.1>~AME_
&LUE G. MEEKER
Clerk County Court. Kerr County, Texas
~', ~ ~ ~aY
I N D E X pAGE
2
3
3 Late Bill (County Auditor)
4
4 Canvassing Votes {County Clerk)
5 Hiring Construction Consultant - Phase III of 12
Courthouse Renovation (Architect - Mike Walker)
6 22
Action taken on Executive Session matters
7 24
Reporter's Certificate
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
f
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 On Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at approximately 1:30
2 p.m., a Special Session of Commissioners Court was held in
3 the Commissioners Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, and the
4 following proceedings were had in open court:
5 P R O C E E D I N G S
g JUDGE DENSON: Let's see. It's about 1:30 on the
'7 10th of November, '98. And we have some carryover business
8 from yesterday on the Commissioners Court that we're going to
9 take up at 2:00, as announced. But we -- Tommy told me a
10 moment ago we have a late bill that he would like to present,
11 also.
12 MR. TOMLINSON: Correct.
13 JUDGE DENSON: So, Tommy Tomlinson.
14 MR. TOMLINSON: It's on the Gradeall that we
15 purchased yesterday from T.M.T. Parts and Machinery. They've
16 had this piece of equipment on hold with the people in
17 Amarillo for about three or four weeks, and they would like
18 to get a check today to be able to -- to purchase this
19 equipment. If they don't, they may lose it tomorrow.
20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: For the price we approved
21 yesterday?
22 MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, 516,500.
23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So moved.
29 COMMISSIONER LACKEY: Second.
25~ JUDGE DENSON: 516,500?
3
11
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2(
2]
2:
2.
2
2
MR. TOMLINSON: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: And we've got a motion and we have a
second. Anything else on that? All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. And then, per posted agenda,
we are to, at 1:30 today, canvass votes. Do you want to lead
us through that, Billie? Our County Clerk.
MS. MEEKER: This is a printout of the -- of the
results for each candidate. Early voting in the first
column, election day in the second column, and total in that
third column. And I have everything posted in the book, if
you'd like to see by precinct.
MR. WILLIAMS: Have you got extra copies, Billie?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You can have mine as soon as
I get through with it.
~:
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: You're not here, Bill.
MR. WILLIAMS: Really?
COMMISSIONER LACKEY: You're not here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see something kind of
interesting. I don't guess we should talk about it in here.
MS. MEEKER: This is early and election day
combined, and percentages.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Lots of interesting stuff
4~ here.
~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Did the voting machine--
4
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
lz
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2:
2:
2~
2'
vote-counting machines work this time fairly well?
MS. MEEKER: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Our maintenance must have
worked.
MS. MEEKER: It did indeed. He left some little
weight rings to use where we were having trouble before,
replaced some belts, and said use these little rings if we
needed some weight. They're about this thick, about this big
around. And sometimes Nadine would put one on top of the
stack, and it worked fine. The only delays we had were with
the way the voters marked the ballots -- or mismarked the
ballots. And we had to repair them so the machine would
print them. That caused some slight delay, but the machines
worked great.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Billie, Under-votes is to
t
balance, to make it equal 100 percent? Is that -- when you
said Undervotes -- like, looking at the first under Straight
Party.
MS. MEEKER: Mm-hmm?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Republican, 38.196. Democrat,
9.09. Libertarian, .39. Then under-votes, 52.09. That's to
make it 100?
MS. MEEKER: No. Well, I don't -- I guess. That
means that's the number of ballots that nobody voted for that
party -- for that candidate.
5
1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
2 MS. MEEKER: The under-vote.
3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
q (Off-the-record discussion.)
5 MS. MEEKER: We were required to conduct a manual
6 count on three precincts. I got a fax from the Secretary of
7 State the day after the election requiring that we count 107,
8 909, and 416, and we did. We were on -- and they asked that
9 we canvass -- that we tally the Attorney General race, only
10 that one race, and we were right on. On two of the
11 candidates -- on Maddox, in one precinct, we were off one
12 vote or so, but that's well within the percentage allowed.
13 So, we came out real well on that. Any questions?
14 I do have everything tabulated in the book for each
15 candidate, the number of votes cast for each precinct and the
16 totals and the percentage of the votes. We voted 13,169 out
17 of registered voters of 30,168, so we -- I think it's 40 --
lg COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 45, 47 percent.
lg~ MS. MEEKER: Uh-huh.
20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's not so bad. Compared
21 to other midterm elections, that's pretty good.
MS. MEEKER: It's interesting, you'll notice that
22
23~ in almost every instance, every candidate, early voting was
I
24 more than the precinct voting. And that's why I ordere some
25'~~ additional ballots, because I didn't know whether everybody
~ 6
n ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21!
22
23
24
25
-- I mean, a large number were voting early, or whether it
was proportionate; whether we would have the same percent on
election day. So, I got a little nervous there on Friday.
before the election for some more ballots. We did have one
precinct that ran out. Four-oh -- 906 ran out, and we
borrowed from 916, so we were okay. So, I do have to throw
away some ballots, I'm sorry.
JUDGE DENSON: And George Ann Smith, I think, had
told me that we had, like, 6,800 early voting?
MS. MEEKER: Yes, it's on that --
JUDGE DENSON: Six thousand eight hundred and
some-odd votes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, about a 50/50 split.
MS. MEEKER: 6,765.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. So, just short of -- yeah.
t
That's probably -- I don't know, just having it figured, like
55/95, something like that. And, we had 38.46 percent vote
straight party ticket on the Republicans, 9.09 Democrat.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Only 9 percent straight
Democrat?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is that what you said?
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah.
f1R. HENNECKE: Nine percent of the total.
JUDGE DENSON: Do we have figures in here that
7
I
1
2
3
4
S
6~~
7
8'
9
l0l
11~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
reflect total Democratic votes cast, as compared to the total
Republican votes cast?
MS. MEEKER: For each candidate?
JUDGE DENSON: No, for a total.
MS. MEEKER: Oh, for a total. No, I don't think we
do.
MR. HENNECKE: It's on this one -- no, we don't.
MS. MEEKER: That's the straight. I don't believe
the machine does that for us.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wouldn't that be a straight-
ticket vote, Judge?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, that's just those. But
you couldn't -- you have some of those split tickets.
JUDGE DENSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I mean, how would it --
JUDGE DENSON: Right. I mean, I just --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everybody else must have
split tickets, then.
MS. MEEKER: There were a lot of split tickets we
noted when we were manually counting those. A lot of split
tickets. And we think that's where the discrepancy came in
on our manual count, because there was a straight party and
then they would vote the opposite party for two or three.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, you have 5,066 straight-ticket
voters, Republican, out of 13,169. What is that?
8
I!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 38 --
JUDGE DENSON: 35, 38 percent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Pretty close to that.
JUDGE DENSON: So, a candidate had 38 percent of
the vote in the box before they even started. That should be
a pretty comfortable feeling to a Republican candidate.
MR. WILLIAMS: Why didn't you tell us that before?
MR. HENNECKE: We wouldn't have worried so much.
MS. MEEKER: We could have told you if you'd asked
us.
JUDGE DENSON: We could have guessed at it, based
on history. It would have probably been a good guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's actually higher than I
would have thought it would be. It's higher, there's more
straight-party-ticket voters than I would expect.
JUDGE DENSON: Well, and I think it's -- probably a
lot of it has to do with the governor. And --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Quality of candidates. I
mean, let's just say it. There wasn't anybody else across
the line from them.
JUDGE DENSON: I think that's why you have a lot of
straight-ticket voters is that, just, George Bush is the guy
to go with, and let's just go all the way down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's a good one -- if you're
going to ride on some coat tails, they're some good coat
9
		u
1	tails to ride on right	now.
2	COMMISSIONER	LACKEY: What do we do now?
3	JUDGE DENSON:	We just need to be -- correct me if
9	I'm wrong. We need to	accept vote on approving the votes.
5	MS. MEEKER:	Right. i have veered away from the
6	norm. I notice in many	years past, that at the end of the --
7	at the end of the recor	ding in this book, I'd like to get
8	away from this because	it's so time-consuming, but I haven't
9	figured that out and I	don't have time now. But, what I'm
10	going to do instead of	putting all the flowery language in
11	here, "Therefore" and s	o forth, I'm going to -- with your
12	permission, I would lik	e to just put a copy -- put the Court
13	order on this page, ins	tead of doing all this flowery
14	language and having you	sign it. Or if you want to sign it,
15	we can do that.	
		
16	JUDGE DENSON:	No, whatever you prefer. You're --
17	you're the County Clerk	, as you very well know, and this is
18	under your authority.	While we have to act on it, you're the
19	person in charge.	
20	MS. MEEKER:	I thank you.
21	JUDGE DENSON:	Okay. And I think what we need to
22	have is a motion to acc	ept the votes for --
23	COMMISSIONER	LETZ: Vote tabulation.
29	JUDGE DENSON:	The votes for the November 3rd
25	election as submitted.	
	
i	10
ii
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So moved.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
JUDGE DENSON: Any further questions? Comments?
All right. All in favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
MS. MEEKER: Thank you.
JUDGE DENSON: That will take care of it. And,
because we announced yesterday in open court that we would --
did we not? Correct me if I'm wrong -- that we would take up,
these carryover matters, one with Mike Walker and one with
Russ Duncan, at 2:00 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE DENSON: -- I don't think it would be proper
for us to start before then.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is one Executive and one
t
not?
JUDGE DENSON: I don't know. I have a call in to
the County Attorney's office as to the Russ Duncan matter.
We-started that out talking about personnel, and it's getting
away from personnel. It's getting more into talking about
how much money is owed Kerr County by that agency and how
we're going to collect it, so maybe by 2 o'clock the County
Attorney's office can give me an opinion on whether or not we
can keep i~ in Executive Session, or whether we should come
out~of open with it. So, let's recess for about 10 minutes.
11
u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 ''
12'
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
22
23
24
25
(Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
JUDGE DENSON: It's the -- it's about 5 after 2:00
on the 10th of November, 1998. And we had talked about --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 2.10. Or 2.9, something like
that. 2.10.
JUDGE DENSON: Yeah, 2.10, which was consider and
discuss hiring construction consultant to oversee Phase III
construction of courthouse renovation. Yesterday we had --
I think we passed an order where we committed to hire a
construction consultant without naming one, reserving the
right to determine who that person or firm would be in the
future. And then later on in the morning, we had some
business to take up with our architect, Mike Walker, which we
completed that business, and then we started talking in terms
of the action that we had taken on 2.10, and we recessed on
that matter yesterday to be able to discuss it more in detail
today. And, that's where we are. Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things -- I visited
with Commissioner-elect Williams, Griffin, and Judge-elect
Hennecke yesterday, and they all, I think, concur that it's a
good idea to hire someone that reports straight to the Court.
Someone -- you know, someone that's looking out for our
interests directly. I know that, under the contract, the
architect is supposed to fill that position, but it is -- in
12
I IIA i
1 my opinion, there is -- I think Buster probably shares this,
2 that it is better if we have someone that reports straight to
3 us. Because if you have the -- and the reason is that the
4 architect does the design part of it, and kind of -- we need
5 to make sure the specifications are followed. That's one of
6 the purposes of doing this. And, certainly, while I guess
7 there could be a potential conflict, I don't think -- nothing
8 individual about Mr. Walker. Just in general with
9 architects, though, there can be conflicts between them
10 working -- you know, approving the specifications that they
11 drew up. And this way we'd have more of an objective third
12 party looking at it that reports straight to the Court. So,
13 that's kind of where we were.
19 And, you know, our feeling -- I think the feeling is
15 that it should be an engineer that's -- I don't know, it's
16 not really above, or below -- beside Mike. I mean, it's kind
17 of -- Mike is ultimately, by contract, also responsible; he
18 has to sign off on it, clearly, per the agreement or contract
19 we have with Mike. But this person has to make sure that
20 everything's done accordingly and has to work with Mike.
21 And, certainly, they can, I think, get someone that can work
22 with you, Mike. It's -- I mean, it's not -- we surely -- it
23 would be detrimental to have someone that couldn't work with
29 you. So, I think I certainly would, you know, listen to any
25j comments you have when we get to the point of naming that
13
i
u:
1 person. Is that kind of correct of what we talked about?
2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. We had talked about,
3 in some of our minds, it's like a check-and-balance issue,
9 where we have the design guy, and then we have a construction
5 guy, and they can just, you know, work with each other and
6 everything; check/double-check all the way through. One of
7 the factors in my mind is the public perception, the problems
8 that we had with the jail, and how the public came and -- and
9 really beat you guys up pretty bad for not having an
10 oversight manager on the -- on the jail project. And, number
11 one, I'm -- I'm not -- I don't like that kind of stuff, so I I
12 don't want to through that.
13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Wise choice.
14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. It's true, you
15 know, I'm going to be honest about it. I think the
16 perception of -- perception the public has of a $2 million
17 project -- $2 million-plus project, it would just be wise for
18 us to do that.
I9 JUDGE DENSON: I agree with what Buster is saying,
20 as far as perception of the public. Of course, as I've said
21 many times before, most of all the newspaper articles and
22 that negative press that came out, that was caused directly
23 by the grand dragon of -- of taxpayer advocates, Mr. William
29 Pearson, himself.
25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: William B.
19
,~r
1 JUDGE DENSON: And his followers. And I'll tell
2 y'all right now, and all the Commissioners will have to
3 agree, that -- and you'll probably get your teeth into this
9 lawsuit, because we're going to -- possibly not going to be
5 able to complete it before year-end, is that 90 percent of
6 all their clamoring and allegations proved to be totally
7 ridiculous and erroneous. But, that does not negate the fact
8 that, from a public perception standpoint, it would be
9 better. Now, those decisions were made before I even came on
10 the Court with regard to that jail. As a matter of fact, I
11 -- it's been reported to me several times that the former
12 County Judge had agreed with several of the Commissioners
13 that he, himself, would be an on-site inspector of the jail.
14 So, that's the way it was decided to be handled by the prior
15 Court. But, back to the point. What does the contract say?
16 Z know y'all were looking at it. I didn't have a time to
17 look at it yesterday. Just with regard to Mike's being
18 involved in the --
191 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As I read it, it says that he
20 is to, with reasonable certainty, make sure the building is
21 built to specifications. There's about a paragraph to it,
22 and that's -- you know, they use the word "reasonable," I
23~ believe is in there, and it says that the architect -- I
24 guess when'I read it, the implication is that there is
25~ another person to look after it day-to-day. Because it
~ 15
is
1 refers to, The architect shall be there occasionally -- I
2 forget what the word is. Not -- it doesn't say all the time,
3 basically.
9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Periodically?
5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Periodically, I think was the
6 word used in the contract. And it is -- it's just a standard
7 contract form; we didn't make any modifications to the form,
8 the national form.
9 JUDGE DENSON: Mike, do you have any objection --
10 or let's just put it this way. Do you have any comments at
11 this time about this subject?
12 MR. WALKER: Well, yes, sir, I do.
13 JUDGE DENSON: Okay, shoot.
19 MR. WALKER: Let me -- let me first say that I -- I
15 really have no problems one way or the other with it. What
16 my concern is is that you get delivery of services. I did
17 not sell you plans, I sold you services. In -- in delivery
18 of those services, all I want to do is -- is get you the
191 building that you paid for. And, aside from that, I also
20 have to -- to protect my interests to make sure that what
21 goes in out there is what we did. Because, as you know, if
22i anything goes wrong, then people will start saying, "Well,
23; how did that happen?" And, so, we -- whatever your past
I
29' relationship has been with architects, aside from myself, I
25j can't -- I won't speak to that one way or the other. I know
i
I
~ 16
I
I Ip 1
1
2
3
4
5~
6
7
8,
91
10!
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what our obligation is here, and it's about two finely
typewritten pages in the contract of what I'm supposed to do
during construction administration.
I can either -- it's written such that you could have an
owner's rep, if there is one. And, if so, it talks some --
very vaguely about my relationship with that -- that entity.
It's all a matter -- it's lust like the architect. It's all
a matter of who the person is. If the person is really good,
really knows his stuff, is really cooperative, is really a
team player and gets in there and everybody does their
portion of it and nobody else tries to override their
responsibility or authority, then everything works very well.
Conversely, if it's -- if it's not a smooth person, whether
it's me or that person -- in other words, if they don't work
well together, then there's going to be -- you can see where
r
there could be friction.
There, basically, what they will get into, quite often,
is interpretation of contract documents. That -- that's one
of the dangerous fringe areas. We're the only ones entitled
to interpret our drawings. And so, if they -- if we get into
a situation where, you know, there's conflicts about how
those drawings are interpreted -- because we didn't do
perfect drawings, I'll tell you that right now. Okay?
Nobody-does.
JUDGE DENSON: You didn't?
17
~.
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15i
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. WALKER: No. It says right here in print --
no. And, so, we -- you know, we have to -- and this is a
remodel, and so there's going to be things that come up, as
you know. That's happened last time.
JUDGE DENSON: What are you saying, Mike? And I'm
not -- I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Are you saying
that you don't have any objection to the Court hiring this
individual, but you reserve ultimate decision-making
authority?
MR. WALKER: Well --
JUDGE DENSON: Interpretation?
MR. WALKER: The owner has ultimate decision-
making authority.
JUDGE DENSON: But I don't -- I think one of the
reasons that --
MR. WALKER: I don't know what you're charging
this --
JUDGE DENSON: Excuse me just a minute. I think
one of the reasons why Jonathan brought this up, and aside
from public perception and all that, is the smooth operation
-- the smooth running of the operation. And, one, it starts
at the bid phase, where you're hoping to get as many bids as
possible to make it truly competetive and get a good price.
And not only that, but you get some really qualified
contractors making the bid. But, throughout the process,
18
i~
1 while the Court has an extreme interest in the project,
2 itself, I don't think the Court wants to hear about it on a
3 daily basis. So, we want there to be compatibility with the
9 -- with not only the professionals involved, but also the
5 contractor, as well.
6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What I was going to say, I
7 think one of the things I think would be a big help to Mike,
8 or whoever the architect was -- Mike, in this case -- I don't
9 think it is good to have a Commissioner be the liaison on
10 this big of a project. I think you need to have either the
11 whole Court, or the Court hire someone to be the person --
12 the liaison. And none of us on the Court, I don't think,
13 have the expertise to make some of the decisions that
19 probably will have to be made, nor the time to really be
15 there and be available all the time. And if we have someone
16 that we hire, that person can get some limited authority, and
17 that can be worked out by the new Court exactly how much
18 authority that person gets. But, there's someone to be here
19~ on-site who can make a decision on some of the minor things
20 every day, as opposed to having to call a meeting and let the
21 five members of the Court make that decision, which I think
22 it will make it a lot smoother project if we have someone who
Z3~ is representing us. Obviously, Mike represents us too, but,
i
291 you know, from a different standpoint a little bit.
25j JUDGE DENSON: Precisely. And that's what I'm
19
I
-u
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19~
151'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
saying, in different words. And let me express my opinion on
this, Mike, and I don't -- and Butch and Bruce. At this late
in the game, you know, if this wasn't midyear, my last term
in office, I may want to -- I don't know that I'd feel
different, but I may want to voice an opinion, but I'm going i
to defer to these two guys that are on the Court, as well as
my colleagues that will be coming on the Court, on these type
of issues, 'cause they're going to impact the future.
Thexe's -- that contract is going to be performed at a period
of history in Kerr County when I'm not even on the Court.
So, this is what they want to do, and I think we need to move
forward. I think the Court's already taken the necessary
action that it needs to take by committing to do -- doing
this. The Court will have to come up with a name later on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only other thing --
and part of it with you is, I think whoever picked up bid
packages should be advised that there will be -- the Court is
going to hire someone to work with the architect, you know.
Obviously, you still have final say, I mean, on the
interpretation part of it. But I just think a --- and I
don't know that it makes any difference who bids or how much
-- what the bids are or not, but I think from a contractor
standpoint, that would make it an easier job, knowing that
the Court has a professional that we're hiring to work with
the architect, as opposed to having to work with us and delay
20
I!
1 things. I mean, potentially. So --
2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And with the contractor.
3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, and with the contractor,
9 so that they -- obviously, this is sort of a big decision.
5 If whoever we hire isn't comfortable, the decision will come
6 back to this Court. But, day-to-day decisions -- certainly,
7 my intent is that this person will be able to make those for
S the Court.
9 MR. WALKER: Well, this project, if I may say, is
10 borderline between one that -- that probably deserves an
11 owner's rep, of that magnitude and size and scope, and
12 because of the complexity of having to work around the other
13 -- all the departments that are in operation, it is certainly
14 understandable why you would need to do that, because there
15 is day-to-day coordination, as you know, just for what went
16 on back here, where people have got to be shuffled and moved.
17 And it's probably more -- it may be more cost-effective to do
18 it. Obviously, you're going to spend more money, which is
19 certainly your decision to do it.
20 My -- I guess the worst-case scenario is -- is the field
21 axim, the number of problems are equal to the score of the
22 number of people involved. And, if -- you know, as long as
23 we all understand that. And it does leave room for
29 complications, but I will do -- I assure you that I will do
25 everything in my professional ability to make sure that it
21
1 goes as smoothly as possible, which is what I intended to do
2 anyway. So, whether you represent -- you know, pick somebody
3 to represent you, or however you want to do it, and we have
9 not done anything to our contractual obligations, that I'm --
5 I'm good to go.
6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. Okay.
7 JUDGE DENSON: Good. Thank you very, very much.
8 MR. WALKER: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
9 JUDGE DENSON: Okay, that will conclude that
10 matter. Now we'll need to move over into resuming our
11 discussions on an Executive Session matter, Personnel,
12 Collections Coordinator, and the issues surrounding that that
13 developed in our Executive Session yesterday. So, at 2:20,
14 unless there's other open court business to take up, I think
15 we'll close our Commissioners Court and go into Executive
r
16 Session.
17 (Off-the-record discussion.)
18 (The open session was closed at 2:20 p.m., and an
Executive session was had, the transcript of which
19~ is contained in a separate document.)
20 - - - - - - - - - -
21 JUDGE DENSON: Okay. It's 2:37 on the 10th of
22 November, 1998. We've just come out of Executive Session.
23 And -- let's see. I'll make a motion that Russ Duncan is
24 directed to ask Kerr County Credit Bureau to terminate all
25i collection efforts on behalf of Kerr County, that Russ Duncan
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1411
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
obtain from the Kerr County Clerk's office a certified number
that is owed Kerr County by Kerr County Credit Bureau, and to
ask Kerr County Credit Bureau to remit such funds to the
Treasurer of Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Second.
JUDGE DENSON: Motion and second. Yes, sir?
MR. DUNCAN: May I make a correction on the name of
the company? It's the Texas Hill Country Credit Bureau, so
that it's accurate in the record, please.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay, thank you. Do you have that,
Tammy?
MS. MARQUART: Yes.
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. I've got a motion and second.
Any further questions, comments on this? Okay. All in
favor?
(The motion was carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE DENSON: Okay. All right. We'll be in
recess.
(Commissioners Court was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.)
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
C E R T I F I C A T E
The above and foregoing is a true and correct
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
Official Reporter of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 17th day of November,
1998.
Kathy nik
Certified Shorthand Reporter
r
24