1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY JUVENILE FACILITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
2:00 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
Sl. ~
O
~o
S
O
z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
April 18, 2006]
1.1 Consider, discuss and take appropriate action
with regard to administration and personnel in
the Kerr County Juvenile Detention Facility and
related issues. (Executive Session, as necessary
and/or appropriate)
--- Adjourned
PAGE
3
32
3
1
'° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°^"` 2 9
25
On Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., a meeting of
the Kerr County Juvenile Facility Board of Trustees was held
in the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse,
Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order this special
meeting of the Kerr County Juvenile Facility Board of
i Trustees, meeting having been posted and called for this time
and date, Tuesday, April 18th, 2006, at 2 p.m. It's that time
administration and personnel in the Kerr County Juvenile
Detention Facility and related issues, with the caveat that
some portions may be in executive session as required.
Mr. Williams, I think you had initially set the previous
meeting, which got reset over onto this one.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, Judge, but I
would defer to you, as the chairman of the Juvenile Probation
Board and so forth, to make whatever comments you wish as to
how we proceed with this.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, the Juvenile Board,
as I'm sure you all know, was of the opinion that -- that
Mr. Stanton could not serve in two capacities, and -- and the
ultimate action of the Juvenile Board was to release
4-18-Oh F:CJF BT
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Stanton effective June 1 or sooner if he was brought on
board by the Board of Trustees of the juvenile facility, and
in his capacity as facility manager.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, question. I just want to
make sure -- I want to -- there was an "if" in there. And
I've been out of town, as you're aware. There was -- you said
he's released as of June 1st "if" we hire him?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought you had an "if."
JUDGE TINLEY: He was released effective June 1st,
or earlier if he was brought on board --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- by the Board of Trustees as the
facility manager.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, he's -- from the Juvenile
Board's standpoint, he's released, period?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, effective June 1 at the latest.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You two guys through talking?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing I would add is
that the set of numbers in front of you were prepared by
Mr. Stanton for an operation up to 16 juveniles.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I just want to start by
9-18-06 E:CSF BT
5
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
saying something about the employees out there. I want to
personally apologize to all the employees for what appears to
be dragging our feet, and I want to assure you all that that
is not the case at all. No one's purposely dragging our feet
to hurt anybody. We're trying to do the best thing for the
County and the facility, and I just wanted to say that. And
whenever we deal with the budget on an annual basis, the very
first thing that we look at is our employees, so we -- we care
about the employees first and foremost. But we're also hired
to do a job, and to take care of the people's money. And
there just comes a time when you have to realize -- or when I
have to realize that the County can only afford so much. And
we're at that point, in my opinion, that we can't afford any
more. So, I appreciate the employees hanging in there. I
know it's been a nerve-wracking experience. And with that
said, Judge, I'd hope that if we're -- and I do want to talk
about a specific employee and numbers, and I would think it
would be proper to go into executive session at this time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before we go there, I just have
a question to the Judge, and pretty much as head of the
Juvenile Board. Did they have any -- does the Juvenile Board
as a whole, or do you as chair of that body, have any
recommendation -- what I mean, 'cause it seems that we've --
the outside appearance has been that somehow we got
cross-wise -- this Court's gotten cross-wise with that board,
4- l ft 0 6 K C J F- B T
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
based on actions and discussions. And I wasn't at the
Williams, primarily. And I'm -- is there something that -
mean, do they have an opinion on this? Do they have a
recommendation or something that they feel best serves the
county in dealing with juvenile matters of this type? Just as
it relates to this facility.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, as it relates to the facility,
I would say no. The only opinion that the Juvenile Board --
the obvious position of the Juvenile Board was that the Chief
Juvenile Probation Officer could not act in the capacity as
Chief Probation Officer as well as administrator of the
detention facility, and that was -- that was something that I
think had been made known early on for some time to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, excuse me. I -- made
known to who? It certainly wasn't made known to me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I know it was made known to
meeting, I had mentioned that to Mr. Stanton on more than one
occasion, and it's my understanding that the other judges had
mentioned it to him, and possibly others. But that's the only
opinion that I can give you, that that's their position. They
-- they're not any longer involved in the operation of the
9 1F-06 Y.CJF-aT
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^^~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"~" 2 4
25
juvenile facility, and they will discharge -- the Juvenile
Board will discharge its statutorily required duties and what
the law and T.J.P.C. regs require.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, they have no opinion as to
whether we keep the facility open from any standpoint or not?
JUDGE TINLEY: I did not hear any opinion expressed
at the juvenile meeting. No, I did not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: For the record, it was not
I put the proposal in front of the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason I'm asking the
question is because I have been led to believe that, you know,
the Juvenile Board, either individually, as a whole, or
through Mr. Stanton or whatever, very much were -- you know,
wanted to keep this facility open as a minimum preadjudication
type facility, and it's a -- it's a change if now I'm hearing
that the Juvenile Board really has no opinion as to whether
this facility remains open or not in Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know whether they have no
opinion or they express no opinion.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, what I know about
the Juvenile Board's decision is what I read in the newspaper,
and I think I read that the reason for -- for their decision
was the conflict of interest. That's what you have said, that
there's an inherent conflict of interest. And I was surprised
9-18-OE FCJF-BT
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
G 1
22
23
24
25
at the decision; in fact, I think I was shocked. I hadn't
considered that as an issue, considering that more than 50
other county juvenile detention facilities in the state are
operated by juvenile probation supervisors. I thought that
the Juvenile Board would appreciate the concept of getting two
jobs done with one employee. And I think that the -- the
Juvenile Board is just wrong. Juvenile -- or officials in
Austin don't see it as a conflict of interest. 50 or 52 other
counties don't see it as a conflict of interest. They're
apparently saying yes, a juvenile probation supervisor can
have input into decisions about juvenile incarceration, and
while -- at the same time, have a desire to keep the census in
the facility at a -- at a sufficient level. I would argue,
Judge, that the -- the County Judge would come closer to
having a conflict of interest than the juvenile probation
supervisor. You have the authority to incarcerate juveniles,
and you have an interest in keeping that census up as a member
of this Court and as a trustee. You -- you now believe that a
juvenile probation supervisor being the director of a facility
like that is, indeed, a conflict of interest?
JODGE TINLEY: I've believed it from the beginning,
and I've -- I've conveyed that thought to Mr. Stanton. He's
well aware of what my philosophy was. With regard to your
belief that the Juvenile Board made a wrong decision,
certainly, at the next meeting, you're privileged to come
4-1H-06 K.C JF-BT
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
before the Board and pass along that thinking. With regard to
the question of -- of my being a member of this Court and also
being the juvenile judge, certainly, I understand where you're
coming from, and it's somewhat akin to the so-called Chinese
wall that we've heard about when law firms merge and they've
got clients who may have been adverse from the respective
firms. All I can tell you is that when I'm wearing my hat as
juvenile judge, I look at the facts of that particular case.
And sometimes the economics will fly in the face of what
direction I ought to be going, and if the case dictates that I
go the other direction, that's where I go.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: You don't think Kevin
Stanton could do that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Exercise that same kind of
judgment?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I have conveyed that -- that
philosophy to Mr. Stanton. I believe the other judges had
also. And, like I say, the next time the board meets, why,
I'll be happy to give you the opportunity to take that up with
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I share a lot of -- I
think "shock" is a good word. And I think the shock -- the
reason I was so shocked by the Juvenile Board's decision is
that we sat here several days before that meeting, and
9-18-Oti R:C JF-BT
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
°' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~' 24
25
specifically, I believe Mr. Stanton raised the question, do we
need to talk to the Juvenile Board or get their concurrence?
understand how we -- I'm not trying to rehash it, but I don't
understand how you would have permitted this Court to vote to
do something that you knew, and evidently Mr. Stanton knew,
from what you're saying, and two other judges knew that y'all
weren't going to allow to happen. And I don't understand why
you wouldn't have at least said, "Hey, the Juvenile Board may
have a problem with this." 'Cause you're saying now that the
two judges and you had previously told Mr. Stanton that they
would not -- that the Board would not allow the vote the Court
I made.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Mr. Letz, let me -- let me see
think is a little far-reaching. Secondly, when asked about
the Juvenile Board's involvement in the Court's action, my
only definitive response was -- did I have a problem with
Kevin Stanton being the administrator of that facility? And I
said no, I don't have a problem. And I still don't have a
problem. Now, it occurs to me that a person with ordinary
sensibilities, particularly one who's sitting on this Court
and who understands the delineation of management functions,
vis-a-vis the Court and vis-a-vis the Juvenile Board, if there
9-lck-Ob SCJF-BT
11
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were some proposals being prepared, even an option that
involved the Juvenile Board, the -- the appropriate thing to
have occurred would have been, whoever was preparing such a
proposal that would have involved anything involving the
Juvenile Board should have brought the Juvenile Board in at
that time. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we did.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- best I can tell, it didn't happen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: But, you know, that's neither here
nor there at this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's this Court's fault, not
the Juvenile Board's fault?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or it's my fault, because
maybe I don't have ordinary sensibilities. And I would take
issue with that. 7 think there was ample opportunity for you
to have forewarned us this might not have flown.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that being said, what has
happened --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'd been asked the question, what was
I the Juvenile Board going to do? I told you I didn't know,
because I didn't know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You just didn't know, but the
two judges and yourself had previously told Mr. Stanton that
y'all would not allow that to happen, but you didn't want to
4-18 06 F:C JF ET
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tell us that. That's fine.
JUDGE TINLEY: I explained the philosophy to
Mr. Stanton. He well knew it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I think that's in the --
I'm trying to keep us from going down -- I mean, it seems that
we're having a real communication issue between this body and
the Juvenile Board, and I want to make sure before we do
anything else that I clearly understand what the Juvenile
Board wants -- you know, their position is. And I'm still not
sure we have it. I almost think maybe we should have a joint
meeting where I can point-blank ask the Board a question, "Do
you all have an opinion as to what we do with this facility?"
Because you've told me you don't know what the Board's opinion
is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know if they have an opinion,
or I don't know if they haven't expressed an opinion. I don't
know which one of those it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think that would be a
healthy thing, to have a joint meeting, so I can understand
i what the Juvenile Board -- cause it does have a bearing, to
me, on what we do with this facility. I mean, if -- you know,
I have been told by a number of people, including yourself,
that this facility is very important for the juvenile
probation system in Kerr County, and if that is a true
statement, I want to hear the Juvenile Board tell me that,
9-18-OF FCJF-BT
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because I don't want to assume anything else with the Juvenile
Board. So, I'd like to have a joint meeting where I can ask
that question and they can say yes or no, they would like this
facility to stay in Kerr County. Because it does -- I mean,
you know, they don't have the -- the judicial -- I mean, the
budgetary oversight over it, but I think that, you know,
the -- I do strongly value that opinion of both judges and
yourself when it comes to whether we should have that facility
here or not. And I -- I don't feel like I have been given
that information. I mean, that would be helpful to me. And I
don't know -- I think that we could still continue on,
~ possibly talk to Mr. Stanton a little bit about, you know,
some of his numbers -- or I don't know if it's executive
session, in my mind, at this point. I would like to have
Mr. Williams go over these numbers, or Mr. Stanton; I think
explain them to me to make sure that we're all on the same
page as to what the budgetary side of it is, and then decide ~
if we're going to take action today or wait for a joint
meeting.
COMMISSIONER WLLLIAMS: Commissioner, I would defer
to Mr. Stanton to explain the numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin?
MR. STANTON; Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: By the way, I apologize for the
-- all that we've put you through the past couple of weeks.
9 1B-Ud kCJF-BT
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It certainly was not, I think you're aware, our intent to
cause this upheaval in your life.
MR, STANTON: Thank you, sir. Basically, what we
did was we -- we were able to trim down the facility to house
16 preadjudicated juveniles in the facility. The numbers that
you are looking at, the first page, is what it would cost to
run the facility at the reduced staffing levels for the
remainder of the budget cycle. If you skip -- I don't know,
four or five pages back, there's an actua] line item --
explanation of each line item and what -- what those line
items mean.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the unencumbered -- just so
I understand the headings, unencumbered balance, that's the --
MR, STANTON: That's the current.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Current. Based on the
current -- the current approved budget, what's left in those
balances. And the adjustment --
MR. STANTON: The adjustment is how much we would --
that we wouldn't be spending. If it's in red, if it's got
parentheses around it, that's money that would be left over in
that line item at the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But we got a red and a pink.
MR, STANTON: Well, I'm sorry, my printer ran out.
It's all -- it's all pink. It's all pink or red. Everything
9-1&-Oi KCJF-BT
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
G1
22
23
24
25
in the middle --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is the pink what used to be
blue?
MR. STANTON: No, sir, it's all supposed to be --
~ it's all supposed to be the same color.
I
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. STANTON: If it has parentheses around it -- oh,
I'm sorry, you're right, Mr. Williams. Down toward the
bottom, the pink or the -- or the negative numbers, the red,
are what we have to add into the budget to make the remainder
of the budget cycle. The food would have to be increased by
13,500. Residential medical would have to be increased by
about 2,000. Utilities would have to be increased by about
16,596. And the copier lease would have to be increased by
$3,442 to make it through the rest of the budget year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, if we understand
correctly, the bottom line is, under Column 1, Unencumbered,
~f nothing had changed or nothing was changing at this point,
we would be expected to spend $814,000; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: The unencumbered balance -- yes, sir,
the unencumbered balance. That is how much money is in those
line items as of today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As of today?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Column 2 means that
4-1F-p6 KCJF-bT
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Column 1 is adjusted downward --
MR, STANTON: Or upward in some cases.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- 475 of the 814; is that
correct?
MR, STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And Column 3 tells us what
the remaining amount is to operate the facility from one youth
~ to 16 for the remainder of the year; is that correct?
MR. STANTON: Remainder of the budget cycle, yes,
I sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Budget cycle.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through September 30?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. So we understand --
MR. STANTON: And the salaries -- the salaries that
you're looking at on here are with the -- with the decreases
in staff, and it also -- I -- because I didn't know when this
would take place, I extended everyone's salaries out through
the end of April.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everyone that is currently
~ employed?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: To your knowledge, there
9 18 G6 XCJF-HT
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have been no staff adjustments?
MR, STANTON: Not to my knowledge, no, sir. Except
for Ms. Harris' resignation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then, on the bottom portion,
your -- that refers to cash, accounts receivable. 1
understand that's the estimated revenue; that's how much we
would bring in from the preadjudicated --
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- kids?
MR. STANTON: Based on the last -- the previous --
since the beginning of the budget cycle up till now, based on
that with numbers being brought forward. That's how much
money we'd expect to bring in.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then, going down to the
lower part, so we would estimate that -- I'm certainly not
going to use the word "profit," but we'll be $93,812 better
off --
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at the end of the year than
we have right now under the old fund for -- budget for the
juvenile facility?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would the occupancy numbers
-- I know you said they were based on the average for the last
4-18-06 KCdF-BT
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- first part_ of the year. What occupancy numbers did you
use?
MR. STANTON: I think they're -- pre's out there
~ right now, I think they're averaging -- Kerr County has
averaged seven kids a day for the last four years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. STANTON: And I believe the overall average for
preadjudicated kids is nine.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The estimated revenue is
based on what type of census? Average census? I
MR. STANTON: It's based on the total -- the money
that we've collected through each month. What I did was took
the average that each county has paid in each month and
averaged that out for the remainder of the budget cycle. It's
really not based on a number of kids, per se; it's based on
the previous -- previous few months of -- of how many kids
they've placed in the facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll ask you a -- probably to
follow what everyone on the Court asked, what if we were to
continue to operate as a pre and post facility, pretty much as
we are staffed right now? What do you think the numbers would
do for the year? Would they continue to show the red ink that
we've shown up to now this year? Or is there some measure
that we -- way we could increase the postadjudicated kids
census to improve the overall financial situation?
~-18 i~6 KCJF-BT
19
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR, STANTON: Well, I think at this point, it would
be tough to -- to -- for this budget year, to do that, since
we've already sent home all the post kids at this point.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, at this point, you think
we're better off just stepping back, and then maybe --
MR. STANTON: Maybe looking at it in the future yes,
sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR, STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have a question -- I see --
this is something different.
MR, STANTON: Okay. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see the representative from
K.I.S.D. here -- or several.
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: K.I.S.D. has always been a --
kind of off here in the wings somewhere as to this facility
from the standpoint of y'all are obligated to provide teachers
out there. What impact is going to a pre-only facility, 16
beds, is that going to have on K.I.S.D.?
MR. SCHWARZ: Well, we already provide a teacher and
secretary for the facility, so that's already been budgeted
for. I did talk to Bill Orr, who does all the finances, this
morning, and he said that a break-even point for us would be
about eight or nine students in the pre/post. If we average
9-1H-05 YCJF-BT
zo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ll
22
23
24
25
eight to nine students, that we should be able to break even
out there at the facility. If it's to -- if it were to shut
down, it would be $5,000 to $6,000 just over the remainder of
this year, that we would lose an additional 5,000 to 6,000.
The expenditures so far for K.I.S.D. is between $75,000 and
$80,000, 'cause a Iot of the money is federal money that we
get reimbursed on. But K.I.S.D., for this year, has expended
$75,000 to $80,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, purely looking at the
financial side of it only, from a K.I.S.D. standpoint, it
works fairly well to go with a preadjudicated facility with an
average attendance of about 9, which is what we have been
doing?
MR. SCHWARZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In other words, that -- 'cause,
I mean, while it's not direct, y'all -- I mean, taxpayers are
still funding K,I.S.D., whether -- taxpayers are taxpayers.
MR, SCHWARZ: We also use it as an expelled facility
to keep kids that we expel off the streets. They go out and
use -- we send them out there instead of expelling them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's a -- there's a
benefit to K.I.S. D, for us to keep a facility of some sort in
Kerr County.
MR, SCHWARZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
9 18 06 KC.T F-RT
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question for the
County Attorney. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not
having the juvenile probation supervisor manage the detention
facility would be a conflict of interest?
MR. EMERSON: All I can tell you is what T.J.P.C.
has already stated, is that they don't perceive a difficulty
with that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
MR. EMERSON: And that's their area of expertise.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'm probably with
Commissioner Baldwin at this point; let's go into executive
session and talk to Mr. Stanton.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
anything to say in the open session before we go into
executive?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Y'all -- related to this
16-bed preadjudicated budget that we're just looking at, I
can't figure out in my mind why we want to stay with this
number 16. We have an average of seven Kerr County kids for
the last three years out there, and we can staff as low as
eight. And why we won't even consider going down to the
eight --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Above the eight.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To the eight. One to eight.
Don't go above eight.
9-1fl-06 FCJF-B:
zz
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I think I can probably answer that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And K.I.S.D. just said that
the moneys considerably. And, to me, it's just -- that's a
good starting point, to get it down to the lowest common
denominator, and then build on that if we want to continue --
and I hope we do -- continue dealing with juveniles in this
community. But, financially, we have to -- we have to get it
back to where we can handle it. And there's things that we
can afford, and I don't think we're there with 16 at all. If
we bring it back to eight, it's just a -- it's easier to
manage it; you have one administrator out there. It's a
better program.
JUDGE TINLEY: You can do that if you go to
single-gender preadjudication only. But if you're going to
have both genders preadjudication, you've got to have separate
staffing for each gender preadjudication, and up to eight per
gender. So, that's how you figure a minimum of 16. But if
you wanted to restrict it to males only preadjudication,
maximum of eight, I suppose you could do that. Or if you want
to restrict it to females only, maximum of eight, I think you
could do that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Stanton?
9-1fl-06 KC.7 F-BT
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the average female
population?
MR. STANTON: That -- that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe Skeet would know that.
MR. WILBANKS: It's going to vary. Very seldom
we'll have more than three or four females out there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A third, you're saying?
MR. WILBANKS: Today there's three.
MR. STANTON: I know that Kerr County places a lot
of females out there. We do.
MR. WILBANKS: Actually, females are primarily from
Kerr County.
MR. STANTON: We've got quite -- we place quite a
few females in detention.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, about -- but from what I'm
hearing, roughly, we have -- about a third of the total
population is females in preadjudicated?
MR. WILBANKS: No, I wouldn't say that. On a
year-round basis, I wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 25 percent year-round?
MR. WILBANKS: Maybe, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else from any member of the
Court before we go into executive session?
4-18-06 KCSF-ET
24
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess one more follow-up to
MR. STANTON: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On your numbers, if we went with
Commissioner Baldwin's thought of, I presume, male-only
preadjudicated, what does that do to these numbers?
MR. STANTON: If we went male only? I guess you
could cut it back to -- with eight kids, eight -- and eight
minimum -- or eight maximum with males only, I guess you could
run it with one JDO and one control room operator per shift.
So, you're still looking at eight employees.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What would be the expenses
involved to take care of female juvenile offenders?
MR. STANTON: That would be tough. That would be a
tough number to figure out. If you look at the very last page
of your handouts that I gave you, that -- that's the
prediction of how much it would cost Kerr County to send their
kids out of -- the total number of all our kids, if we sent
all our kids out of Kerr County. If you look at the bottom
three numbers down at the bottom of the page, that's what it
would cost Kerr County to place our kids in those three
facilities, based on last year's referrals.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you know, Kevin, whether
or not there's a requirement that transport officers be
certified peace officers?
9-18-06 R:C JF-BT
25
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STANTON: No, sir, there's not. It does state
in the Family Code -- or I don't know whether it's the Family
Code, but it does state in one of the codes that the Sheriff's
Department is fully responsible for all transports outside of
Kerr County. And, you know, that's -- that's a subject that
I've spoken to the Sheriff about numerous times, and I don't
really feel like, just from our conversations, that he feels
like that he's in the business of wanting to get into that
business. Because not only are there -- not only are there
trips on Mondays and Thursdays back to court -- back and forth
to court, but there's also doctor's appointments and
psychological assessments and all those kinds of things that
they would have to be transported to and from.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Would it be possible to
contract with -- with certified peace officers to do this
work? Retired police officers?
MR. STANTON: As long as they didn't --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Constables?
MR. STANTON: You could, as long as they didn't work
for the County. As long as they were not County employees.
We've had some discussions on being able to hire people to do
transports for us, and they can't work for the County. They
can't be a County employee.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does the transportation
9-18-06 F:CJF-BT
z6
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
person have to be a female to transport a female juvenile
offender?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you have the same
male/female distinction in transportation.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kevin, did you just say --
I'm sorry, I went to sleep there for just a second. Did you
say that the law says that the Sheriff shall transfer them,
but Rusty's decided that he really doesn't like to --
MR. STANTON: No, sir, I didn't. (Laughter.) The
Sheriff implied to me that that's not something that he's
prepared to do at this moment; that if it's the law and he has
to do it, he will do it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. That's what I was
looking for.
MR. STANTON: I didn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really thought you said it
the other way.
MR. STANTON: I might have. That's not what I
meant. Rusty is more than willing to help in any way he can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, on the -- these
numbers -- and I was trying to avoid getting into this,
because it gets very confusing, at least in my mind. The
9 18-0F F:CJF BT
27
1
2
3
4
5
H
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
first page, estimated revenues, 164,000.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That is primarily -- the
majority of that revenue is from us, Kerr County funds coming
through the Juvenile Probation office?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some of it's state.
MR. STANTON: I'd say about 75 percent of it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kerr County? 75 percent of
it's Kerr County money?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of that revenue number?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if we don't have a facility
in Kerr County, instead of costing -- what's 75 percent of
160? -- 120. Instead of 120,000, it's going to cost 280 --
280,000, about?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. That's to hire two people
to do the transports. That's the mileage to and from. But
those mileage figures are just based on the to and from court;
that's not adding in the mileage for doctor's appointments,
psychological appointments, all those kind of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it says two officers?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I take it that these facilities
9-18-Ob RCJF-BT
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you're sending them, they won't transport -- they won't
be responsible for the kids -- the transportation of the kids?
MR. STANTON: No, sir, they will not, not the
preadjudicated kids.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the 41,000, where does that
come in in the budget? Is that under the Juvenile Probation
Department's budget?
MR. STANTON: That's money that the County
Commissioners would have to -- yes, sir. I don't know. I
mean, I don't know if you would want to hire more deputies to
do it. I don't know if you want to hire them through the
Juvenile Probation Department to do it. That would be a
decision that the Commissioners Court would have to make.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, that 41 -- that 41,856 is a
number that, in your opinion, the County would need to budget
somewhere, whether it was through law -- through the Sheriff's
Department or constables or -- or Juvenile Probation
Department?
MR. STANTON: I believe that number is a -- is a
minimum that you would have to have for salaries, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks like 61,000 with benefits.
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And the -- and that
61,000 number is included in those $280,000 total costs?
MR. STANTON: Yes, sir. The figures on the bottom
9-18-Oc KCJF-BT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
of the page, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Did you say we could or
could not assign transport duties to constables?
MR. STANTON: I don't know the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's not part of their
constitutional duties, but they're qualified to do it, I would
suspect.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
i any questions before we go into executive? We will go out of
i open or public session at 2:37.
(The open session was closed at 2:37 p.m., and an
executive session was held, the transcript of which
is contained in a separate document.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We will reconvene in open or
public session at 3:29. Do any members of the Court have
anything to offer with regard to the matters taken under
consideration in executive or closed session?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make the motion that we
appoint Kevin Stanton as Facility Administrator of the Kerr
I
County Juvenile Detention Facility. It will be staffed at a
level for 16 juveniles, eight -- I mean, all preadjudicated,
eight boys, eight girls, and this will be effective
immediately. It will be on a probationary period throughout
end of this budget year. The salary will be $24,208 for the
balance of this budget year, which is an annualized amount of
4 18-Ob KCJF-ET
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$58,099.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Second.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And -- can I add to it?
Contingent upon him getting the certification in 180 days.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Contingent upon certification.
And Kevin will immediately take over administration and
adjustments in staff out there as he feels necessary.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's acceptable.
JODGE TINLEY: We have a motion and a second. Is
there any discussion, questions, or comments on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your right
hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Are there
I any other items to be offered in connection with the agenda
item that was called?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to make one
comment, Judge. I want to thank Mr. Stanton, I want to thank
all of the facility staff who have bear -- or borne with us
through this trying time. We appreciate what you have done.
We're a little bit regretful that the circumstances are what
they are, but red ink is red ink, and when we have red ink,
it's taxpayer money, and there's sometimes very few, if any,
9 Ie-oa xcJe-ex
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~~°- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"° 2 9
options. And so I want to thank each and every one of you,
and I want to thank Mr. Stanton for bearing with us and
preparing a budget that we believe we can live with.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Comment. I'd like to echo the
probably worse again. Hopefully, they're behind -- or we're
getting to the end of the time of turmoil out there. But I
appreciate every one of the staff, all they've done. I know
all of y'all truly have the kids at heart, and that's what's
really important. I appreciate what you do.
On a slightly different note, for the -- you said
immediately. Mr. Stanton, of course, will have
is asked and expected to cooperate fully with the Juvenile
Board in winding those up. And, also, I think I'd echo --
from my standpoint, the offer is still on the table to do what
other states and other counties -- or, excuse me, other
counties do; that he can wear both hats. He can be the
Juvenile Probation Officer and be head of that facility, and
we would ask that the Juvenile Board take that under
consideration in their decision now to fill that position.
That's all the comments I have.
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else on the agenda item?
9-18-06 KCJe-eT
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you for your dedication to the mission. That's what
counted, and that's what has counted. Being no further
business for the Board of Trustees of the Kerr County Juvenile
Facility, the meeting will be adjourned.
(Kerr County Juvenile Facility Board of Trustees
meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 19th day of April,
12006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ _ _ _________ _
Kat y Ba 'k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9 18-06 KrJF-BT
ORDER NO.29641
DISCUSS ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL IN THE KERR
COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY AND RELATED ISSUES
Came to be heard this the 18th day of April, 2006, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz seconded by Commissioner Williams. The Kerr County
Juvenile Facility Board of Trustees unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0
to:
Appoint Kevin Stanton as Facility Administrator of the Kerr County
Juvenile Detention Facility. It will be staffed at a level for 16 juveniles, all
preadjudicated, eight boys, eight girls, effective immediately. It will be on a
probationary period throughout end of this budget year. The salary will be
$24,208 for the balance of this budget year, which is an annualized amount
of $58,099, contingent upon Mr. Stanton getting his certification in 180
days. Mr. Stanton will immediately take over administration and
adjustments in staff as he feels necessary.