[00:01:15]
EVALUATE THE CANDIDATES. THE TIMELINE BASICALLY SAYS POST THIS AND START THE SEARCH AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. PLENTY OF TIME FOR ALL OF US TO GO THROUGH THE INTERVIEW PROCESS, FIND THE RIGHT PERSON AND GET THEM HIRED IN AN ADEQUATE MOMENT.
YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE THAT TIMELINE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH IT IF NEEDED.
[1. Discussion and recommendation of a timeline and plan for the hiring process of an Elections Administrator.]
>> JUDGE, I THINK IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO WALK THROUGH WILL VERBALLY SO THAT THE VIEWERS
AND LISTENERS CAN BE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING. >> YEAH, OF COURSE.
ONE THING FOLKS SHOULD BE AWARE OF, THIS IS POSTED IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE COMMISSIONER'S COURTS MEETINGS ARE. THE BACK-UP HAS BEEN POSTED PUBLICLY SINCE MONDAY.
THIS IS ALL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PER USUAL. THE IDEA HERE AUGUST 11TH.
COMMISSIONER'S COURT APPROVED THE PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE OFFICE OF ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR. TODAY, OF COURSE IS OUR MEETING.
IF THE COMMITTEE APPROVES THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE JOB DESCRIPTION, IT WOULD GO UP TOMORROW. AN E-MAIL IS ALREADY SET UP THROUGH HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT AND THEN THE SEARCH WOULD BEGIN TO BRING ON A FIRM ALONG WITH THE PURCHASING DIRECTOR. WE WOULD POST THE JOB DESCRIPTION ONLINE AT LEAST IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE A FIRM COMES ON. AND THERE IS A COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETING ON THE 25TH, THIS COMING TUESDAY, WHERE WE'LL BE REQUESTING, MY OFFICE WILL BE REQUESTING A DISCUSSION ON THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THAT TO THE FIRM AND WE CAN ALSO HAVE THAT AS WE INTERVIEW FOLKS.
TOMORROW THE 22ND, THE 25TH, THE REQUEST FOR FUNDING AND BENEFITS AND SALARY FOR THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR. AND THEN WE PUT, YOU KNOW, STARTING IN LATE AUGUST, BASICALLY THE PROCESS STARTS GOING IN EARNEST, IDEALLY, THE FIRM BEGINS BRINGING US CANDIDATES. WOULD BEGIN SCHEDULING INTERVIEWS, PROCESSING RESUMES AND AS SOON AS FEASIBLE AND WE HAVE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES, WE WOULD GO THROUGH AN INTERVIEW PERIOD. DO FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS OR ANY CHANGES TO MAKE TO THIS?
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION, JUDGE HI HIDALGO.
ON THE TIMELINE, IS THERE A PLAN B ON A TIMELINE, LISTENING TO JILL'S CONCERNS, THERE COULD BE SOMEONE WHO IS GREAT, IF A PERSON ISN'T FOUND IN THE TIMELINE, DO WE MEET AGAIN TO
EXTEND THE TIMELINE? WHAT IS THAT LIKE? >> SO THE TIMELINE IS SORT OF THE TIMELINE FOR THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, A COUPLEEOF WKS ESSENTIALLY.
AFTER THAT, IT'S YOU KNOW, BEGINNING LATE AUGUST, BEGINNING LATE AUGUST, SO IT COULD GO ON, WE'LL START THE INTERVIEW PROCESS AND SEARCH PROCESS.
OBVIOUSLY FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING THIS ELECTION ARE WELCOME TO APPLY.
THE IDEA, AND IN FACT, ENCOURAGED, IT WOULD BE FOLKS WHO HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT OF MS. MUFFET. NOW, IF WE AREN'T, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ABLE TO FIND THE FIRM TO WHERE THEY CAN START IT ON TIME OR FOR WHATEVER REASON WE'RE NOT ABLE TO AGREE AT COMMISSIONER'S COURT ON A SALARY AND BENEFITS RANGE NEXT
[00:05:01]
TUESDAY, THAT'S FINE, WE'LL ADJUST. THE IDEA IS JUST FOR US TO ALL AT LEAST DISCUSS ROUGHLY WHAT TIMELINE WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND MOVE FORWARD.AND IT CAN BE A DISCUSSION ITEM AS WELL. I MEAN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO ADOPT EITHER. BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT SO IT KIND OF LAYS US OUT FOR THE SEARCH TO GET STARTED. IT DOESN'T SAY NECESSARILY WHEN IT WILL END.
THE SENSE TO MS. MOFFETT'S COMMENTS TOO WE DON'T WANT THE PERSON TO BE RUNNING IN ANY WAY THIS ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER. WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A COMPLICATED, HUGE ELECTION.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT COVID. IT'S PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS, IDEALLY WE DO FIND THE PERSON BEFORE THE ELECTION, AS SOON AS NOVEMBER 3RD HAS PAST, WE HAVE SOMEBODY IN THAT POSITION.
BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF ANYTHING THEY WOULD BE OBSERVING.
SO IT'S ALL VERY VALID POINTS. >> JUDGE, THIS IS ANN BENNETT. >> YES.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THE QUALIFICATIONS. AND FOR A POSITION THAT IS GOING TO BE AS HUGE AS THIS, I'M THINKING FOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IS NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE. IF WE'RE TALKING FOUR YEARS AND WORKING IN ONE OF THE SMALLER COUNTIES, LIKE TRAVIS, OR EVEN DALLAS, HARRIS COUNTY IS THE LARGEST COUNTY IN THE STATE.
AND IT'S THE THIRD LARGEST COUNTY IN THE NATION. THE WAY I SEE IT, AND KNOWING HOW COMPLICATED ELECTIONS ARE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS STATE, I THINK 8 TO TEN YEARS EXPERIENCE
WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THIS POSITION. >> YEAH.
I THINK WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? >> SO I THINK IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING.
BUT I THINK THAT IS NOT THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TIMELINE RIGHT NOW, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ONLY THREE, SO I'M FINE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO -- UNLESS FOLKS HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE TIMELINE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE TIMELINE BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO MS. BENNETT'S
QUESTION? >> MY QUICK THOUGHT ON THE TIMELINE, I THINK ARE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. IS THAT AUDIO ISSUE ON MY SIDE
OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S? >> IF EVERYBODY CAN PLEASE MUTE THEIR LINE IF THEY'RE NOT
SPEAKING. THANK YOU. >> SO YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE AGGRESSIVE WITH THE PLANNED TIMELINE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE APPOINTMENT MADE BY THE TIME THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS ESTABLISHED, WHICH IS HAVING AN EA START ON NOVEMBER 18TH.
AND SO ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A NATIONWIDE SEARCH, AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THE HIRE IS MADE OUTSIDE OF TEXAS, AND THAT THAT PERSON WOULD NEED TO COME AND ESTABLISH RESIDENCY FOR 30 DAYS, IN ORDER TO TAKE A POST IN NOVEMBER.
THAT WE NEED TO MOVE RATHER QUICKLY. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I SUPPORT THE TIMELINE. I DO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, THOUGH, THAT WE SHOULDN'T RUSH THIS AND THEN PULL THE TRIGGER ON YOU KNOW, AN UNQUALIFIED PERSON POTENTIALLY, JUST TO MEET THIS TIMELINE. AND SO IF WE HAVE DONE THE HOMEWORK AND THE SEARCH THAT WE NEED TO DO, AND WE STILL AREN'T SATISFIED WITH THE POOL OF PEOPLE, THEN WE NEED TO REVISIT THE TIMELINE. BUT AS IT STANDS NOW, IN ITS SORT OF PLANNED OR IDEAL STATE,
I SUPPORT THE TIMELINE AS IT'S LAID OUT. >> OKAY.
WOULD YOU GUYS, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A VOTE THEN ON THE TIMELINE? I MEAN, IT IS A TWO-WEEK, A WEEK AND A HALF TIMELINE, PRETTY MUCH.
BUT LET'S DO THAT SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE TIMELINE AS PRESENTED AND DISTRIBUTED ON 20TH? >> SO MOVED.
>> DO WE NEED A SECOND? >> YES. >> I'LL SECOND IT.
>> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE TIMELINE. >> AYE.
>> AYE. >> OPPOSED. >> MS. BENNETT AND CHAIR
PERSON. >> NO. I DON'T APPROVE. NO.
>> MS. BENNETT. >> AYE. >> OKAY.
THE TIMELINE CARRIES 4-1. THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON.
[00:10:01]
SO WE'LL SKIP OVER NUMBER TWO FOR A MINUTE AND GO TO ITEM 3, WHICH WAS THE QUESTION MS.[3. Discussion and approval of a job description and posting for an Elections Administrator.]
BENNETT WAS BRINGING UP ABOUT THE JOB DESCRIPTION. THE PROPOSAL WAS COULD WE CHANGE THE EXPERIENCE REQUI REQUI REQUIREMENTS TO EIGHT TO TEN YEARS AS OPPOSED TO FOUR YEARS. DO FOLKS HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS ONTHAT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UP THAT I THINK HAVING FOUR YEARS OF RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IS AMPLE EXPERIENCE AND I'M GOING TO POINT OUT OUR CLERK COLLINS WHO STEPPED IN WITH VERY LITTLE ELECTION EXPERIENCE AND RUNNING AN ELECTION AND HAS COME IN TO THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE AND DONE WHAT I THINK IS AN AMAZING JOB.
SO I WOULD HATE TO HAMSTRING WITH EIGHT YEARS WHEN WE MIGHT FIND A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO HAS A COUPLE OF YEARS OR GREAT MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE OR GREAT ELECTION LAW EXPERIENCE, SO I
WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AS IS. >> I WONDER IF WE COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE MINIMUM FOUR YEARS EXPERIENCE, PREFERABLY OVER EIGHT YEARS EXPERIENCE. AND OF COURSE, WE ALL HAVE A HAND IN SELECTING THIS. SO WE WILL SIT IN THE COMMITTEE OR OUR REPRESENTATIVES WILL, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY YOU KNOW, WE'LL CUT THEM SOME SLACK THERE AT SEVEN BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY GOOD. OR WE REALLY NEED A WHOLE LOT. SO PREFERENCE FOR ADDITIONAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE OVER TEN YEARS. WOULD THAT WORK FOR YOU, MS.
BENNETT? >> YES, JUDGE. >> OKAY.
>> AND IT WOULD ALSO, IF WE'RE LOOKING OUTSIDE OF THE STATE AND LOOKING AT COUNTIES THAT ARE COMPARABLE SIZE TO HARRIS COUNTY, IT WOULDN'T BE A BAD IDEA FOR THAT PERSON TO HAVE WORKED IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTY OF COMPARABLE SIZE. TO BE ABLE TO TRANSITION INTO
HARRIS COUNTY. >> OKAY. SO PREFERABLE FOR EXPERIENCE IN
A JURISDICTION OF COMPARABLE SIZE? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THE CHANGES YOU'RE SUGGESTING BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD BE PUTTING, I THINK SOMETIMES WHEN I'VE DONE SEARCHS IN THE PAST, IF YOU PUT TOGETHER A RUBRIC LIKE THAT, SOME CANDIDATES GET LEFT OUT. BECAUSE THEY DON'T (INAUDIBLE)
I THINK LANGUAGE AS IS. BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE GROUP. >> SO MY THOUGHT HERE IS, WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THINGS THAT WOULD BE LIKE PLUSES.
YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD SAY HERE IS, I'VE JUST PULLED UP THE DOCUMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M LOOKING VERY SPECIFICALLY AT THE LANGUAGE. BUT I WOULD MAKE THE LANGUAGE CLEAR AND IN THIS ENTIRE CATEGORY OF QUALIFICATIONS THAT ALL OF THEM ARE PREFERRED AND NOT REQUIRED. BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M TOTALLY FINE WITH PUTTING A BUNCH OF STUFF IN HERE THAT WE SAY IF THEY HAD THAT, IT WOULD BE GREAT. IF THEY HAD THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TOO. BUT I DON'T -- I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE PUTTING SOMETHING ON HERE WHERE WE SAY IF THEY DON'T HAVE THIS, THEY'RE OUT. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANYTHING
THAT IS IN THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. >> I AGREE WITH CLERK COLLINS.
>> BUT I DON'T WANT TO STIFLE THE CONVERSATION AROUND THINGS THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN INCLUDE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO EXCLUDE ANYONE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC YOU KNOW, DON'T MEET
A SPECIFIC BULLET POINT OR REQUIREMENT. >> I THINK PERHAPS WE COULD ADD QUALIFICATIONS AND THEN WE COULD ADD OTHERS THAT SAY YOU KNOW, PREFERRED BUT NOT REQUIRED. IT WOULD MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, YOU KNOW, THAT IT GIVES YOU EXTRA POINTS, BUT YOU'RE STILL WELCOME TO THROW YOUR HAT IN THE RING, JUST IN CASE WE FIND A UNICORN FOR WHATEVER REASON DOESN'T FIT THE MOLD. AND THEN IN THAT SECTION, COULD INCLUDE THE OFFICIAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE, HAVING WORKED IN A JURISDICTION OF COMPARABLE SIZE. THE OTHER ONES, I MEAN, I THINK THAT BACHELOR'S DEGREE, ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS, ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE PARTY CHAIRS, DEEP
COMMITMENT TO VOTING RIGHTS, THAT IS KIND OF A REQUIREMENT. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, JUDGE.
BUT LIKE DEEP COMMITMENT TO EXPANDING VOTING RIGHTS AND VOTER ACCESSIBILITY, I THINK THAT SHOULD HANDS-DOWN BE A REQUIREMENT. FOR PURPOSES OF SIMPLICITY,
[00:15:05]
AGAIN, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT FOR ALL OF THESE, IT SHOULD JUST BE CALLED PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. I THINK THAT AS WE LOOK AT FINALISTS AND SO FORTH, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DEEP COMMITMENT TO EXPANDING VOTER RIGHTS, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD GET A RIGHT FROM THIS COMMISSION. AND SO IF WE WANT TO GET SUPER TECHNICAL AND GO BULLET POINT BY BULLET POINT AND ASK OURSELVES IS IT IS A QUALIFICATION OR A PREFERRED QUALIFICATION, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT I THINK FOR SIMPLICITY, I THINK WE SHOULD SAY PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS ON ALL OF THESE AND THEN LEAVE OURSELVES THE FLEXIBILITY ON IF THEY DON'T HAVE ONE OR ANOTHER TO STILL MAKE A DECISION AROUND A GREAT PERSON. BUT THIS WOULD STILL BE OUR NORTH STAR, IF YOU WILL.>> WHY DON'T WE GO THROUGH THEM TO SEE WHERE THAT GETS US. THERE AREN'T THAT MANY.
THE FIRST ONE IS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR ABOVE IN A RELEVANT FIELD.
>> SO MY THOUGHT WOULD BE, I WOULD GUESS THAT YOU KNOW, THE PERSON WE'RE GOING TO CHOOSE IS GOING TO HAVE THAT. BUT I MEAN, WE HAVE FOLKS LIKE BILL GATES AND MARK ZUCKERBURG WHO DON'T HAVE BACHELOR'S DEGREES. WHO ARE HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS. NOT FOR THIS ROLE. BUT WHO ARE SMART AND CAPABLE
DO FOLKS HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE? IN THEORY WE COULD SAY THAT IS
A PREFERRED. PREFERENCE FOR ADDITION -- >> I WOULD THINK THAT THE PERSON SHOULD HAVE FOUR YEARS OF DOING SOMETHING RELEVANT. SO I THINK WE CAN REQUIRE THAT.
>> DO FOLKS HAVE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THAT? CHAIR, I THINK YOU'RE ON MUTE.
>> I JUST THINK THAT AS WE GET CLOSER, WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT RELEVANT MEANS. IT'S A PRETTY BROAD TERM. I THINK I'M FINE WITH THAT IF WE LEAVE THE WORD RELEVANT IN
THERE. >> THE NEXT IS EXCELLENT ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
SKILLS, MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS. >> I WOULD LEAVE IT REQUIRED.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? NEXT IS PRIOR EXPERIENCE RELATED TO OR KNOWLEDGE OF ELECTIONS AND VOTER REGISTRATION LAWS, PROCEDURES, PRACTICES, DOCUMENTATION AND
EQUIPMENT. >> I'M A BIT BIASED HERE, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY PUT THAT ONE IN
PREFERRED. >> WE'LL CIRCULATE A DRAFT SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE IT BEFORE WE VOTE, OBVIOUSLY. KNOWLEDGE OF REGULATIONS, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
GOVERNING ADMINISTRATION AND VOTER REGISTRATION. >> I WOULD PUT THIS ON PREFERRED, IN ORDER TO NOT HAMSTRING US POTENTIALLY ON A GREAT CANDIDATE WHO DIDN'T HAVE
THAT SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE. >> FAMILIARITY WITH SPECIALIZED ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT AND DATABASE PROGRAM AND PRINCIPLES. I'M GUESSING IT IS THE SAME
[00:20:05]
THING. >> PER THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, MAY NOT BE A CANDIDATE FOR A PUBLIC OFFICE OR AN OFFICE (INAUDIBLE) OR HOLD AN OFFICE OF OR A POSITION IN A POLITICAL
PARTY. THAT IS OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED. >> MUST BE ABLE TO EXERCISE TACT AND COURTESY AND FREQUENT CONTACT WITH VARIOUS COUNTY PERSONNEL, PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
THE GENERAL PUBLIC. >> REQUIRED. PROVEN ABILITY TO MEET MULTIPLE DEADLINES AND BALANCE NUMEROUS PROJECTS IN A FAST PACE ENVIRONMENT.
>> REQUIRED. >> (INAUDIBLE) WORK WITHIN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY CHAINS,
OVERSEE PROJECTS TO COMPLETION. >> REQUIRED. >> AND DEEP COMMITMENT TO
EXPANDING VOTING RIGHTS AND VOTER ACCESSIBILITY. >> IN MY OPINION, REQUIRED.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION THEN IS, RIGHT NOW WHAT WE HAVE ON PREFERRED BUT NOT REQUIRED, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL RELEVANT EXPERIENCE, OVER EIGHT YEARS, THAT IS PREFERRED, BUT NOT REQUIRED. HAVING WORKED ON A JURISDICTION OF COMPARABLE SIZE IS PREFERRED BUT NOT REQUIRED. BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN A RELEVANT FIELD WOULD BE PREFERRED, BUT NOT REQUIRED. CLERK COLLINS PROPOSES THAT WE ALSO PUT THERE PRIOR EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF REGULATIONS, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES GOVERNING ELECTIONS AND FAMILIARITY WITH SPECIALIZED ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT. SO WHAT I PROPOSE IS WE'LL HAVE FOLKS WRITE THESE DOWN AND JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT AND WE'LL CIRCULATE IT BEFORE THE END OF THE MEETING, WE WILL WRITE IT DOWN WHILE WE DISCUSS THE OTHER ITEMS. AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THE SPECIFIC ITEMS TO SEE IF THERE ARE ITEMS WHERE WE DISAGREE. DOES THAT WORK WITH THE GROUP? OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE JOB DESCRIPTION?
>> SO I'M CLEAR ON THE PROCESS, SHOULD WE FLAG WHICH ONES MIGHT NOT BE UNANIMOUS?
WHAT IS THE PROCESS? >> I'M ASKING THE STAFF TO WRITE THIS DOWN SO I RECOGNIZE I'VE BEEN READING IT. LET'S TABLE THAT SECTION. AND THEN WE WILL REVISIT IT.
>> OKAY. >> THERE WAS ONE CHANGE I WANTED TO BRING UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS SAW AN OP-ED IN THE CHRONICLE, WRITTEN BY TWO COMMUNITY LEADERS.
AND IT HAD SOME INTERESTING ADVICE I THINK FOR US, IN TERMS OF HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS POSITION IS ACCOUNTABLE. ONE OF THE POINTS BROUGHT UP IS THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY BOARD, THE SUPERVISORY BOARD SHOULD PROBABLY BE ESTABLISHED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR. AND THERE IS A CLAUSE ON HERE THAT SAYS ESTABLISHED AND MEET REGULARLY WITH THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION ELECTION BOARD.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HAVING THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR ESTABLISH THE ADVISOR BOARD --
>> EXCUSE ME. THERE IS A LOT OF BACKGROUND NOISE.
IS IT OKAY TO MUTE EVERYBODY? >> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HAVING THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR ESTABLISH THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD IS A BIT OF A FOX GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE.
SO I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE DELETE THAT WORD ESTABLISH, AND WE CAN WORK EITHER THROUGH US OR COMMISSIONERS COURT, WE'VE GOT TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS ABOUT WHO WOULD ESTABLISH THAT COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, BUT THE POINT IS, IT WOULDN'T BE THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, OF COURSE THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD COMMUNICATE WOULD THE BOARD,
BUT THEY WOULDN'T ESTABLISH IT. >> JUDGE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE ORDER THAT WAS ADOPTED IN THE LAST COURT, PART OF THAT ESTABLISHED THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD, IT DID NOT ACTUALLY DELINEATE HOW THAT WOULD BE SET UP. BUT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS ESTABLISHED THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ALREADY. AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE'LL NEED TO DO IS EXPLORE THAT IS COMMISSIONER'S COURT, EXACTLY HOW THAT OUTFIT SHOULD BE SET
[00:25:04]
UP AND WHAT RULES THEY WOULD RUN ON. BUT I THINK THAT THEY WOULD RUN INDEPENDENT OF COMMISSIONER'S COURT OR OF THE COMMISSION. SO I THINK THAT BEHOOVES, IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AN EFFECTIVE ADVISORY BOARD, WHOEVER IS HIRED AS THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, ACTUALLY BE REQUIRED TO MEET WITH THEM AND GET THEIRFEEDBACK ON A REGULAR BASIS. >> ABSOLUTELY, DOUG. RIGHT NOW THE BULLET SAYS, THIS
IS ON PAGE TWO. >> I THINK -- >> RIGHT NOW IT SAYS ESTABLISH AND MEET REGULARLY WITH THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ADVISORY BOARD.
I PROPOSE THAT WE SIMPLY SAY MEET REGULARLY WITH THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD. I THINK THAT IS HOW IT WAS
ORIGINALLY. TAKE OUT THE ESTABLISHED. >> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.
BECAUSE THE COURT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE
ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR TO ATTEMPT TO DO THAT. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO
FOLKS? >> IT DOES. >> SO WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE NEW VERSION AND MARK IT, FLAG IT AS A CHANGE AS WELL. DO FOLKS HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE SEARCH FIRM ITEM?
YES. CHAIR NEILSEN? >> ON THE LAST ONE, DEEP COMMITMENT TO EXPANDING VOTER RIGHTS AND VOTER ACCESSIBLE. I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
CAN WE ADD ALSO VOTER INTEGRITY TO THAT SENTENCE. >> YES.
WE WILL ADD THAT INTO THE DRAFT. EXPANDING VOTING INTEGRITY.
AND VOTER ACCESSIBILITY. >> I BELIEVE YOU'RE MUTED, JUDGE.
>> I WAS SAYING THAT WE'LL ADD THAT IN AND WE MAY NEED TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK SO WE CAN SEND THAT TO YOU WITH THE RELEVANT CHANGES. THE OTHER ITEM IS ITEM 2.
[2. Discussion regarding the possible use of a search firm for the interview process for an Elections Administrator.]
AND THAT IS ABOUT THE SEARCH FIRM. SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY LOOKING FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE. AS I SAID, THE E-MAIL ADDRESS HAS BEEN CREATED, READY TO GO LIVE AS SOON AS THIS MEETING ENDS ESSENTIALLY. PROBABLY IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS, ONCE THE JOB DESCRIPTION IS POSTED AND IT'S A HARRIS COUNTY REC RECRUIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE FIVE OF US.AND HUMAN RESOURCES WOULD HELP US RUN THE PROCESS. BUT PREFERABLY, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RETAIN A FIRM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AS SOON AS THE FIRM IS ON BOARD, THEY WOULD THEN BE IN CHARGE OF COMPILING THE APPLICATIONS, MAKING SURE WE ALL GET THEM, HELPING US COME UP WITH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS, SCREEN CANDIDATES, SCHEDULE INTERVIEWS, FIGURE OUT WHETHER WE WILL DIRECTLY INTERVIEW THE CANDIDATES OR WE WILL SEND REPRESENTATIVES, THAT KIND OF THING. THE PLAN WOULD BE TO TRY AND RETAIN SOMEONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. RETAIN A FIRM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE FOLLOWING PROCUREMENT RULES, OBVIOUSLY. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, TO POST A JOB DESCRIPTION.
THE FIRM OF COURSE WOULD ALSO HELP US POST IN STRATEGIC PLACES, WHERE THEY KNOW WE MAY BE ABLE TO FIND A GOOD CANDIDATE. HEADHUNTING, AS SOMEBODY MENTIONED. THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE WORK WITH THE COUNTY PURCHASING AGENT TO PROCURE A SEARCH FIRM TO RECRUIT INTERVIEW AND SELECT CANDIDATES FOR THE ELECTIONS ADMINI ADMINISTRATOR.
I WOULD PLAN TO BRING IT TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT NEXT WEEK, WHERE RELEVANT.
>> THAT IS A MOUTHFUL TO REPEAT AS A MOTION. SO THE MOTION THAT YOU JUST
SAID. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
AYE. >> I'M IN FAVOR AS WELL, SO THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. SO THE LAST ONE IS THE JOB DESCRIPTION.
LET'S TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK, IF THAT IS OKAY WITH YOU GUYS, SO LET'S BE BACK AT 10:45.
AND I'LL HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU GUYS BY THEN. >> JUDGE, COULD I MAKE A
SUGGESTION? >> SURE. >> I KNOW WE SORT OF DOVE DIRECTLY INTO CONTENT HERE. AND I'M GLAD THAT WE'VE BEEN SO EFFICIENT.
[00:30:04]
SINCE WE HAVE ROUGHLY TEN MINUTES HERE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION AMONGST THE GROUP ABOUT JUST THE GOALS OF THIS COMMISSION AND THINGS THAT WEMIGHT WANT TO SEE MOVING FORWARD? >> YES.
AND THE CHALLENGE, MR. HOLLINS IS OF COURSE VIEWING CLOSELY TO THE AGENDA.
I WOULD CALL ON DOUG RAY TO HELP US MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER DISCUSSION WE HAVE, THAT WE CAN
-- >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS CAN
HEAR ME. MY VIDEO IS FROZEN UP. >> WE CAN HEAR YOU DOUG, THANK
YOU. >> AT LEAST WE COULD. >> OKAY.
LET'S BREAK UNTIL 10:45 AND WE'LL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION AND WE'LL ALSO LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES. SO IT'S 10:39 ACTUALLY. SO LET'S BREAK UNTIL 10:50.
WE'LL CIRCLE BACK. THAN >> I AM BACK.
>> I'M HERE, THANK YOU. >> 10:52 AND THE MEETING IS BACK IN SESSION.
DOUG, YOU WERE SAYING SOMETHING, I BELIEVE? >> I THINK THE QUESTION WAS COULD WE HAVE A DISCUSSION GENERALLY ABOUT THE PURPOSES AND THE PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION GOING FORWARD. UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE AHEAD OF TIME TO THE PUBLIC AS TO WHAT SUBJECT MATTER YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT AT ANY PARTICULAR MEETING. AND THIS ONE IS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. SO THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE COULD WE IMPLY THAT WE WOULD POSSIBLY TALK ABOUT THIS BY THE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
THE STATUTE ACTUALLY GIVES TO THIS COMMISSION ONLY ONE EXPLICIT DUTY AND THAT IS TO HIRE OR APPOINT THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR. IT ALSO GIVES IT THE POWER TO REMOVE THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR OR SUSPEND THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR.
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GRANT TO YOU ANY OTHER POWER AT ALL. SO ALL THREE OF THESE ITEMS REFER TO THE RETENTION AND APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR.
AND IF YOU WANTED TO GENERALLY DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE THE CORRECT PROCEDURES OR WHETHER SOME OTHER PROCEDURE INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION OF AN ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR WOULD BE PROPER OR ADVISABLE, THAT WOULD BE FINE. IF YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THE ENGAGEMENT OF SOME ACTIVITY BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OTHER THAN THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR, I DON'T THINK THAT ITEM WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA AND I WOULD ADVISE YOU THAT THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT NATURE.
>> THANK YOU, DOUG. LET'S FOCUS THE DISCUSSION THEN ON THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR.
I PROPOSE THAT WE LOOK AT THE JOB DESCRIPTION VOTE ON THE ITEMS WHERE THERE MAY BE A POINT OF CONTENTION. WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE A DIFFERENT ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING TO DISCUSS RELATED TOPICS. SO YOU GUYS ALL GOT AN E-MAIL WITH TRACK CHANGES ON THE EDITS THAT WERE MADE. I RECOMMEND THAT WE VOTE ON THIS.
I MEAN, LET'S DISCUSS, SEE IF FOLKS HAVE ANY EDITS. IF THERE AREN'T EDITS ON TOP OF THIS, PERHAPS WE COULD VOTE ON THIS AS PRESENTED. AND GO FROM THERE.
DID EVERYBODY RECEIVE THE E-MAIL? >> YES.
>> THANK YOU. I RECEIVED IT. >> GOT IT.
>> SO WHAT IT HAS IS, WE'VE GOT RID OF ESTABLISH THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD.
NOW IT IS MEET ON THE ITEMS THAT CLERK HOLLINS AND CHAIR SCHECHTER IS PREFERRED BUT NOT REQUIRED. ON QUALIFICATIONS, WE ALSO ADDED A COMMITMENT TO VOTING INTEGRITY IN THE LAST BULLET. THOSE ARE THE CHANGES YOU GUYS CAN SEE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT -- SOMEBODY'S PHONE IS ACTING UP. LUCINDA, HELP ME OUT.
>> MR. HOLLINS, IF YOU CAN DISCONNECT AND RECONNECT YOUR AUDIO, PLEASE.
[00:35:02]
IT'S PRETTY BAD. IF YOU'LL MUTE IT, CLICK ON THE THREE BUTTONS, UNDER MORE OPTIONS AND THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE AN AUDIO CONNECTION. AND THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TOCHANGE THAT OPTION THERE. >> HOW ABOUT THAT? >> PERFECT.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> I HAVE A SMALL AMENDMENT. IF WE COULD JUST, I LIKE EVERYTHING ON HERE, IF WE COULD JUST MOVE THE PREFERRED SECTION TO AFTER THE QUALIFICATIONS SECTION. INSTEAD OF HAVING PREFERRED BEFORE.
BUT SUBSTANTIVELY, EVERYTHING ON HERE WORKS FOR ME. YOU'RE ON MUTE NOW, JUDGE.
>> THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE CONTENT AND THE POSTING OF THE UPDATED JOB DESCRIPTION FOR THE HARRIS COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR AND THE PROPOSAL IS WHAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL, WITH THE PREFERRED SECTION AFTER THE QUALIFICATIONS SECTION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> SO MOVED. >> I'LL SECOND IT.
>> OKAY. MOTION BY MR. HOLLINS. SECOND BY CHAIR.
THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY THEN FOR THE JOB DESCRIPTION POSTING.
THANK YOU FOLKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THESE POINTS?
>> YES. I JUST WANT TO, ONE, JUST SAY THAT IT'S AN HONOR TO WORK WITH YOU ALL OF YOU, JUDGE, TAX ASSESSOR, CHAIR NEILSEN, ON THIS EFFORT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ELECTIONS IN HARRIS COUNTY REMAIN SAFE, SECURE AND ACCESSIBLE AND FAIR AND EFFICIENT. TO THE PEOPLE OF HARRIS COUNTY, I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMISSION. THIS ISN'T A NEW DISCUSSION FOR THE RECORD.
THE COURT HAS DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR.
IT'S OUR JOB TO SELECT THAT ADMINISTRATOR. I THINK DOUG MADE THAT CLEAR IN HIS COMMENTARY. WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON WAS TO CHOOSE SOMEONE WHO IS EXPERIENCED AND QUALIFIED, SOMEONE WHO IS NON-PARTISAN. SOMEONE WHO IS A PROVEN LEADER AND OPERATOR. AND SOMEONE COMMITTED TO PROTECTING AND EXPANDING VOTER RIGHTS AND ACCESS AND INTEGRITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF HARRIS COUNTY AND FOR ALL TEXANS.
I'M COMMITTED TO THAT. I KNOW EACH OF YOU IS COMMITTED TO THAT.
I'M EXCITED TO WORK WITH YOU ALL. IT'S ALSO CLEAR, I THINK FROM A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OUTSIDE THIS COMMISSION THAT THERE IS A CLEAR NEED FOR A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND SO I THINK AT OUR NEXT MEETING, I'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF AGENDA ITEMS RELATED TO THAT. BUT THANK YOU ALL AND IT WAS A JOY THAT THIS WAS SO EFFICIENT. I WAS EXPECTING MAYBE A MARATHON LIKE WE'VE SEEN AT SOME OF THOSE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETINGS, JUDGE.
SO I'M GLAD WE GOT THROUGH THIS RELATIVELY QUICKLY. >> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS AND WE'LL BE IN TOUCH.
I'LL BE DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ON TUESDAY. BUT THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.
STAY SAFE. >> SAME. YOU TOO.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.