[46. Authorize County auditor to pay and release the time-sensitive disbursements on May 22, 2025, to be ratified by Commissioners Court on May 27, 2025.]

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 44. 45 AND 46 APPROVAL OF BILLS.

GO AHEAD SIR. ALONG WITH RATIFICATION OF THE TIME SENSITIVE BILLS TOTALING 2230 AND 99.

SUBMIT FOR COURT APPROVAL. BILLS TOTALING 24,020,233 AND 88, WITH ROUTINE DISBURSEMENTS OF 17,576,037 AND 91. SO I MOVE APPROVAL ITEM 44.

45 AND 46 SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 47. OLGA, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND READ IT.

[47. WORKSHOP:]

47 A CONDUCT WORKSHOP TO RECEIVE PRESENTATION FROM THE FORT BEND COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH COMMITTEE REGARDING THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE. AND I'M GOING TO CALL SHANIKA SMITH TO START, AND THEN SHE'LL CONTINUE.

OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH PROCLAMATIONS.

DOWNSTAIRS TODAY WE HAD OUR MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS EVENT.

AND SO I'LL BE READING A PROCLAMATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS COURT.

WHEREAS MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH SEEKS TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MENTAL HEALTH, WELL-BEING AND TO ELIMINATE THE STIGMA SURROUNDING MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES.

AND WHEREAS FORT BEND COUNTY IS COMMITTED TO ENHANCING THE MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS OF ALL ITS RESIDENTS BY EXPANDING ACCESS TO EFFECTIVE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AND WHEREAS, THE STRONG PARTNERSHIPS HAVE ENSURED THE DELIVERY AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SUPPORT TO INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

AND WHEREAS, THE COORDINATING EFFORTS OF THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SHERIFF'S OFFICE, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, RISK MANAGEMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND RISK HAVE BEEN CRUCIAL IN ADDRESSING THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, EMPLOYEES, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, K.P. GEORGE, FORT BEND COUNTY JUDGE, AND THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, DO HEREBY RECOGNIZE MAY 2025 AS MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH AND COMMEND FORT BEND COUNTY RISK MANAGEMENT, FORT BEND COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FORT BEND COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, FORT BEND COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ELLY MENTAL HEALTH, TEXANA ACCESS HEALTH. WESTPARK SPRINGS VOYAGES BEHAVIORAL OF SUGARLAND, IBN-SINA FOUNDATION, WEST OAKS ATRIUM, AND OAK BEND. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO COME DOWN.

YOU WILL TAKE A PICTURE WITH OUR TASK FORCE FIRST, AND THEN I WILL INVITE THE RESOURCES TO COME UP AND TAKE A PICTURE, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE READING OF OUR RESOLUTION.

SO IF YOU PLEASE COME DOWN AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FORT BEND COUNTY RISK OFFICE COME UP.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO COME UP. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO COME UP.

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES TO COME UP. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO COME UP.

AND OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE COUNTY JUDGE.

HERE. OH, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. ONE IS GOOD.

OKAY. ARE THEY ALL COMING AT THE SAME TIME? THIS IS THE FIRST.

YEAH. YOU CAN GO FIRST. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT OVER HERE.

SO YOU HAVE TO GET ALL OF YOU IN THE FUTURE. SO WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER AND ALL Y'ALL OVER THERE.

YEAH. I KNOW RIGHT?

[00:35:08]

OKAY, YOU GUYS CAN COME AROUND SO THAT WE CAN GET ALL OF YOU IN THE PICTURE.

GO AHEAD. YOU CAN GET RIGHT HERE. YEAH. Y'ALL WANT TO STEP FORWARD.

STEP FORWARD. NICOLE. YOU KNOW WHAT I TOLD YOU? I SEE.

OKAY. NOW, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO STAY THERE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM ELLIE, MENTAL HEALTH, TECH, SANTA ACCESS HEALTH, WEST PARK SPRINGS, VOYAGERS, BEHAVIORAL, SUGARLAND, WEST OAKS ATRIUM AND OAK BEND. PLEASE COME UP.

I KNOW.

SS. SS. YEAH.

YEAH. OH! OH! HEY. I'M GONNA TAKE A TURN AFTER YOU. OR YOU FIRST.

YEAH. GOT IT. GOOD. DON'T. DON'T LET IT BREAK.

NO. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. HERE WE GO. ON THREE. ONE. TWO. THREE.

BIG SMILES. OH, YEAH. ONE MORE TIME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SORRY, SORRY, SORRY. I NEED A FACE TO FACE.

THREE. TWO. ONE. THANK YOU.

OKAY, NOW, IF COMMISSIONERS CAN. PLEASE.

NO. NO ONE CORRECTED ME. OKAY. YES. NO NO NO NO.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NOW, AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THE WORK THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH OUR MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE. AND SO I WILL START WITH A RESOLUTION TO READ, AND THEN I WILL THROW IT OFF TO DOCTOR ALMEIDA, SHERIFF FAGAN, DOCTOR GAIL LOWE AND THEN NICOLE LEDET.

AND THEN RISK WILL SPEAK AS WELL IF NEEDED. THE RESOLUTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE.

WHEREAS MENTAL HEALTH IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF WELL-BEING THAT AFFECTS HOW INDIVIDUALS THINK, FEEL, AND ACT AND IS CLOSELY LINKED TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S PHYSICAL HEALTH.

AND WHEREAS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF OVERALL HEALTH AND INCLUDES MENTAL DISTRESS, MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS, SUICIDAL THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIORS, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

WHEREAS THOUSANDS OF TEXANS EXPERIENCE A MENTAL HEALTH AND OR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CONDITION EACH YEAR AND STRUGGLE TO FIND ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH THEIR CARE.

AND WHEREAS FORT BEND COUNTY IS COMMITTED TO PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AS WELL AS WELLNESS SERVICES AND SUPPORTS FOR ITS EMPLOYEES.

[00:40:02]

AND WHEREAS, THE CREATION OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE AIMS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES BY PROVIDING ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND SUPPORTS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES, IDENTIFYING LOCAL MENTAL HEALTH PARTNERS TO ASSIST WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICES AND REFERRAL TO ADEQUATE RESOURCES. DEVELOPING STRATEGIES AND BEST PRACTICES.

INCREASING AWARENESS OF MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CHALLENGES AND RESOURCES WHILE REMAINING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE TO TAXPAYERS.

AND WHEREAS COMMISSIONERS COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY BELIEVES IT IS THE BEST INTEREST OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO CREATE A FORT BEND COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, THAT ONE FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THEREFORE APPROVES THE CREATION OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE.

TWO. THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE SHALL BE COMPRISED OF A LIAISON FROM EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OR OFFICES COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SHERIFF'S OFFICE, HUMAN RESOURCES AND RISK MANAGEMENT.

THREE. UPON CREATION, THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE SHALL A IDENTIFY KEY STRATEGY AND BEST PRACTICES FOR PROVIDING MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SUPPORT FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES.

B IDENTIFY A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK TO IMPLEMENT MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES.

C PRODUCE A SET OF GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, CONTINUUM OF CARE AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND REFERRAL OF SERVICES RESOURCES RELATING TO SAID SERVICES TO FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEES.

D ENGAGE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR.

E EVALUATION OF THE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AVAILABLE TO FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEES, AND DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS FOR THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE. REPORT TO THE FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE BUDGET IS ESTIMATED AT $50,000 PER FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING IN FY 2026.

THE FUNDS WILL BE ALLOCATED FOR EDUCATION, TRAINING, RESEARCH AND TRAINING MATERIALS, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION COSTS, DATA COLLECTION TOOLS, AND EVALUATIONS.

THESE INITIATIVES WILL BE FUNDED BY NON-DEPARTMENTAL FEES AND WE WILL HAVE IT SIGNED IF APPROVED.

NOW I WILL PASS IT OVER TO GIVE YOU ALL WHERE WE STARTED BACK IN 2019.

AND I WILL PASS IT TO DOCTOR ALMEIDA. THANK YOU.

IT'S GREAT TO SEE A LOT OF GREEN AND A LOT OF GREEN RIBBON.

SO MAY IS MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH, AND THIS GROUP ACTUALLY CAME TOGETHER A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF OUR EMPLOYEES. AFTER, UNFORTUNATELY, SOME TRAGIC EVENTS THAT IT OCCURRED.

AND SO TOGETHER, WE'VE BEEN MEETING AND REALLY THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE IMPROVE EMPLOYEE HEALTH, EMPLOYEE WELLNESS, INCLUDING THEIR MENTAL HEALTH? I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE 3500, OVER 3500 EMPLOYEES, AND MANY OF THEM ARE FIRST RESPONDERS.

SO WE'RE ADDRESSING FIRST RESPONDER WELLNESS.

BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BE PROACTIVE IN TERMS OF PROVIDING STAFF WITH THE RESOURCES, WITH THE SUPPORT THAT THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB. LAST YEAR TWO THINGS. THIS YEAR THE THEME IS TURNING AWARENESS INTO ACTION.

SO WE KNOW EMPLOYEE STRUGGLE WITH TRAUMA, VICARIOUS TRAUMA, COMPASSION FATIGUE, BURNOUT.

SO WE KNOW THESE THINGS, SO WE'RE TURNING IT INTO ACTION.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? LAST YEAR, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ACTUALLY THEIR FOCUS WAS ACTUALLY ON EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH IN THE WORKPLACE BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE ALL STRUGGLE WITH BURNOUT.

SO I THINK WE HAVE A HISTORY OF WORKING TOGETHER AND LOOKING AT WHAT RESOURCES WE CAN LEVERAGE AND PULL TOGETHER TO AGAIN BE COLLABORATIVE AND ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF OUR EMPLOYEES SO THAT WE PREVENT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE SEEING IN SEVERAL OF THE WORKPLACES, INCLUDING THE BURNOUT IN HEALTH CONDITIONS AND SEVERAL OTHER THINGS.

AND I KNOW HR AND RISK MANAGEMENT CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.

SO WITH THAT SHERIFF FAGAN. SO, AS YOU KNOW, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND

[00:45:03]

WORKS VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING OUR CIT PROGRAM, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF THE SUPPORT OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.

SO. SURE. GOOD EVENING. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE PARTNERS IN THE MENTAL HEALTH IN THE MENTAL HEALTH BODY, LIKE DOCTOR ALMEIDA AND TEXANA WORKING WITH US.

MENTAL HEALTH IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY.

LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE'RE NOW CATCHING UP TO WHAT MENTAL HEALTH IS.

WHAT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH MENTAL HEALTH. WE LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY NOW.

IT AFFECTS A LOT. AND LIKE DOCTOR ALMEIDA SAID, WE HAVE SECOND HAND TRAUMA OFFICERS GO TO SCENES WHERE THEY SEE DEVASTATING THINGS LITTLE CHILDREN HURT OR INJURED. BUT POLICE OFFICERS, SOMETIMES PEOPLE LOOK AT THEM LIKE ROBOTS AND THEY LOOK AT THEMSELVES SOMETIMES AS, I'M A BIG, STRONG MAN OR WOMAN AND I CAN TAKE THIS.

BUT AFTER TIME, IT BUILDS, IT BUILDS, IT BUILDS.

SO WE STARTED. WE DIDN'T START. BUT WE HAVE THINGS LIKE SYSTEM WHERE OFFICERS CAN SPEAK TO OTHER OFFICERS CAN HELP THEM DO THIS.

AND I WANT TO THANK ONE OF MY EMPLOYEES, LIEUTENANT ELLIOT, WHO MAY HAVE COME UP TO SPEAK, THAT LEADS MY CIT TEAM THAT'S DOING AN OUTSTANDING JOB, NOT JUST IN FORT BEND COUNTY, BUT ALSO REACH OUT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT ASK FOR HELP AND GUIDING THEM IN THE STRUGGLE OF MENTAL HEALTH WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES AS WELL.

GOOD AFTERNOON. QUICKLY. I'M SO GRATEFUL. CRISIS INTERVENTION IN FORT BEND COUNTY IS NOT JUST A STRATEGY.

IT'S A COMMITMENT. THERE ARE MANY MEN AND WOMEN THAT TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESPONDING TO THESE CRITICAL INCIDENTS ON A DAILY FASHION.

I'M GRATEFUL FOR COLLEAGUES THAT SUPPORT FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF SHERIFF ERIC FAGAN.

WE'VE EXPANDED OUR TEAM FROM FROM DAILY OPERATIONS TO 24 OVER SEVEN OPERATIONS UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP.

AND WHAT I REALLY JUST WANT TO SAY IS THAT WE WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO SEEING THINGS THROUGH AS FAR AS DATA COLLECTION, WE'VE ENHANCED OUR DATA COLLECTION, HAVE EVEN YOU KNOW, POSITIONED SOME THINGS TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY OF EMPLOYEES THAT FALL INTO CRISIS IN FORT BEND COUNTY, SO THAT THOSE THINGS ARE PROTECTED AND THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT COMING BACK TO WORK.

SO, JUST SO VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK THAT IS GOING FORTH.

GRATEFUL TO BE A PART OF IT, AND FOR THE SUPPORT AND THE LEADERSHIP THAT I HAVE WITH SHERIFF FAGAN.

JUST GRATEFUL TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

FORT BEND COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITMENT IS TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO OF OUR OWN STAFF. AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE DATA THAT WE COLLECT, WHICH SAYS THAT 1 IN 6 ADULTS HAVE DEPRESSION IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

AND WE KNOW THAT POOR MENTAL HEALTH INCREASES THE RISK OF SUICIDE.

AS WE HAVE HEARD, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT SO EASILY SEEN.

MANY TIMES, SOMETHING THAT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY OUR OWN MS DIRECTOR, WHICH IS VERY CLEAR AND ANYONE CAN RELATE TO.

WE SEE SOMEONE WHO HAS BROKEN A BONE, OR WHO HAS BROKEN AN ARM OR LEG, OR HAS A VISIBLE INJURY, AND WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND SAY, OH, YOU HAVE A TIME AND A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME, AND THAT INJURY IS GOING TO HEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR INTERVENTION.

WHEN MENTAL ILLNESS AND TRAUMA HAPPENS, THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT SEE.

AND OFTENTIMES THESE INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER THEY ARE IN MS, WHETHER THEY'RE IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WHETHER THERE ARE MANY OF OUR STAFF WHO ARE ON THE FRONT LINE, WHO ARE DEALING WITH WITH CITIZENS WHO ARE ANGRY, WHO ARE HAVE COMPLAINTS AND ARE NOT VERY PLEASANT.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT OFTENTIMES CAN BE TRAUMATIC DAY TO DAY TO DAY TO DAY TO YEAR TO YEAR TO YEAR TO YEAR THAT ARE IMPOSING IMPACTS ON OUR STAFF. AND AS RESPONSIBLE MINDED LEADERS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CREATED THIS OPPORTUNITY AND THIS TASK FORCE IS VERY IMPORTANT. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HAS DONE AN AMAZING JOB IN SUPPORTING OUR MS STAFF.

I'M GOING TO HAVE VERY QUICKLY OUR OUR CHAPLAIN, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW.

OUR EMS TEAM HAS A CHAPLAIN, AND HE IS VERY KEEN ON PEER SUPPORT.

OUR CHAPLAIN WAS ALSO A PARAMEDIC. SO HE IS A TRUSTED PERSON, A TRUSTED VOICE, BECAUSE IN THESE SITUATIONS, IT MATTERS. IT MATTERS THAT IT'S SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO DOES THE WORK THAT I DO, CAN SPEAK TO THE ISSUES THAT I DEAL WITH, CAN ASSIST ME. SO IT IS SO IMPORTANT. I'M GOING TO HAVE OUR CHAPLAIN, LANHAM, COME UP VERY QUICKLY AND JUST SHARE WITH YOU HOW IMPORTANT PEER SUPPORT IS.

[00:50:10]

WE HAVE THAT WE APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER'S COURT FOR JUST ALLOWING US TO BROADEN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALLOW THIS TO TAKE PLACE.

AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THIS SORT OF THING CAN CONTINUE TO GROW AND EXPAND TO.

OFFER SUPPORT TO OUR STAFF. SO, CHAPLAIN LANHAM, WOULD YOU JUST COME AND LET THE PEOPLE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT PEER SUPPORT IS? AND WHILE HE'S COMING, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS ALSO TAKING ON THE THE ROLE, WHICH IS WHAT WE DO IN HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

IT IS TO EDUCATE AND IT IS TO INFORM. AND SO WE HAVE EDUCATED MANY STAFF MEMBERS ON MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID.

SO THERE ARE PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTY ALREADY WHO ARE MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID TRAINED.

NOT ONLY THAT, WE HAVE EXTENDED AND GONE BEYOND THAT, AND WE HAVE EXTENDED TRAIN THE TRAINER CLASSES SO THAT WE INTERNALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRAIN ADDITIONAL ONBOARDING STAFF, MORE STAFF WHO NEED IT FROM WITHIN.

WE DON'T HAVE TO HIRE A CONTRACTOR TO DO IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO HIRE A THIRD PARTY TO DO IT.

WE CAN TRAIN OUR OWN STAFF BECAUSE WE HAVE INVESTED.

WITH YOUR SUPPORT, WE HAVE INVESTED IN OUR OWN STAFF TO ALSO BE TRAINERS.

SO WE HAVE SOME TRAINERS IN THE BUILDING. BUT BEFORE I ACKNOWLEDGE THEM, I JUST REALLY WANT YOU TO HEAR HOW IMPORTANT A PERSON WHO'S SERVED AS A PARAMEDIC, WHO NOW AS A PASTOR AND A CHAPLAIN TO THESE SAME GENTLEMEN AND LADIES, IS IMPACTING THEM VERY BRIEFLY.

THANK YOU, DOCTOR GALLO. AS SHE SAID, CHIEF TEMPLE WHEN HE WAS HERE, BROUGHT ME ON IN 2017 BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND BUT MAINLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A PARAMEDIC WHO ATTEMPTED TO TAKE HER OWN LIFE AND, AND SHE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL BECAUSE OF HER PEERS THAT CAME AROUND HER. NOBODY PROMPTED HIM. NOBODY TRAINED HIM.

BUT THEY CAME AROUND HER AND AND HELPED CHANGE THE THE TRAJECTORY OF THIS MOM, THIS PARAMEDIC, THIS PERSON'S LIFE. AND SO FROM 2017 THROUGH 2018, WE BEGAN A RELATIONSHIP BUILDING AND LOOKING TO HOW CAN WE STRENGTHEN THIS NETWORK OF PEER SUPPORTERS.

IN 2018, ONE OF OUR DEPUTY CHIEFS, KAT HARTLEY, TOOK HER OWN LIFE.

SHE WAS SUCCESSFUL. THAT SENT US DOWN THIS TRAIL OF HOW DO WE DO THIS BETTER? WHAT CAN WE DO TO BRING PEOPLE EVEN CLOSER TOGETHER TO TRAIN THEM? AND SO WE PUT A THROUGH YOUR APPROVAL AND YOUR ENCOURAGEMENT, WE PUT TOGETHER A TASK FORCE TO DO THAT FOR EMS. FROM THAT WE BUILT OUR PEER SUPPORT TEAM. WE HAD TEN INITIAL PEER SUPPORTERS TRAINED IN CISM, AND NOW WE HAVE 21 TRAINED PEER SUPPORTERS. AND THAT IS GROWING.

AND THE IMPORTANCE IS NOT EVERYBODY TRUSTS A PARTICULAR PERSON.

SO THE MORE YOU HAVE, THE WIDER THE TRUST NET IS, SO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY NEEDS HELP, THEY'RE GOING TO REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO THEIR PEER. THEY'LL REACH OUT TO ME A LOT. IF IF THE PEERS CAN'T HANDLE IT, THEY ELEVATE IT TO ME.

WE GET THEM IN CONTACT WITH ALL OF THESE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE REPRESENTED HERE.

BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT KIND OF RESOURCE POOL NOW, AND IT CONTINUES TO GROW, WE'RE SAVING LIVES.

WE AVERTED FIVE SUICIDES IN MS THIS YEAR ALONE.

FIVE. RIGHT. SO YEAH. AND AND SO THAT'S THAT'S BUILDING TRUST, THAT'S TRAINING THAT'S BEING AVAILABLE 24 OVER SEVEN. AND THAT'S TAKING CARE OF NOT ONLY THE BODY, NOT ONLY THE MIND, BUT ALSO THE SPIRIT AS WELL.

SO WE COME AROUND ALL THOSE DOMAINS OF WHO PEOPLE ARE, TO STRENGTHEN THEM, TO HELP THEM BUILD RESILIENCE AND BUILD WELLNESS IN THEIR CAREERS SO THAT THEY'RE HERE TO SERVE EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTY OUT OF THEIR WELLNESS, SERVING OUT OF THEIR WELLNESS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO NAVIGATE THE HURT WHILE THEY STILL SERVE. SO JUST THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH.

THANKS, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND FOR CONTINUING TO HELP US MOVE MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT FORWARD.

THANK YOU. AND VERY BRIEFLY, WE HAVE 15 TRAINED THE TRAINERS FOR MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID. SO YOU HAVE A POOL OF 15 STAFF WHO ARE CAPABLE AND READY TO TRAIN OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY REPRESENT ALL ASPECTS OF THE COUNTY.

[00:55:02]

THEY REPRESENT OEM, HHS, RISK MANAGEMENT, EMERGENCY EMS, I'M SORRY, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.

WE HAVE LIBRARY, JUVENILE PROBATION AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

SO EVERYWHERE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY THERE IS PRETTY MUCH A REPRESENTATIVE, A TRAINER TO FACILITATE THESE TRAINING COURSES.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? YES. OH, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSIONERS. ON BEHALF OF HUMAN RESOURCES IT'S BEEN OUR PRIVILEGE TO BE A PART OF THE MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE. EACH DAY, EMPLOYEES WORK, THEY COME TO WORK, AND THEY BALANCE THEIR DAILY WORK ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS THE NEEDS OF THEIR DAY TO DAY LIVES. AND FOR THAT REASON, SOME OF OUR EMPLOYEES, NOT ALL OF THEM, MAY PRESENT CHALLENGES SURROUNDING THEIR MENTAL HEALTH.

MENTAL HEALTH FOR THE SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN MADE A TOP PRIORITY SINCE THE PANDEMIC.

AND SO PARTNERING AND BEING A PART OF THE MENTAL HEALTH TASK FORCE IS ONE OF THE MAJOR PRIORITIES FOR OUR HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HERE AT FORT BEND COUNTY.

SUPPORTING MENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS WORKPLACE PRODUCTIVITY REDUCES COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ABSENTEEISM AND TURNOVER.

IT FOSTERS A MORE POSITIVE AND INCLUSIVE WORK ENVIRONMENT BY PRIORITIZING MENTAL HEALTH.

OUR COUNTY CAN CONTINUE TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN TOP TALENT, IMPROVE EMPLOYEE MORALE, AND ULTIMATELY INCREASE OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND SUCCESS. WHEN EMPLOYEES FEEL SUPPORTED AND VALUED, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO STAY WITH THE ORGANIZATION.

THAT IS WHY WE AT THE FORT BEND COUNTY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AGAIN.

WE ARE ALSO A TRAINED MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID PARTNER.

SO VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. WE'RE HAPPY TO PARTNER WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS TASK FORCE IS IS SUCCESSFUL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY, SO IF I COULD JUST REAL QUICK, IF ANYBODY'S HERE FOR THE FIRST AID MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING, CAN YOU PLEASE STAND UP? IF YOU HAVE TAKEN THE TRAINING, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN CALL ON.

THEY ARE IN HOUSE AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE INVESTING IN.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT JUDGE.

OKAY. I IF I COULD JUST SAY I THINK THIS WORK IS IMPORTANT AND GREAT.

SO THANKS TO ALL WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MAKING THIS HAPPEN.

I ESPECIALLY LIKE THE FOCUS ON HOW WE SUPPORT THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE DOING THE SUPPORTING OF OTHER PEOPLE.

WHEN I WAS AT FORT BEND ISD, I KNOW WE ROLLED OUT MENTAL HEALTH CLINICS, CAMPUS BASED MENTAL HEALTH CLINICS.

AND THIS WAS MEANT FOR OUR STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

WELL, THE WHOLE CONVERSATION ENSUED ABOUT, WELL, HOW ARE WE OPENING UP PATHWAYS FOR OUR EMPLOYEES TO ALSO GET THIS SUPPORT? AND SO AS PART OF OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH NEW HOPE CLINIC, WE ACTUALLY EXPANDED THAT FOR THAT EXACT REASON.

SO YOU KNOW, I KNOW I GET EXHAUSTED AND BURNT OUT FROM THE WORK I DO.

I DON'T HAVE THE DEMANDS OF ESPECIALLY OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND OUR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

SO IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT I AND I TALK TO SOMEBODY, BY THE WAY, REGULARLY.

AND SO I KNOW IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THIS SUPPORT AVAILABLE TO OUR EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY CAN BE BETTER PREPARED TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. OKAY.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

JUDGE, IF WE MAY VISIT AGENDA ITEM 27. WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON.

OKAY. CAN YOU READ AGENDA ITEM 27? 27. TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY EMPLOYEE MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TASK FORCE, EFFECTIVE MAY 13TH, 2025. MOVE APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM 27.

ANY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

47 B CONDUCT WORKSHOP TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THE BUDGET AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ADDITION OF DISTRICT COURTS.

YES, I HAVE A PRESENTATION. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD AND START, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS?

[01:00:07]

I LIKE TO BRING THREE SLIDES. I CAN'T BE THAT BAD PERSON.

JUST PRESENT THAT INFORMATION. CAN YOU UPLOAD THAT THREE PAGES, ONE FIRST PAGE.

I JUST WANT YOU KNOW, THE JUDICIARY HERE. AND I DO ALL RESPECT AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU DO.

WE JUST I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT ON THIS COURT THE DECISIONS, WHATEVER THEY ARE MAKING, ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE, BUT WHAT ARE THESE NUMBERS FLOATING AROUND OR PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS BASED ON THIS IS THE INFORMATION WE ASKED AND WE RECEIVED FROM THE COURT ADMINISTRATION OR IN STATE OF TEXAS.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ASKED THEM TO GIVE US A SCENARIO.

YOU COULD LOOK IT UP THE WORKLOAD AND IT HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY THESE NUMBERS, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

YOU COULD SEE THAT SO YOU COULD SEE THAT EACH COLUMN SAYS THAT WITH ZERO ASSOCIATE JUDGES ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND SIX, WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE WORK LOAD PER JUDICIAL OFFICER.

AND WITH THREE NUMBER IT SHOWS 0.99 AND WITH FOUR IT SHOWS 0.94.

AND, AND I JUST I DON'T HAVE ANY PERSONAL COMMENT AND I'M JUST SHARING THIS INFORMATION FROM THIS THIS DATA IS FROM OCA. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. WAS THIS PART OF HER HER RECOMMENDATION? IT WASN'T PART OF HER REPORT, I DON'T KNOW. YES.

YES, I DO HAVE THE THE COST ESTIMATE FOR THAT SCENARIO.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THOUGHT WE WERE YOU WERE MAKING A PRESENTATION ON A WRITE THE COST ESTIMATE.

YES, SIR. COST ESTIMATE? ALL I HAVE IS A COST ESTIMATE OF A SCENARIO.

I'M I CAN GIVE THAT COST ESTIMATE NOW AND THEN, IF YOU WISH.

THE COURT WISHES OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE JUDGES WHO HAVE APPEARED.

YEAH, YEAH, BUT, COMMISSIONER, ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS I'M TRYING TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED FROM THE OCA.

THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO. OKAY, BUT I WAS I WAS NOT HERE LAST WEEK.

OKAY? AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A WORKSHOP WHERE WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS.

IT IS IT IS A WORKSHOP, AND I ONLY HAVE THREE SLIDES TO PRESENT.

AND THEN WE WILL PASS IT ON TO PAMELA, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.

AND IT SHOWS ACTUALLY OUR NUMBERS. OKAY. AND IT IS COMPARABLE TO PARABLE TO COLLIN COUNTY, DENTON COUNTY, FORT BEND. THESE NUMBERS ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT.

AND ALSO, ONE MORE SLIDE. I WILL PRESENT THE LAST ONE, THE LAST PAGE.

AND WITH THE SCENARIO, MOVE IT TO THE LAST PAGE.

OKAY. NO. THE ONE BEFORE. OKAY. AND ALSO THIS SIX ASSOCIATE JUDGES IS NOT THE RIGHT NUMBER BECAUSE TWO ASSOCIATE JUDGES WERE ARPA FUNDED. SO IT IS NOT EVEN LISTED HERE.

AND SO YOU SEE THE SCENARIO OF THE NUMBERS AND WHICH THE LAST ONE, SCENARIO FOUR, IT EXPLAINS THESE NUMBERS ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY. AND I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION.

AND BASED ON THIS, WHATEVER THE WHATEVER THE CONCLUSION, WHATEVER THE CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH THE STATE OR THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE.

COMMISSIONER? YOU WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING? NO. YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE MORE ASSOCIATE JUDGES THAT ARE ON THIS LIST.

SO WHAT DATA ARE WE WORKING WITH? OKAY. OKAY.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I NEED BECAUSE WE'RE SHOWING A CASE PER JUDGE, BUT THE CASE PER JUDGE IS NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF JUDGES WE ACTUALLY HAVE.

SO YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CONCLUDE THIS, AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PAMELA'S PRESENTATION.

SO I LAST WEEK WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE THE THE ADDITION OF TWO DISTRICT COURTS, I WAS ASKED TO GIVE A PRESENTATION AND COST ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT WOULD COST US TO ADD THOSE TO GO AHEAD AND FLIP OVER TO ADD THE COST OF THOSE TWO DISTRICT COURTS.

SO WHAT I AM PRESENTING TODAY IS NOT NECESSARILY A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, BUT MERELY A COST ESTIMATE OF THIS IS HOW MUCH IT WILL COST TO ADD TO DISTRICT COURTROOMS. SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THE TOTAL COST FOR SPACE PLANNING.

[01:05:01]

OBVIOUSLY WE NEED A NEW AN ADDITIONAL COURTROOM IN THE JUSTICE CENTER.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT IS $1,790,019. AND THAT WAS APPROVED JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO UNDER PURCHASING NUMBER 40.

THE FURNITURE FOR THOSE TWO, FOR THAT COURTROOM AND FOR ALSO ACTUALLY FOR TWO COURTROOMS, BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING TWO DISTRICT COURTS IS 148,000.

116 AUDIO VISUAL FOR THOSE COURTROOMS, 130,000, FOR A TOTAL OF 2,006,000 835,000.

THAT'S JUST FOR THE SPACE. THE NEXT SLIDE. SO TO ADD THE COST OF ADDING TWO DISTRICT COURTS AND IT. THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES LOOKS LIKE THAT GOT CUT OFF.

IT SAYS GO BACK. YEAH. THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND TWO DISTRICT COURTS.

THE TOTAL COST FOR STAFFING OF THOSE TWO ASSOCIATE JUDGES IS 3,000,007 1141.

THAT INCLUDES THE TWO JUDGES. TWO COURT COORDINATORS, TWO COURT REPORTERS, FOUR ATTORNEYS IN THE DA'S OFFICE, TWO ADMINISTRATIVE, TWO IN THE SHERIFF AND TWO IN PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR A TOTAL OF 16 FTES FOR THE TWO DISTRICT COURTS.

AND THEN FOR THE OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES WOULD INCLUDE FIVE FTES, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THREE JUDGES AND TWO ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.

COURTROOM BUILD OUT WE ADDED FROM THAT LAST SLIDE.

AND THEN THE SAVINGS FROM THOSE TWO FROM ALL OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES IS ABOUT $2.5 MILLION FOR A NET COST OF 03,220,981. THAT I ALSO HAVE A COST ESTIMATE FOR FOUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND THE TWO DISTRICT COURTS. SAME THING.

TO ADD THE TWO DISTRICT COURTS IS 16 FTES, SAME FTES AS WAS WAS ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

COURTROOM BUILD OUT THE SAVINGS OF ALL OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

AND THAT'S FROM THE COST OF OUR CURRENT ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND THEIR STAFF FOR A TOTAL COST OF 3 MILLION, 522, 990. AND THEN THE COST DIFFERENCE ON THE NEXT SLIDE BETWEEN THE TWO SCENARIOS IS 302,000.

SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND FOUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES IS THE 302,000.

THAT'S ASSUMING THAT NO CHANGES IN THE ANCILLARY DEPARTMENT, SUCH AS THE DISTRICT CLERK SORRY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND SO FORTH REMAINS THE SAME BETWEEN THOSE TWO COURTS.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. AGAIN, I WASN'T HERE AND I DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO WATCH IT.

BUT WHAT YOU PRESENTED HERE IS REPRESENTS A CHANGE OF IT ASSUMES A ELIMINATING SOCIAL JUDGES. SO CURRENTLY, THERE ARE EIGHT ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

THE TWO SCENARIOS PRESENTED HERE ARE FOR 3 OR 4.

SO THAT WOULD ELIMINATE EITHER 5 OR 4 ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK WE PART OF.

I ASKED FOR THIS WORKSHOP TODAY. TO GET A FULL PICTURE OF THE COST.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME YOU JUST NOTED. THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL ANCILLARY COSTS.

AS WE HEARD FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DA'S ARE.

THOSE ARE INCLUDED HERE. THEY ARE. OKAY. YES.

IF YOU GO UP BACK TO SLIDES OR RIGHT HERE, THE AT THE TOP YOU CAN SEE THE ADDITION.

THERE'S THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THERE ARE SOME ATTORNEYS AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF THERE, SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND PUBLIC DEFENDER THAT HAS STAFF THAT WAS ADDED INTO THAT COST ESTIMATE OF 4,000,013.

SO THAT COMPLETE DISTRICT CLERK TWO. SO WITH THE DISTRICT CLERK, BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES WOULD BE WOULD COME OFF, THEY WOULDN'T NEED ADDITIONAL FTES. SO YES, IT DOES INCLUDE THE DISTRICT CLERK.

SO I KNOW THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS I FELT LIKE WE WERE WE WERE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT COURTS AND HAVEN'T HAD THE ADEQUATE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THEIR OPERATIONS AND WHAT MIGHT BE THE IMPACT OR EVEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR OWN JUDGES.

AND I UNDERSTAND JUDGE JARAMILLO IS HERE AND I SEE SEVERAL OTHERS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO. YES, TO SHARE AS WELL.

YES, JUDGE. PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE COME UP.

GOOD AFTERNOON. BEFORE I START, I'D LIKE TO ASK ALL THE JUDGES, ASSOCIATES AND PRESIDING TO PLEASE STAND.

[01:10:04]

CAN YOU BRING YOUR. YEAH. OH, YEAH. I'D LIKE TO ASK ALL THE PRESIDING JUDGES AND ASSOCIATE JUDGES WHO ARE HERE TODAY, WHO ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHERE WE STAND WITH REGARDS TO IT.

AND WE ALL TOOK A VERY TIME OFF OUR VERY BUSY SCHEDULES IN THE COURTS TO BE HERE.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK JUDGE HANNA AND JUDGE PATEL TO PLEASE COME FORWARD AS THEY'RE GOING TO HELP ME WITH MY PRESENTATION, IF I MAY APPROACH.

THANK YOU. OH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR YOUR TIME AND CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORTING THE JUDICIARY.

ALL OF US ARE HERE TODAY AND ME PARTICULAR AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL OUR PRESIDING DISTRICT COURT JUDGES, TO UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF RETAINING OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW COURTS AS BEING PROPOSED.

WE ARE NOT HERE ON THE SUGGESTION THAT WE DON'T NEED TWO MORE COURTS OR LET ALONE REMOVE 4 TO 5 ASSOCIATES.

THAT'S THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN AT ALL.

AND WE ALSO NEED TO CLARIFY THE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK THAT GOVERNS THE.

THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES. BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ROLES OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES IS TO PERFORM AS MUCH WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, THEY DO PERFORM AS MUCH WORK AS THAT OF THE PRESIDING JUDGES.

LAST WEEK, THE COMMENTARY WAS MADE THAT JUDGES ONLY PERFORMED 75% OF THE WORK.

THAT'S COMPLETELY INACCURATE. THE PRESENTATION WAS MADE THAT WHEN WE ARE SITTING ON THE BENCH, THEY ARE NOT. WE OFTEN RUN MUTUAL DOCKETS. AT THE SAME TIME.

CRIMINAL LAWYERS WOULD NOT KNOW THAT I'M ON THE BENCH ON A CIVIL DOCKET BECAUSE THEY'RE IN CRIMINAL COURT. AND WHEN JUDGE HANNA IS ON A CIVIL DOCKET, THE CIVIL LAWYERS DON'T KNOW THAT I'M ON THE BENCH IN A CRIMINAL CASE. SO WE RUN COURTS AT THE SAME TIME WE DO THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORKLOAD.

SO THAT'S A WHOLLY INACCURATE TO REPRESENT THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT THEY ONLY DO 75% OF THE WORK.

THAT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. ALSO, THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES HANDLE THE SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF CASES IN ALL OUR AREAS OF LAW BECAUSE WE'RE GENERAL JURISDICTION BENCHES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE, AND SOME ARE JUST SPECIALIZED FOR JUST FAMILY.

WE NOT ONLY SIT ON CRIMINAL AND CIVIL AND FAMILY MATTERS, BUT WE ALSO DO EXTRA FUNCTIONS THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE NUMBERS OR IN THE CASE COUNTS. ONE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS IS FORT BEND COUNTY HAS A LOT OF WHAT WE CALL SPECIALTY DOCKETS, SUCH AS DRUG COURT PROGRAM AND THE END COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS COURT, WHICH IS NOT IN THE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM, THE COUNTY COURT'S LAW. WE ALSO HAVE SANCTIONS COURT.

AND DID I FORGET ONE AND VETERAN AND DWI COURT.

SO WE HAVE A COURT. WE HAVE MORE YES. THAT ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE COUNTS FROM THE OCA.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, I CAN'T SPEAK TO OTHER COUNTIES.

WE ARE COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTIES. WE ARE GROWING AT A RAPID RATE COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTIES, WHICH SHOW LITTLE TO NO RATE OF GROWTH. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT FOR.

AND THE COUNTS WERE DONE FROM I BELIEVE LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR PRIOR WHICH WE ARE NOW ALREADY HAVE GROWN SINCE THEN.

SO TO SAY THAT THE JUDGES ARE NOT PERFORMING OR THAT WE DON'T NEED MORE COURTS IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE.

IN REMOVING THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, I'M SORRY, THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES WOULD DENY TIMELY ACCESS TO JUSTICE.

IT WOULD CREATE BACKLOG AND WOULD TAKE AWAY OUR DISTRICT JUDGES TIME AND ABILITY TO SIT AND COMPLEX TRIALS OR ON ALL THESE OTHER SPECIALTY TYPE COURTS THAT WE HAVE. AND IT WOULD CRIPPLE OUR ABILITY TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY DEADLINES FOR HEARINGS, PARTICULARLY IN THE FAMILY CODES THAT HAVE STRICT TIMELINES ON CHILD WELFARE.

AND IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS, WHERE WE ALSO HAVE DUE PROCESS ISSUES WITH PERSONS WHO ARE INCARCERATED.

SO AND TO JUST GO BACK TO THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT.

GOVERNING THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES. AND THAT IS WHAT I'VE HANDED YOU.

CODE SECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE 54.005. AND JUST TO GET TO THE MEAT OF POTATOES OF THAT IT IS REGARDING THE TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES. ONLY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE JUDGE THAT THEY SERVE CAN TERMINATE THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

THE STATUTE IS CLEAR THAT THAT IS LEFT TO US.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FUNDING IS LEFT TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, BUT THE IF YOU DECIDE TO

[01:15:04]

DEFUND IT AS A WAY TO TAKE AWAY 4 OR 5 ASSOCIATE BENCHES IT IS GOING TO BE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 54 A CREATING SOME CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES UNDER ARTICLE TWO, SECTION ONE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS CLAUSE, WHICH ENSURES THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY OF THE JUDICIARY.

SO AND ANOTHER THING IS THE APPOINTMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES FALLS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PRESIDING JUDGES, AND SO TO DEFUND THEM BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WOULD UNDERMINE THESE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AND WOULD CONSTITUTE IMPERSONAL, IMPERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENT ON JUDICIAL POWERS.

NOW ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING IS THAT WE'RE NOT THAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO SPECIALIZATION. AND I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THE SEPARATION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS.

EITHER YOU SIT ON A CIVIL COURT OR YOU SIT ON AN ALL CRIMINAL COURT.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT COMES FROM. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.

IT'S NOT EVEN A MATTER THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD OF JUDGES.

SO WHOEVER MADE THAT PRESENTATION TO THIS COURT, IT WAS INACCURATE.

SO I'M HERE TO ALSO CALL YOU TO ACTION TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND URGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO THE FULL FUNDING OF OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

THIS IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF BUDGET, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF JUSTICE, LEGALITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE.

AND WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO ASK JUDGE PATEL AND JUDGE HANNA TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE OK NUMBERS AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'LL BE FACING.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE NEW COURTS. WE JUST DON'T WANT THEM AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR ASSOCIATES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU JUDGE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS COURT, FOR THE TIME TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL TODAY.

WE DO APPRECIATE IT. I WANTED TO FIRST ADDRESS THE INFORMATION THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE OCA.

I PERSONALLY HAD A MEETING WITH TWO OCA EMPLOYEES VIA WEBEX, KATHY HORVATH AND CLARISSA WEBSTER.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT TO THEM IF YOU WANT TO VERIFY ANY OF THE INFORMATION.

I'M GOING TO SHARE THAT I RECEIVED IN THAT MEETING.

THOSE NUMBERS ARE HIGHLY INCORRECT, PER THE OCA, THAT THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS TOLD ME THAT ON THAT WEBEX MEETING FOR ME ALONE, JUST JUDGE PATEL, NOT EVEN MY PRESIDING JUDGE.

OKAY? JUST ME. THEY SAID THERE IS WELL OVER 152 CURRENTLY ACTIVE CASES THAT ARE NOT COUNTED IN THAT REPORT. THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER. THE 152 COME FROM THE SPECIALTY COURTS THAT I HANDLE ABOUT TEN DOCKETS A MONTH.

I DO TWO SUBSTANCE ABUSE. TWO GENERAL FELONY AND ONE HIGH RISK YOUNG OFFENDERS IN THAT GROUPING.

WE HAD OVER 152, BUT WE HAVE SOME. THE REASON IT'S ONLY 152 TODAY OR AS OF THE DATE OF THAT NUMBER, EXCUSE ME, IS BECAUSE WE'VE GRADUATED A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE, MEANING THEY'VE DONE WELL, THEY'VE STAYED CLEAN, THEY'VE ATTENDED COUNSELING, THEY'VE DONE WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ON PROBATION, WHICH IS WHAT WE ULTIMATELY WANT FOR THEIR BEST INTERESTS, BUT ALSO FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY, TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM AND TO REDUCE INTERGENERATIONAL INCARCERATION, WHICH IS A BIG PROBLEM IN THIS NATION. I CAN GET IN ALL THE STATS IF YOU WANT, BUT I WON'T IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.

SO AGAIN, ME ALONE, NOT EVEN MY FULL COURT 152 IS RIGHT THERE.

THOSE DOCKETS THAT I JUST MENTIONED, WHAT'S ALSO NOT INCLUDED IN STUDY PATEL'S NUMBERS ALONE.

NOT SPEAKING TO ANY OTHER JUDGE. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW INACCURATE THESE NUMBERS ARE PER THE OK THEMSELVES.

WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED FOR ME? PROBATION MODIFICATIONS? PROBATION ADMONISHMENTS. CIVIL POST-DISCOVERY CIVIL RECEIVERSHIPS CIVIL FORECLOSURES? TAX EXCESS PROCEEDS? I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE NUMBERS FOR THAT FOR Y'ALL.

BUT THOSE CASES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN MY NUMBERS, PER THE OCA REPORT.

SO IT'S 152 PLUS FOR JUDGE PATEL ALONE. THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, PER KATHY HORVATH AND CHRIS WEBSTER OF THE OCA. THAT'S COMING FROM THEM. THAT'S NOT MY OPINION.

OBVIOUSLY, AS JUDGE MENTIONED, JUDGE HERMIA MENTIONED.

OTHER ASSOCIATE JUDGES HANDLE SPECIALTY COURTS.

THEY HAVE THEIR OWN NUMBERS. I WAS ABLE TO GET THE NUMBERS SINCE WE'RE SIMILARLY SITUATED OF JUDGE R.G.

BRAME. SHE HANDLES ABOUT THREE OF THOSE CASELOADS, APPROXIMATELY.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANY OTHER JUDGE, SO PLEASE TAKE THAT WITH THAT CAVEAT, BUT JUST ON WHAT I WAS ABLE TO GET, SINCE WE ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED SITUATED IN THOSE TYPES OF CASES, SPECIALTY CASELOADS.

HERS WAS CLOSE TO 97. AGAIN, JUST THAT ONE THING THAT'S NOT COUNTED IN HER NUMBERS.

I WANTED TO ALSO THANK JUDGE FELICIA YOUNG. SHE HELPED ME RESEARCH SOME THINGS FOR TODAY, AND I WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT HER AND I SHARED AND WORKED ON TOGETHER.

[01:20:05]

CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A VERY HIGH CLEARANCE RATE WITH THE OCA.

CLEARANCE RATE IS NOT SOMETHING ALSO THAT'S CONSIDERED IN THOSE REPORTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE.

WHAT IS CLEARANCE RATE RATE MEAN WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE JUDICIARY? IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT FIGURE. IT'S SOMETIMES EQUATED WITH SUCCESS.

DEPENDS HOW YOU DEFINE SUCCESS. BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CLEARANCE RATES, THAT MEANS THE NEW CASES COMING IN.

AND THE FIGURES I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ARE FROM THE OCA.

AGAIN, NOT COUNTING ANY OF THESE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE, JUST THE ONES THEY HAVE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE OUR CLEARANCE RATE. SORRY. LET ME DEFINE THAT FOR YOU ALL.

IS THE NEW CASES COMING IN MINUS THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED OUT.

AND FOR OUR COURTS THEY DO INCLUDE AND THIS IS AN OVERALL FOR ALL OUR DISTRICT COURTS COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY JUDGE, INCLUDING OUR FAMILY JUDGES. SO THAT INCLUDES FAMILY CRIMINAL, CIVIL ALL THAT OKAY.

OUR CURRENT CLEARANCE RATE AS OF THE END OF 2024 WAS VERY HIGH.

AND WE WERE COMMENDED FOR THAT BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.

THESE ARE PER THE OCA, NOT INCLUDING THE NUMBERS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE.

95.52% IS WHAT FORT BEND COUNTY SCORED BY CUTTING.

FOLKS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT SCORE. I'M JUST BEING CANDID.

THAT'S A VERY PROUD SCORE TO HAVE. TO GIVE YOU SOME PERSPECTIVE.

FORT BEND COUNTY IN 2020 HAD ONLY ABOUT 80 OR 80.19 SCORE.

WE ARE AGAIN, AND I EMPHASIZE THIS AT 95.52% CLEARANCE RATE.

THAT IS OUR CURRENT SCORE. IF YOU WANT TO PUT A GRADE ON THE JUDGES, MINUS THE INACCURACY OF THE CASE NUMBERS, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. I DON'T THINK A 95 IS BAD.

IF YOU WANT TO GRADE US. I HAVE BROUGHT LOTS OF DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS FOR YOU ALL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU ALL TO TAKE MY OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE BLACK AND WHITE.

THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A CURRENT REPORT JUST PRINTED BY MY STAFF THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.

I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE, BUT IT WAS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS IT WAS PRINTED THIS ALONE AND YOU CAN SEE THE TINY FONT ON THIS IS EVERY DISTRICT COURT INMATE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY. ONLY ARREST IN THE PAST 90 DAYS. MEANING IF THEY WERE ARRESTED IN THE PAST 90 DAYS AND THEY'RE STILL IN CUSTODY AS THE DATE OF THIS REPORT.

THAT'S HOW MANY WE HAVE IN CUSTODY. DISTRICT COURT ONLY, NOT COUNTY COURT.

AND NOT IF THEY WERE ARRESTED BEFORE 90 DAYS.

SO THIS IS NOT THE TOTAL INMATES IN DISTRICT COURT, IN CUSTODY.

DISTRICT COURT. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS LIKE JUDGE HAMILL TALKED ABOUT.

WE DO HAVE VERY STRICT DEADLINES, JUST LIKE FAMILY COURT DOES FOR BEST INTEREST OF CHILD.

WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER BEST INTEREST OF CHILD WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH BOND ISSUES.

BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE SPEEDY TRIAL ISSUES AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR INCARCERATION, WHICH WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS.

WE DO NOT WANT TO EVER PUT OURSELVES. I KNOW I DON'T MY LAW LICENSE OR ANYBODY IN THIS COUNTY AT RISK FOR LITIGATION FOR SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LAW.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE TAKEN AN OATH TO DO. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, I GREW UP HERE.

I'VE WORKED IN THIS COUNTY SINCE 2020. SO LIKE ALL THE OTHER JUDGES, I DON'T THINK I'M UNIQUE.

I TAKE MY JOB VERY SERIOUSLY. I HAVE A FEW MORE POINTS, AND I WILL TRY TO KEEP IT BRIEF AND RESPECT FOR YOUR TIME, BUT I DO THINK THEY'RE ALL VERY IMPORTANT. IF YOU ALL ARE INTERESTED IN OUR WEEKLY DISPOSAL RATE, OUR DWOP DOCKETS, DWOP DOCKETS. YOU ALL MAY KNOW STANDS FOR DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

SO THOSE ARE CIVIL CASES. OBVIOUSLY CRIMINAL HAS DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN PENDING A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ARE JUST NOT PROSECUTED.

FAMILY COURT DOES THAT A LOT ON FOLKS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT FILED DIVORCES, BUT DON'T PROCEED WITH THEM.

WE DO THAT A LOT ON CIVIL LAWSUITS. WE DO ABOUT OUR COURT DOES ABOUT 3 TO 4 OF THOSE A YEAR, DEPENDING ON THE DOCKET, WE CAN CLEAR OUT ALMOST 200 OF THOSE AT EACH DWOP DOCKET.

THOSE ARE RUN IN OUR COURT BY THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE.

AND WE'LL SET 200 ON A DAY EASILY, SOMETIMES MORE.

SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT WORK WITH YOU ALL.

THIS ISSUE OF DEFUNDING THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT THERE ARE GRANTS THAT OUR COUNTY HAS ACCEPTED AND ARE LEGALLY BOUND TO GRANT REQUIREMENTS. I DON'T WANT THIS TO BECOME A SNOWBALL EFFECT OR A NEGATIVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH GRANTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MR. MIDDLETON, MAY HAVE. AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, BUT GRANTS THAT OUR PROBATION DEPARTMENT HAS.

I KNOW THEY OPERATE ON GRANTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO OUR SPECIALTY COURTS.

IF THOSE CASES ARE NOT HEARD IN A TIMELY MANNER OR HANDLED THE THE WAY THE GRANT REQUIRES, IT COULD. I'M NOT SAYING IT WILL BECAUSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS GRANTS, BUT I DO.

[01:25:03]

I AM CONCERNED THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND SEE WHERE THIS SNOWBALL MAY GO WITH THE CUTTING OF QUARTZ.

I WANTED TO ALSO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE OK REPORT.

GOING BACK TO THAT, ANOTHER LEVEL OF INACCURACY IN THAT IS ONE OF THE COUNTIES THEY ASSOCIATED US OR COMPARED US WITH WAS HIDALGO.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE CLEARANCE RATE THAT WE DISCUSSED OF HIDALGO.

CLEARANCE RATE, SUCCESS RATE, WHICH YOU WANT TO COUNT IT. I AM NOT THROWING ANY STONES AT HIDALGO COUNTY.

I'M SIMPLY SAYING I DON'T KNOW. I ALSO DON'T KNOW THEIR POPULATION GROWTH.

AS YOU ALL KNOW STARTING IN DECEMBER 24TH, THIS COURT AUTHORIZED A LOT OF MONEY.

I THINK IT WAS OVER $1 MILLION TO IMPROVE AND INCREASE OUR COURT SYSTEM.

I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. AND I SAY THIS RESPECTFULLY, WHAT CHANGED? AND THAT WAS FROM THE NUMBER I PULLED UP THAT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COURT FOR THE COURTS WAS OVER $1 MILLION.

IT STARTED IN 23. THE NUMBERS I LOOKED AT THROUGH DECEMBER 24TH, RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE THAT, EXCEPT THAT WE HAVE MORE CASES AND MORE PEOPLE MOVING TO FORT BEND COUNTY.

OUR CENSUS DATA THAT I PULLED UP AND I LOOKED AT 2010 THROUGH DECEMBER OF 24.

JUDGE GEORGE, COMMISSIONERS, WE AT FORT BEND COUNTY HAS INCREASED SINCE 60 HAS HAD A POPULATION GROWTH RATE INCREASE.

EXCUSE ME? IN THE AMOUNT OF 65%. THAT'S PER THE CENSUS DATA.

CURRENTLY WE STAND, I BELIEVE, AT EITHER THE SEVENTH OR EIGHTH LARGEST COUNTY IN OUR STATE OF TEXAS.

THAT'S BIG. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT GROWTH RATES, I JUST DON'T THINK, RESPECTFULLY, THAT THESE REPORTS TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION.

THE ALSO THE OTHER BIG THERE'S MANY THINGS WE DO, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO SHARE ONE OF THE BIG DUTIES THAT THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES DO FOR OUR CRIMINAL COURTS IS TAKING TURNS ON ON OUR ON CALL.

AS YOU ALL MAY KNOW, ON CALL MEANS 365 DAYS A YEAR, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 24 HOURS A DAY, INCLUDING MOTHER'S DAY, JUDGE SAYS, INCLUDING MOTHER'S DAY. YES, ONE OF US WAS ON CALL ON MOTHER'S DAY, BUT.

AND FATHER'S DAY TO JUDGE. SO. BUT I BRING THAT UP AS ONE EXAMPLE OF OUR DUTIES.

LIKE I SAID, THERE'S MANY TO SHOW YOU ALL THE IMPERATIVE THINGS OF NEEDING JUDGES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND READY TO SERVE OUR PUBLIC.

THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WARRANTS THAT COME IN AFTER HOURS ARE GOING TO BE DWI.

THE MAJORITY OF DWI ARE GOING TO BE CAR ACCIDENTS.

THOSE WARRANTS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY'RE TIME SENSITIVE AND HAVE TO BE ISSUED THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. OF COURSE, WE ALSO GET SOMETIMES VIOLENT OFFENSES. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INVOLVES A WEAPON. I WANTED TO ADDRESS ANOTHER ISSUE.

I BELIEVE IT WAS REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT CAUGHT BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND ALL RESPECT TO ALL THEY DO, BUT I WANTED TO JUST SHARE WITH YOU ALL. YOU MAY KNOW THIS. YOU MAY NOT IS THEY DON'T REPRESENT EVERY INDIGENT DEFENDANT IN THIS COUNTY.

THEY ONLY REPRESENT A PORTION OF THEM. THEY COULDN'T.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE THE MANPOWER, THE WOMAN POWER TO HANDLE IT ALL.

SO WE AS A COUNTY, AS TAXPAYERS, BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY LIVE HERE TOO ARE PAYING COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS IN ADDITION TO THEM.

AND SO LIKE JUDGE WAS SAYING EARLIER, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS NOT AT EVERY CRIMINAL DOCKET.

IN FACT, THEY'RE NOT AT ANY OF OUR SPECIALTY COURT DOCKETS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MENTAL HEALTH, I BELIEVE I KNOW THEY'RE NOT AT MY SPECIALTY COURT DOCKETS.

THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT AT ANY CIVIL DOCKETS. THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT AT ANY TAX DOCKETS.

SO WHEN WE ARE I'M SORRY, JUDGE OR ANY FAMILY OR ANY FAMILY DOCKETS, THANK YOU.

AND WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MONEY AND THE REASON I ALSO WANTED TO SHOW YOU THIS, THE ONLY THE LAST 90 DAYS THAT ARE STILL IN CUSTODY.

ARRESTS. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY MORE WHEN WE DON'T HAVE DOCKETS AS FREQUENTLY AS WE DO.

THERE IS AN EXPENSE TO THE COUNTY. WE'RE PAYING PRIVATE ATTORNEYS FOR EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT THEY'RE SHOWING UP TO RESET THEIR CASE, BECAUSE THEIR CASE WAS NOT HEARD OR GOT RESET BECAUSE THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS IN TRIAL.

CURRENTLY, I'LL GIVE YOU A REAL LIFE, REAL TIME EXAMPLE OF MY SITUATION IN MY COURT.

MY PRESIDING JUDGE STARTED A JURY TRIAL LAST WEEK, WHICH MEANS I HEARD ALL HIS DOCKETS, PLUS MINE.

NO PROBLEM. I LOVE MY JOB. BUT IF I WASN'T HERE, THOSE WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN KICKED DOWN THE ROAD.

I STARTED A BENCH TRIAL TODAY, STILL HEARD ALL HIS STUFF AND MY STUFF, AND HAD TO BREAK THE BENCH TRIAL EARLY AND HAVE THEM COME BACK TOMORROW SO I COULD BE HERE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS THAT IMPORTANT. I ENCOURAGE ALL OF YOU TO ACTUALLY COME SEE WHAT WE DO.

I WOULD LOVE IT TO SEE THE DOCKETS WE RUN, TO SEE THE NUMBERS WE RUN.

AND I WANT TO END WITH ONE LAST THING. WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING US TO OTHER COUNTIES, AND THIS MAY BE A A SOFT ARGUMENT,

[01:30:07]

NOT A MATH ARGUMENT, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I'M STILL GOING TO MAKE IT.

WE TAKE A LOT OF PRIDE IN WHAT WE DO. SO I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE.

THERE'S MANY MORE IN OTHER JUDGES HAVE THEIR OWN, OF COURSE.

ONE OF MY DOCKETS, LIKE I SAID, IS THE HIGH RISK YOUNG OFFENDERS GROUP.

I'VE BEEN AFTER SO MANY OF THEM TO GO GET A GED, GO TO COUNSELING ALL SORTS OF STUFF.

IT'S SOMETIMES LIKE PULLING TEETH. SO I HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT INITIATIVE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN JULY, FORT BEND LITERACY IS COMING TO MY COURTROOM WITH APPLICATIONS.

WE'RE BRINGING IT TO MY YOUNG OFFENDERS TO SIGN UP AND ENROLL IN GED.

OUR GOAL FOR AUGUST IS TO HAVE THE FORT BEND LIBRARY COME TO DO IN-PERSON HELP THEM WITH JOB SEARCHES.

UNEMPLOYMENT IS A BIG ISSUE FOR THOSE DOCKETS FOR ME AS WELL, TO HELP THEM WITH RESUMES, SHOW THEM THE FREE ONLINE TOOLS.

THESE ARE THE BEAUTIFUL THINGS. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A DROP IN THE BUCKET THAT I'M SHARING WITH YOU. AND I KNOW ALL OUR JUDGES DO IT. I'M NOT UNIQUE THAT WE CAN DO AND WE WANT TO DO. WE SHOULDN'T ONLY COMPARE OURSELVES BY THE NUMBERS.

IF WE'RE DOING WRAPAROUND THINGS AND HELPING OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, HELPING RECIDIVISM, HELP KEEPING OUR STREETS SAFE, HELPING WITH EDUCATION. YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THERE'S A HUGE CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION, RECIDIVISM. RIGHT? ALL SORTS OF THINGS. I FIND OUT THAT SOMEONE HAD A DEATH IN THE FAMILY.

THAT HAPPENS A LOT IN MY HIGH RISK YOUNG OFFENDERS.

WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE SPECIALIZED HAVE REFERRALS TO SPECIALIZED GRIEF COUNSELING.

I COULD GO ON AND ON JUDGES, BUT I'M SAYING THAT IT'S JUST NOT FAIR TO COMPARE US TO OTHER COUNTIES WHEN WE, AND I GENUINELY BELIEVE THIS, DO A VERY GOOD JOB WITH FOLLOWING THE LAW, BUT ALSO HAVING COMPASSIONATE EMPATHY AND THINKING ABOUT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE NUMBERS MAY NOT REFLECT.

OKAY. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO SHARE THAT. DO ANY OF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME? BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE TO TURN IT OVER TO JUDGE HANNA.

ANY QUESTIONS? JUDGE HANNA, I'M SORRY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR JUDGE HANNA.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARK HANNA.

I'M THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE FOR JUDGE JARAMILLO IN THE FOUR 58TH DISTRICT COURT.

CAN I APPROACH? JUDGE? SURE. PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.

ACTUALLY, WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GET SOME OF THOSE SAME CHARTS UP BEFORE THE COURT.

THANK YOU. MY GOAL HERE TODAY IS TO ASK THE COURT TO QUESTION THE NUMBERS FROM OCA. YES, TO QUESTION THE NUMBERS FROM OCA. AND IF I COULD GET YOU TO GET TO THAT PARTICULAR ONE.

I RECOGNIZE FROM PRIOR MEETINGS THAT THE COURT HAS HAD THAT THERE'S BEEN A REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE LEGISLATURE ABOUT WHAT OUR COURT WOULD DO IF THEY WERE TO GRANT US TWO ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURTS. AND WHILE I DON'T TAKE THAT COMMITMENT OR THAT REPRESENTATION LIGHTLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT THAT REPRESENTATION SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE COST OF WHAT REMOVING THESE ASSOCIATE JUDGES WILL DO.

WITH A MORE INFORMED DECISION, I THINK THE LEGISLATURE WILL UNDERSTAND WHY THE COURT MAY TAKE A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN TO GET RID OF ALL OF THEIR ASSOCIATES, OR AT LEAST HALF OF THEIR ASSOCIATE JUDGES. THE THE GRAPH THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

AND THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO IN REGARDS TO THE OCA.

THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR US TO HAVE 14.7 JUDGES, I GUESS, FOR THE FTE.

WELL, CURRENTLY THE STATE OF TEXAS PROVIDES EIGHT DISTRICT COURTS FOR OUR COUNTY.

THAT'S IT. JUST EIGHT. I SAY ONLY EIGHT. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPH THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, THOSE OTHER COUNTIES THAT ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED IN POPULATION AND FILINGS HAVE FAR MORE COURTS THAN WE DO.

HILDALGO HAS 16. I MEAN 13. EL PASO HAS 16 WITH LESS POPULATION THAN FORT BEND COUNTY.

I AM CONFIDENT THAT ALL THOSE JURISDICTIONS WENT THROUGH THE SAME LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO DETERMINE HOW MANY DISTRICT COURTS THEY SHOULD HAVE. WHY HAS THE OCA RECOMMENDED 16 FOR POPULATION IN EL PASO AND WITH FILINGS THAT ARE SIMILAR IN NUMBER? AGAIN, THE OCA RECOMMENDED THE 13 COURTS FOR HILDALGO, ALL OF WHICH HAVE POPULATIONS, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE POPULATIONS LESS THAN WE DO.

WE HAVE BEEN DOING THE STATE A FAVOR, OR YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THE STATE A FAVOR FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE HAVE ASKED LESS FROM THE STATE THAN THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GIVE US IF WE ASKED FOR ALL THOSE DISTRICT COURTS.

AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT, BECAUSE WE'VE CREATED A BETTER SYSTEM HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

WE HAVE HAD ONLY HAD THESE EIGHT COURTS WHEN IN REALITY THE STATE SHOULD BE FUNDING 14.

AND SO WE'RE SAVING MONEY FOR THE STATE AT THIS AT THIS POINT.

[01:35:02]

IF WE WERE TO ASK FOR AND GET THOSE ADDITIONAL TWO, WE ARE STILL SAVING MONEY FOR THE STATE BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING CARE OF SOME OF THE THE JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITIES THE COUNTY HAS WITH THESE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

IT CREATES A BETTER SYSTEM. THERE IS NOT A A THEY'RE NOT EQUAL.

A NEW DISTRICT BENCH IS NOT EQUAL TO WHAT AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE CAN DO.

AND THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN SEND CASES TO ANOTHER COURT, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE CASES FOR THE EXISTING COURT, BUT YOU CAN'T PUT MORE HOURS IN THE DAY. YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE SETTINGS FOR THAT COURT HERE.

THE WAY THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES ARE WORKING, WE CAN HANDLE TWO DOCKETS AT ONE TIME.

AND AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. WE DON'T HANDLE TWO CRIMINAL DOCKETS AT THE SAME TIME. LIKE MR. GLASS SAID LAST WEEK, BUT WE MAY HAVE A CIVIL DOCKET IN A CRIMINAL DOCKET AT THE SAME TIME.

SO WE ARE ADDRESSING THE DOCKET ISSUES CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

JUDGE PATEL MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT. I THINK IT WAS ON ONE OF JUDGE GEORGE'S SLIDES. ALSO, IS THE RATE OF INCREASE FOR CASES IN FORT BEND COUNTY, ONE OF THE GRAPHS, THE STATEWIDE INCREASE FOR THE TIME PERIOD OF 2020 TO 2024 WAS AN AVERAGE OF 3%.

AND THAT THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION ALL FILINGS IN DISTRICT COURT, MEANING JUVENILE FELONY, CIVIL TAX AND FAMILY. THE THE GROWTH RATE FOR FORT BEND COUNTY WAS 22% OVER THAT SAME TIME PERIOD.

STATE AVERAGE WAS 3%. FORT BEND COUNTY WAS 22%.

THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THAT THAT TIME PERIOD ALONE IN CIVIL FILINGS, WHICH THE GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, THERE WAS 51% INCREASE IN FILINGS. AND THOSE ARE THE MOST TIME CONSUMING CASES OF THE DISTRICT COURT.

ARE THOSE CIVIL CASES? JUDGE PATEL MENTIONED THE SPECIALTY COURTS THAT ARE OUR COURTS HAVE HAD THE LUXURY OF CREATING AND MANAGING EACH ONE OF THOSE SPECIALTY COURTS REQUIRE A JUDGE WHO HAS THE COMMITMENT TO HANDLE THOSE CASES, AND ALSO THE TIME TO HANDLE THOSE CASES. I'M CONFIDENT THAT IF YOU CUT THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES BY HALF, THAT SOME OF THOSE SPECIALTY SPECIALTY COURTS ARE GOING TO SUFFER.

AND WHEN I MENTIONED SPECIALTY COURTS, I MEAN DRUG COURT AND COURT, SANCTIONS COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, ALL OF THOSE REQUIRE A COMMITMENT FROM A DISTRICT JUDGE AND THEIR ASSOCIATE TO MAINTAIN THOSE DOCKETS.

IF YOU CUT THOSE IN HALF, THOSE ARE GOING TO SUFFER.

IF THEY CAN, IF THEY CAN REMAIN AT ALL. AND THE COURTS THAT THE SYSTEM THAT THIS COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS CREATED IS A GOOD ONE HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

AS I LISTENED EARLIER TO THE THE MENTAL HEALTH PRESENTATION, I THOUGHT ABOUT HOW I'VE BEEN IN THE COUNTY SINCE 1998.

I'VE BEEN IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY SINCE 1998, AND IT HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY.

THE THE MANNER AND THE METHOD THAT THE COURTS TAKE NOWADAYS TO HANDLE CASES IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO.

IT'S A LOT MORE HANDS ON AND AND IT'S BETTER FOR THE FOR THOSE REASONS.

THERE'S MORE INDIVIDUALIZED DOCKETS WITH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS THAT NEED TO BE HANDLED SPECIFICALLY AND REPEATEDLY AND FREQUENTLY.

THOSE DOCKETS ARE SPECIALTY DOCKETS USUALLY HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL SHOWING UP AT A MINIMUM MONTHLY.

AND SO THOSE DOCKETS REPEATED WITH, WITH THE SAME DEFENDANTS REPEATEDLY. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE. THEY HAVE VERY HIGH SUCCESS RATES. THEY THEY NOT ONLY LEND TOWARDS OUR DISPOSITION RATE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY OUR RECIDIVISM RATE, WHICH KEEPS KEEPS PEOPLE FROM GETTING BACK INTO THE PROCESS AGAIN. WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO AGAIN ENCOURAGE THE COURT TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND QUESTION THE OCA NUMBERS, QUESTION WHAT THEIR THEIR FORMULA, WHAT IT LENDS TO US, AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR FORT BEND COUNTY WHEN WE HAVE OTHER, OTHER INTERESTS IN FORT BEND COUNTY THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN.

AND IN CONCLUSION, I ASK THAT YOU KEEP THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

AND AGAIN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE LOOK AT THAT STATUTORY PROVISION THAT I HANDED YOU.

AND ALSO THE OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD FIND WITH REGARDS TO ADDRESSING THE REMOVAL OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES, WHICH WAS ASKED BY THEN COUNTY ATTORNEY BUD CHILDERS FOR THE THREE 28TH WHEN IT WAS CREATED.

THE QUESTION WAS POSED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IF THEY HAD TO REMOVE THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE AT THE TIME TO CREATE THE NEW COURT.

AND THE ANSWER IF YOU READ THAT, THAT OPINION IS NO, THERE'S NO NEED TO REMOVE THE ASSOCIATE BECAUSE OF THE CREATION OF A NEW COURT.

AND AGAIN, THE STATUTORY PROVISION THERE IS THAT THE TERMINATION AND REMOVAL OF AN ASSOCIATE IS STRICTLY LEFT TO THAT OF THE PRESIDING COURT.

AGAIN, I'M HERE TO ASK YOU SKEW AND ALL THE JUDGES THAT ARE HERE, ESPECIALLY THE FAMILY COURTS WHOSE NUMBERS ARE OFF THE CHARTS.

I LOOK AT THEIR NUMBERS AND I GET NERVOUS. SO PLEASE, LET'S CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER IN FULFILLING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ROLES, EACH BRANCH RESPECTING THE BOUNDARIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OTHER FOR OUR BENEFIT, AND THE BENEFITS OF THE RULES OF LAW.

AND LET US, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE TWO NEW COURTS.

[01:40:02]

WE JUST ASK THAT YOU RESPECTFULLY CONTINUE TO FUND OUR ASSOCIATES.

THANK YOU. JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM JUDGE MORGAN AND THE FAMILY COURTS AND IN PARTICULAR THE FAMILY COURT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL TODAY.

I AM CALEB MORGAN. I'M THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE 505TH FAMILY DISTRICT COURT HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

I AM HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF ALL OF MY DISTRICT COURT COLLEAGUES, BUT SPECIFICALLY IN SUPPORT AND ON BEHALF OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY FAMILY COURTS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILIES AND THE CHILDREN OF FORT BEND COUNTY THAT OUR FAMILY COURTS SERVICE.

I THINK, FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO OR IMPORTANT FOR ME, RATHER TO DISTINGUISH FAMILY COURTS VERSUS A CIVIL COURT VERSUS A CRIMINAL OR DISTRICT COURT. IF WE GO BACK AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK ON THE SLIDE THAT WAS JUST PUBLISHED, AS FAR AS THE COST ESTIMATE FOR PERSONNEL NEEDED TO STAFF THE TWO DISTRICT COURTS THAT THE COUNTY MAY GET, I CAN JUST START OFF BY TELLING YOU THAT THE FAMILY COURTS DO NOT HAVE ASSIGNED PROSECUTORS OR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.

THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR ANY ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS IN THE FAMILY COURT.

WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC DEFENDERS, SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THAT POSITION IN A FAMILY COURT.

WE DO NOT HAVE OFFICE ASSISTANTS, SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THAT PERSONNEL IN A FAMILY COURT.

WE DO NOT HAVE COURT SCHEDULERS, SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THAT POSITION IN A FAMILY COURT.

AND OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES DO NOT HAVE COURT REPORTERS, SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL COURT REPORTER IN THE FAMILY COURT.

AND THAT'S JUST BASED OFF OF THE SLIDE THAT WAS JUST SHOWN.

THOSE COST ESTIMATES DO NOT APPLY TO THE FORT BEND COUNTY FAMILY COURTS.

I CAN TELL YOU ALL THAT I HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH.

THIS IS MY FIFTH YEAR PRESIDING OVER THE 505TH DISTRICT COURT.

HOWEVER, THIS IS MY 20TH YEAR AS AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND I HAVE DEDICATED MY ENTIRE CAREER TO FAMILY LAW AND TO CHILD WELFARE LAW.

AND I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF PRACTICING FAMILY LAW IN MANY FAMILY COURTS IN MANY COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THIS STATE.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT I DO NOT RECALL WALKING INTO ANY FAMILY COURT ANYWHERE THAT DID NOT HAVE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, AND THAT IS FOR A REASON. AS OF MARCH, AND I DO HAVE THIS INFORMATION, COMMISSIONERS TO TO PRESENT TO YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FACT CHECK MY NUMBERS. BUT I CAN TELL YOU ALL THAT AS OF MARCH 2025.

THE 505TH DISTRICT COURT MAINTAINED A DOCKET OF 3084 ACTIVE CASES.

THAT IS NOT THE FAMILY COURTS COMBINED. THAT IS MY COURT, THE 505TH DISTRICT COURT AND I MANAGE THAT DOCKET WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE. IT'S A MATTER OF NECESSITY.

MANY OF THOSE 3084 CASES AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT COULD HAVE FILE A MOTION OR REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR A PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND I AM OBLIGATED BY STATUTE TO HEAR THOSE MATTERS WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH, THE 505TH AND THE OTHER FAMILY COURT, THE NUMBERS ARE THE SAME.

WE RECEIVE ABOUT 200 TO 220 NEW CASES THAT ARE FILED EVERY SINGLE MONTH IN THE FAMILY COURTS.

EACH ONE OF US. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT NEW CASES, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU ALL TO BE AWARE OF HOW OUR CASES ARE NUMBERED IN FAMILY COURT. SO WHEN YOU ARE REVIEWING THE DATA, YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING.

SO WHEN I SAY WE RECEIVE 200 TO 220 NEW CASES, THOSE ARE CASES FILED FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.

THOSE PARTIES DO NOT HAVE ANY PRIOR ORDERS. THEY ARE COMING INTO COURT, THE COURT SYSTEM, FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME IN 2025. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL OF OUR CASES PRIOR TO 2025 THAT ARE STILL IN LITIGATION OR THAT HAVE BEEN REOPENED THE WAY THAT IT WORKS. FOR EXAMPLE, JUST YESTERDAY I HAD A CUSTODY TRIAL ON A CASE WITH A 2013 CASE NUMBER, AND YOU WONDER, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? BECAUSE ONCE A CASE IS FILED AND THAT CASE NUMBER IS ASSIGNED, THAT CASE NUMBER FOLLOWS THAT FAMILY. AND SO ALL OF THE CHILDREN EMANCIPATED.

AND THERE ARE NO MORE ISSUES TO BRING BEFORE FAMILY COURT.

SO IF SOMEONE GETS DIVORCED IN 2013, LIKE MY FAMILY YESTERDAY AND THEN NOW IN 2025, SOMEONE WANTS TO CHANGE THE DIVORCE DECREE.

SOMEONE WANTS TO CHANGE CUSTODY. SOMEONE WANTS TO ENFORCE THEIR VISITATION.

SOMEONE'S NOT PAYING CHILD SUPPORT. SOMEONE WANTS TO INCREASE CHILD SUPPORT. EVERY SUBSEQUENT PETITION THAT THAT FAMILY FILES WILL BE FILED UNDER THAT ORIGINAL CAUSE NUMBER THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO THEIR CASE, WHETHER IT BE 20 1011, GO BACK 18 YEARS, BECAUSE AS LONG AS THE CHILDREN ARE UNDER 18 OR 18 AND STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL, THERE IS LITIGATION TO BE FILED AND THERE IS LITIGATION THAT ABSOLUTELY WILL BE FILED.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 200 TO 220 BRAND NEW CASES THAT EACH ONE OF US RECEIVE EACH MONTH,

[01:45:06]

THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OTHER CASES THAT ARE REOPENED AND WE GET THEM DISPOSED.

LIKE JUDGE PATEL SAID, OUR CLEARANCE RATE IS EXTREMELY HIGH.

I'M HAPPY THAT THE 500 AND FIFTHS CLEARANCE RATE IS 135% CLEARANCE RATE, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE, BUT AS FAST AS WE CLOSE THEM OUT, THEY CAN FILE SOMETHING ELSE TO REOPEN IT.

SO THOSE NEW CASE FILINGS DO NOT FACTOR IN THE CASES THAT CONTINUE TO BE IN LITIGATION AND MODIFICATIONS TO PRIOR ORDERS.

FURTHER, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE INFORMATION, IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE HAS A DOCKET EVERY DAY.

WE BOTH DO. THERE IS NEVER A TIME THAT I'M IN COURT AND SHE'S LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO DO.

I HAVE A DOCKET EVERY DAY AT 930. SHE HAS A DOCKET EVERY DAY AT 930.

I'M HEARING CASES. SHE'S HEARING CASES BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY THAT ARE COURT.

MY PREDECESSOR PUT THIS INTO PRACTICE, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA, SO I ADOPTED IT.

MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE, EVERY CASE THAT ENDS IN AN EVEN NUMBER IS ASSIGNED TO HER.

WE MIX THEM UP FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE TO. IN EVERY CASE THAT ENDS IN AN ODD NUMBER IS ASSIGNED TO ME, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE MAINTAIN CONTROL OF SO MANY CASES OF 3084 CASES.

AND THAT'S HOW WE CONTINUE TO BE EFFICIENT IN THE MONTH OF APRIL.

MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE HAD 222 CASES SET BEFORE HER.

I HAD 167. IN THE MONTH OF MAY THUS FAR, MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE HAS HAD 105 CASES SET ON HER DOCKET, AND I HAVE HAD 76. AND THAT'S JUST IN THOSE TWO MONTHS.

THAT IS A COMBINED TOTAL OF 181 CASES IN MAY, IN 389 CASES IN APRIL THAT THE TWO OF US HANDLED TOGETHER. IT'S A MATTER OF NECESSITY, NOT A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE FOR ME.

I AM ONLY ONE PERSON. OUR FAMILY CODE REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN MATTERS BE HEARD IN A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF TIME.

MANY PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT THE FAMILY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS.

ONE WOULD THINK THAT A CRIMINAL COURT WOULD HEAR THAT. BUT NO. IN TEXAS, THOSE ARE HEARD IN FAMILY COURT.

FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS. FROM THE TIME THAT APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS FILED.

THIS BOOK RIGHT HERE, WHICH TELLS ME EVERYTHING THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO AND HOW I'M SUPPOSED TO DO IT.

IT SAYS THAT I HAVE TO HEAR THOSE PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT APPLICATION IS FILED.

THERE ARE OTHER EMERGENCY HEARINGS THAT I HAVE TO HEAR WITHIN 14 DAYS.

YOU HAVE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES OR CPS HEARINGS.

THERE IS HEARING THREE DAYS OUT. THERE'S A HEARING 14 DAYS OUT.

THERE'S A HEARING 30 DAYS FROM THERE. THEN THERE'S HEARINGS EVERY 90 DAYS. THIS IS WHAT THE LAW IS TELLING US THAT WE HAVE TO DO. I DON'T HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY TO SAY, WELL, I'M A LITTLE BACKED UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE. I'LL GET TO YOU IN SIX MONTHS ON SOMETHING THAT THE LAW SAYS WE HAVE TO HEAR IN 14 DAYS.

AND SO I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFERENT THE FAMILY COURTS ARE.

EVERY CASE IS IMPORTANT, NO MATTER WHAT IS BEING LITIGATED.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CASES INVOLVING OUR CHILDREN.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS STUDIES THAT I WON'T CITE, BUT I COULD CITE THAT SHOW HOW CHILDREN ARE HARMED THE LONGER THEY ARE STUCK IN LITIGATION. WE NEED TO GET THESE CASES MOVING.

OUR CHILDREN DESERVE FINALITY. THEY DESERVE PERMANENCY.

THEY DESERVE STABILITY, AND THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE TRAPPED IN LITIGATION UNNECESSARILY BECAUSE A COURT IS SHORT STAFFED, OR BECAUSE ONE JUDGE IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MANAGE 3084 CASES WHEN A SECTION OF THEM HAVE TO BE HEARD IN 14.

I HAVE TO HEAR THESE IN 14 DAYS AND THESE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

AND WHAT IF I'M IN A TRIAL? PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.

TEXAS IS THE ONLY COURT THAT ALLOWS CUSTODY TO BE DECIDED BY A JURY.

AND IN TEXAS, THEY FILED JURY DEMANDS IN THEIR CUSTODY CASES.

I JUST HAD ONE IN OCTOBER THAT WENT ON FOR 13 DAYS OVER CUSTODY WITH SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS.

THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE THE PARENTS THEMSELVES WANT TO SPEAK.

THERE ARE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT WANT TO TESTIFY TEACHERS, THEIR PEDIATRICIAN, THEIR THERAPISTS, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, EVEN ON OUR PROTECTIVE ORDERS.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THESE OTHER COUNTIES.

AND I WON'T NAME THEM. YOU CAN LOOK THEM UP AND YOU'LL SEE WHO THEY ARE. BUT BECAUSE OF WHATEVER PERSONNEL ISSUES OR OTHER ISSUES PARTIES ARE BEING TOLD ON A PROTECTIVE ORDER, YOU EACH HAVE 30 MINUTES OR IN. I SAW COLLIN COUNTY ON THE BOARD.

THEY GET 20 MINUTES PER SIDE FOR A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING.

A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING IS AN ORDER THAT YOU GET IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU FILE A LAWSUIT, BECAUSE YOUR FINAL TRIAL MAY NOT BE SIX MONTHS, A YEAR OR TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. BUT WHAT ABOUT NOW? WHO GETS CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN NOW? WHO HAS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THEM NOW? WHERE ARE THEY LIVING? WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO SCHOOL RIGHT NOW? WHILE WE'RE EXCHANGING BANK STATEMENTS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S WHAT, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH OUR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW?

[01:50:02]

WHAT IF ONE PARTY IS GOING TO DRAIN THEIR RETIREMENT AND THEY START HIDING ASSETS? YOU GET A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING RIGHT AWAY SO THAT THE COURT CAN PUT SOME IMMEDIATE ORDERS IN PLACE FOR THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF OUR CHILDREN AND FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY. AND YOU HAVE COUNTIES WITH NO ASSOCIATE JUDGE WHERE PARTIES ARE BEING TOLD YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES.

CAN YOU COME IN COURT AND TELL A JUDGE WHY YOUR CHILDREN SHOULD LIVE WITH YOU? OR HOW HOW YOUR BILLS ARE GOING TO BE PAID, OR WHERE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO LIVE OR MAKE ORDERS CONCERNING YOUR YOUR FAMILY IN 20 MINUTES.

IF YOU'RE THE VICTIM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, OR IF YOU'RE DEFENDING YOURSELF AGAINST ALLEGATIONS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, DO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT THAT CASE? AND WHEN YOU'RE TOLD YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES, WELL, I WANT TO TESTIFY. I HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TESTIFY.

THERE'S A WITNESS THAT NEEDS TO TESTIFY. OH, WELL, YOU HAVE 30 MINUTES.

YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES PER SIDE TO PLEAD YOUR CASE.

THAT IS THE POSITION THAT FORT BEND COUNTY FAMILY COURTS WOULD BE PUT IN IF WE DID NOT HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

OUR AJ'S WORK JUST AS HARD AS WE DO. I JUST READ YOU THE NUMBERS.

SHE HAD MORE HEARINGS THAN I DID LAST MONTH, LIKELY BECAUSE I WAS IN A TRIAL.

I HAVE NO AVAILABILITY ON MY DOCKET AS WE SIT HERE CURRENTLY UNTIL SEPTEMBER.

AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU EMAIL MY COURT TODAY AND YOU WANT A TRIAL BECAUSE PARTIES DO NOT HAVE TO ALLOW THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE TO HEAR THEIR TRIAL.

THEY'RE HAVING TO WAIT TILL SEPTEMBER. THAT'S WITH HER HELP. THAT'S WITH HER HELPING ME.

AND SO ALL THE STATUTORY HEARINGS THAT I'M REQUIRED TO HAVE WITHIN A PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME, MY CALENDAR IS FULL UNTIL SEPTEMBER. SO WHEN THAT PROTECTIVE ORDER GETS FILED TODAY AND IT WILL, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN AN UPTICK, THE OCA HAS MADE IT EASIER FOR PARTIES TO FILE PROTECTIVE ORDERS.

THEY HAVE MADE IT A A UNIFORM FORM. WE GET A LOT OF THEM FILED BY THE DA'S OFFICE, BY PRIVATE ATTORNEYS AND BY A LOT OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS, REGARDLESS OF WHO FILES IT. I HAVE TO HEAR IT IN 14 DAYS.

BUT I JUST TOLD YOU THAT MY CALENDAR IS FULL.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT, JUDGE? WELL, THEN WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS I COUNT 14 DAYS AND I LOOK FOR WHO I CAN BUMP AND WHO CAN I SEND TO MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE? WELL, HER CALENDAR IS FULL. WELL, SHE JUST HAS TO.

UNFORTUNATELY, SHE HAS TO DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE NOW I HAVE TO HEAR THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER.

AND THERE ARE MANY AFTERNOONS WHERE WE ARE BOTH HEARING PROTECTIVE ORDERS AT THE SAME TIME.

IF 3 OR 4 OF THEM COME IN ON THE SAME DAY. THEY ALL 3 OR 4 HAVE TO BE HEARD WITHIN 14 DAYS, NO MATTER WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. SO I JUST IMPLORE YOU TO CONSIDER OUR CHILDREN.

CONSIDER THE EFFECT ON THEM. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT NUMBERS, AND THERE'S BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN.

I'M TALKING ABOUT FAMILIES. I DON'T SEE NUMBERS WHEN I LOOK AT THEM.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S A CONCERN OF THE COUNTY FINANCE. I'M NOT IGNORANT TO THAT.

BUT PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE EFFECT THAT A DECISION LIKE REMOVING OUR FAMILY COURT ASSOCIATE JUDGES WOULD HAVE ON THE CHILDREN AND ON THE FAMILIES OF FORT BEND COUNTY.

I'M CONFIDENT WHEN I SAY THAT IT WILL BE TO THEIR DETRIMENT, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE FAMILY COURT ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

AND I DO HAVE FOR YOU, IF I MAY APPROACH I DO HAVE PACKETS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE OUR OCA REPORTS, WHICH CLEARLY ARE NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE, BUT IT WILL SHOW YOU ON THE FIRST PAGE.

I HAVE ONE FOR JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 2025.

APRIL HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED TO US JUST YET. THEY USUALLY COME TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OR END OF THE MONTH, BUT THE FIRST THREE PAGES WILL SHOW YOU A COMBINED REPORT OF ALL THE FAMILY COURTS.

AND THEN THERE'S EACH COURT IS BROKEN DOWN AFTER THAT, SO YOU CAN SEE EACH INDIVIDUAL COURTS NUMBERS.

THE FIRST THREE PAGES ARE THE COMBINED REPORTS FOR ALL OF THE COURTS. AND MAY I APPROACH AND HAND YOU THAT AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

WE CAN PASS THEM DOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. AND AND I DO APOLOGIZE. I SAID I WAS DUMB, BUT I DO WANT TO.

I JUST THOUGHT OF A POINT THAT I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE.

JUDGE COMMISSIONERS. WE ALSO HAVE OTHER DUTIES OUTSIDE OF PRESIDING OVER CASES.

I WE FREQUENTLY HAVE TO. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TO SIGN OUR ORDERS THAT COME IN EVERY DAY.

THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT REQUIRES A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE AND WHAT DOESN'T.

THAT'S NOT THEIR ROLE. IF THERE'S A SPOT ON A FORM THAT LOOKS LIKE A JUDGE TO SIGN IT, THEY SEND IT TO US.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE MAY GET 40 OR 50 DOCUMENTS OR MORE PER DAY FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE AND I HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND SEE WHAT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, WHAT DOESN'T.

WE HAVE TO READ MOTIONS. WE HAVE TO READ BRIEFS.

WE HAVE TO READ CASE LAW. I HAVE TO LOOK AT EXHIBITS.

I HAD A TRIAL WITH AN EXTENSIVE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE.

THEY ADMITTED OVER 600 EXHIBITS DURING THEIR TRIAL.

[01:55:01]

I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT STUFF IN ORDER TO MAKE A DECISION.

I HAVE TO READ IT. AND SO USUALLY ON FRIDAYS OR AFTER HOURS OR ON WEEKENDS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL FIND ME DOING.

GOING THROUGH EVIDENCE THAT WAS ADMITTED READING CASE LAW SO THAT I CAN MAKE A TIMELY RULING.

I'M THE CODE OF THE JUDICIAL CANONS. REQUIRE THAT I RULE TIMELY.

AND SO THOSE ARE OTHER TASKS THAT I NORMALLY DO.

A DAY LIKE TODAY, MY TRIAL SETTLED. SO I'M ABLE I'M THANKFUL THAT I WAS ABLE TO BE HERE WITH YOU ALL TODAY, BUT NORMALLY I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN MY OFFICE REVIEWING EVIDENCE FROM MY TRIAL YESTERDAY SO THAT I COULD MAKE A TIMELY RULING.

AND I'M ONLY ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE I HAVE MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE WHO'S KEEPING THE WHEELS IN MOTION AND HEARING THESE CASES, AND I KNOW THE OTHER FAMILY COURTS WOULD ECHO MY SENTIMENTS.

IF I DID NOT HAVE HER, I WOULD HAVE NO DAYS OFF, NO ORDERS WOULD BE SIGNED, NO CASE LAW WOULD BE READ, NO BRIEFS WOULD BE READ, NO MOTIONS WOULD BE READ, AND THERE WOULD BE NO TIMELY, NO EVIDENCE WOULD BE REVIEWED, AND THERE WOULD BE NO TIMELY RULINGS ON TRIALS BECAUSE I WOULD BE IN THE COURTROOM.

I'M ALREADY IN THERE EVERY DAY. I CAN'T IMAGINE AT SOME POINT COMMISSIONS.

I DO DO LIKE TO GO HOME AND OCCASIONALLY SEE MY CHILDREN BEFORE THEY GO TO BED AT NIGHT.

SO I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO RECONSIDER REMOVING THE FAMILY COURT ASSOCIATE JUDGE.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU MAY HEAR FROM ONE OF THEM THIS AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. JUDGE CAMARILLO.

IS THERE ARE THERE ANY OTHER JUDGES THAT NEED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT? DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? JUST GO AHEAD. I'LL JUST SAY ONE THING ABOUT THE OCA NUMBERS.

JUST SO YOU KNOW. AND COMMISSIONER MYERS, YOU'RE PROBABLY HERE IN 1999 WHEN THE WHEN THE 3D SEVENTH WAS CREATED.

I'M RICK BELL, I'M THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE IN THE 3D SEVENTH FOR JUDGE TELFAIR.

AND I RAN THE NUMBERS. I DON'T HAVE THEM BECAUSE I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT, BUT I'VE GOT THE NUMBERS OF HOW MANY CASES WERE PENDING IN THE 328, WHICH IS THE FAMILY COURT AT THE TIME. THE 387 WAS CREATED IN 1999.

THERE WERE 2100 CASES PENDING IN 2015. AN OCA APPROVED THE THREE SEVENTH IN 2015 WHEN THE 505TH WAS CREATED. EACH COURT, ARTHUR 87TH COURT AND THE THREE 28TH COURT HAD ABOUT 2200 PENDING CASES.

AN OCA APPROVED US TO GET A NEW FAMILY COURT.

WE'RE ALL OPERATING AT ABOUT 3000 CASES. WE'RE WAY OVERDUE FOR A FAMILY COURT, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY WITH BOTH JUDGES WORKING ALL DAY. THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE IS IN TRIAL ALL DAY.

THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS IN TRIAL ALL DAY. AND I'M JUST ECHO WHAT JUDGE MORGAN SAID.

WE ARE. I DON'T THINK I'VE HAD A LUNCH IN ABOUT SIX YEARS, AND THAT'S NO EXAGGERATION.

WHEN I FIRST STARTED THIS JOB, I WORKED OUT EVERY, EVERY LUNCH HOUR WITH, WITH OUR AUDITOR.

AND I PROBABLY HAD SIX LUNCHES IN THE LAST SIX YEARS.

IT IS BOOMING IN OUR COUNTY. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY TO GET DONE WHAT WE NEED TO GET DONE.

AND I THINK WE CAN EXPLAIN TO THE LEGISLATURE, BASED ON HISTORICALLY, WHAT THIS COUNTY HAS DONE AND THE GROWTH OF THIS COUNTY, THAT WE NEED A NEW DISTRICT COURT TO HELP THE FAMILY COURTS.

AND WE NEED TO KEEP THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES BECAUSE IT WON'T OPERATE WITHOUT THEM.

AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO RESTATE THAT. YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS FOR THE FAMILY COURTS ARE OFF THE CHARTS, AS ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THE CIVIL AND DISTRICT COURT GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS.

WE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES THAT ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE NUMBERS.

I KNOW I KEEP WHINING ABOUT WARRANTS, BUT I THINK JUST THIS PAST WEEK ALONE, I WAS ON CALL FOR WARRANTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THEY CALL FROM SUNUP TO SUNDOWN WITH WARRANTS.

AND DURING THAT ONE WEEK ALONE, I MUST'VE SIGNED ABOUT 60 WARRANTS.

AND THEY DON'T GET SIGNED IN 5 OR 10 MINUTES.

I HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY WORD THAT'S WRITTEN IN THAT DOCUMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE LEGALITY OF IT IS ACCURATE, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GO BREAK DOWN SOMEBODY'S DOOR AND ARREST SOMEONE OR GO THROUGH THEIR BELONGINGS IN THEIR HOME.

SO IT'S A BIG RESPONSIBILITY THAT ALL OF THE GENERAL JURISDICTION JUDGES TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY, AND WE TAKE OUR TIME IN REVIEWING AND SIGNING OF WARRANTS.

I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THE NEW COURTS.

WE SIMPLY DON'T WANT THEM CREATED AT THE EXPENSE.

NOT REALLY JUST THE EXPENSE, BUT WE NEED OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY WITHOUT ANY OF WITHOUT OR EVEN IF THEY GET CUT IN HALF.

WE WE REALLY ALL NEED OUR ASSOCIATES. I JUST WANT TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS OF ME OR SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED.

SORRY. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. WELL, I THINK THIS HAS BEEN HELPFUL.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO LEARN AS MUCH AS I CAN OVER THE LAST WEEK OR SO IN PREPARATION FOR THIS,

[02:00:02]

ABOUT OUR COURTS. BUT I'VE EVEN LEARNED SOME.

MORE HERE. AND IT'S IT'S CLEAR WE DO HAVE A CHALLENGE OF JUST VOLUME OF CASES.

I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN, BUT I KNOW I'VE ASKED FOR IT.

THE NUMBERS OF WHAT? WHAT OUR COST TO HOUSE FOLKS AWAITING A TRIAL IN OUR COUNTY JAIL. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A HELPFUL COMPARISON.

ONE 4832 PER DAY. ONE 4832 PER DAY. AND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW I KNOW THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE KEEPS THOSE THE DETENTION DATA. BUT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT AVERAGE THEN OVERLAID WITH THE NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR JAIL.

AND BECAUSE TO ME, THAT'S A BETTER NUMBER TO LOOK AT COMPARATIVELY, WE'RE COMPARING NET COST OF OF DISTRICT COURTS AND REDUCING AJ'S WITHOUT HAVING THE FULL SCOPE OF BY HAVING MORE COURTS, PERIOD.

WHAT THAT THEN RELIEVES US OF IN OUR DETENTION.

AND THEN ALSO JUST THE MERE FACT OF BEING ABLE TO GIVE PEOPLE AN ACCESS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

SO THAT'S ONE. BUT I DO THINK WE HAVE A CHALLENGE HERE BECAUSE OUR LEGISLATORS ARE OFF OPERATING OFF OF THE OCA REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THERE. AND THEY DO SUGGEST A DIFFERENT PICTURE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE.

AND THERE'S ONE OF THE FINANCIAL COSTS OF CREATION OF THE NEW COURTS.

AND SO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GO FROM HERE, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE THERE'S THERE ARE SOME FAIR ARGUMENTS ALL AROUND HERE.

AND, COMMISSIONER MORGAN, WITH REGARDS TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE SITTING IN CUSTODY.

JUDGE PATEL JUST POINTED OUT TO ME, WITH THE DATA THAT SHE PRESENTED, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ARRESTED IN THE PAST 90 DAYS AND ARE STILL CURRENTLY SITTING IN COURT, I'M SORRY, IN JAIL, AWAITING COURT DATES.

THERE'S ALSO PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT THAT ARE IN CUSTODY THAT HAVE BEEN IN CUSTODY MORE THAN 90 DAYS, THAT ARE COSTING THE COUNTY AWAITING TRIAL. AND SO WITH REGARDS TO THAT DATA, IT'S THERE FOR YOU, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT NONE OF THE JUDGES HERE ARE WANTING OR WOULD BE WILLING TO TERMINATE THE APPOINTMENT OF THEIR ASSOCIATE. SO WE ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKING YOU TO PLEASE CONTINUE THE FUNDING FOR THEM.

THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A PUBLIC SPEAKER.

WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER. IT'S MR. RICHARD MURAD WITH THE LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION.

COME ON UP, SIR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONORS. SO I LEARNED ABOUT TODAY'S EVENT AT ABOUT 930 THIS MORNING.

SO I DID NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF PREPARING. AND I JUST WANT TO ECHO EVERYTHING THAT OUR, OUR ESTEEMED JUDGES SAID JUDGE HANNA, JUDGE PATEL AND JUDGE BELL. YOU ALL WERE GREAT WITH THE NUMBERS.

SO I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION.

I'M A LOCAL GUY. FORT BEND, K, THROUGH 12 SCHOOLS.

I GREW UP ABOUT FOUR MILES DOWN THE ROAD IN NEW TERRITORY.

LEFT FORT BEND COUNTY FOR A VERY LONG TIME. MOVED BACK IN ABOUT 2018.

I'M A PRACTITIONER, SO I PRACTICE LAW PRIMARILY IN HOUSTON, EVEN THOUGH I LIVE OUT HERE.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HATES TO HEAR THAT.

HOUSTON. HOUSTON. HOUSTON. BUT I WILL SAY THIS.

I LOVE FORT BEND COUNTY. I THINK IT WAS MARK TWAIN WHO SAID, THERE'S LIES.

THERE'S DAMN LIES. AND THEN THERE'S STATISTICS.

SO THAT OCA STUFF IS ALL STATISTICS. I'VE ALSO WORKED A LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

I KNOW HOW ALL THAT WORKS. NOT TO DISPARAGE COLLIN COUNTY.

I HAVE FRIENDS THAT LIVE AND WORK UP THERE AND YOU'LL HEAR OFTEN IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY HEARD.

EXCUSE ME. I DIDN'T BRING ANY WATER. COLLIN COUNTY IS THE FORT BEND COUNTY OF THE DFW AREA.

I THINK WE'RE BETTER. AND I THINK WE WE SHOULD STAY BETTER.

AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

I DON'T ENVY THE POSITION THAT YOU ALL ARE IN TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BUDGET FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WE ONLY HAVE EIGHT DISTRICT COURTS AND PLACES LIKE COLLIN HAVE 13 EL PASO, 16 PLACES THAT ARE SHRINKING HAVE WAY MORE THAN WE DO.

AND WE'RE WE'RE GROWING EXPONENTIALLY. WE HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 25, 30 YEARS.

JUST VERY BRIEFLY, I WANT TO ECHO EVERYTHING THAT THE JUDGE HAS SAID.

I DON'T THINK YOU GET BETTER BY SHEDDING POSITIONS.

EVERY ASSOCIATE JUDGE THAT WE HAVE SHOULD STAY.

I THINK IT'S IT'S WONDERFUL THAT WE'RE GOING TO CREATE TWO NEW DISTRICT COURTS. IT'LL BE LIKE HAVING A NEW SHINY FERRARI IN THE COURTHOUSE.

AND I REALIZED, TOO, I'M IN THE WRONG LINE OF WORK.

SO I GUESS ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS GET TO CHARGE 1.7 MILLION TO PUT A ROOM IN A BUILDING THAT ALREADY EXISTS.

[02:05:02]

I'M NOT BUILDING A LOT TODAY BECAUSE I'M HERE.

BUT, YEAH, I KNOW FOR A PRACTICING ATTORNEY THAT THE RATES.

I'M NOT GOOD AT MATH, BUT THOSE SEEM LIKE REALLY, REALLY GOOD RATE OF RETURN IN THAT LINE OF WORK.

I HAD TWO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HERE WITH ME TODAY.

THEY HAD TO LEAVE AT 230. ONE OF THEM IS NOT ONLY A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, BUT SHE ALSO SITS ON A MUNICIPAL COURT BENCH.

I'LL JUST READ. SHE SHE WROTE SOMETHING, AND I'LL JUST READ A LITTLE BIT FROM WHAT SHE WROTE SOME HIGHLIGHTS.

WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES, CASES GET DELAYED, FAMILIES ARE LEFT WAITING AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE SUFFERS.

AND I'LL END WITH THIS. SHE SAYS ASSOCIATE JUDGES ARE NOT EXTRA.

THEY'RE ESSENTIAL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER? THERE. I NOW HAVE A NEW QUESTION, THOUGH.

OH, THERE WAS ANOTHER. OH, SORRY. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. IT'S AN IT'S A WORKSHOP, SO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU JUDGE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT LISTENING TO LOTS OF INFORMATION.

ALL OF THE JUDGES THAT HAVE PRESENTED HERE IN RICHARD WERE VERY ELOQUENT. I'M GOING TO KEEP THIS. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

OH, I'M SO SORRY. MY NAME IS ROCKY PILGRIM. I'M A FAMILY ATTORNEY.

I'VE BEEN PRACTICING FOR 21 YEARS IN FORT BEND AND HARRIS COUNTIES, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY IN FAMILY LAW.

I'VE DONE SOME OTHER TYPES OF LAW. BUT NOT RECENTLY ENOUGH THAT I CAN SPEAK WITH ANY EDUCATION ABOUT WHAT THE OTHER COURTS ARE EXPERIENCING.

I CAN TELL YOU WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY WHAT MY CLIENTS ARE EXPERIENCING.

AND WHEN I SAY MY CLIENTS, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ARE YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR FAMILIES, YOUR GRANDCHILDREN, YOUR SISTERS, YOUR BROTHERS. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT CHILDREN AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT.

WHEN A PARENT HAS TO WAIT FOR THREE WEEKS BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR CHILD BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ORDERS IN PLACE.

BUT OUR COURTS ARE BACKED UP SO WE CAN'T GET A TEMPORARY ORDERS HEARING, NOT EVEN ON AN EMERGENCY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AN EMERGENCY.

THEY'RE JUST NOT SEEING THEIR CHILD. BUT WHEN THAT CHILD IS THREE AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY DADDY CAN'T SEE THEM, CAN'T TALK TO THEM ON THE PHONE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO OUR CLIENTS, I'M SO SORRY.

THE COURTS ARE BACKED UP. THEY HAVE PROTECTIVE ORDER HEARINGS.

THEY HAVE TO HEAR THEIR CPS. THERE ARE ACTUAL EMERGENCIES THAT THEY HAVE TO HEAR.

THERE ARE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY WAITING. THAT IS JUSTICE DENIED.

AND I'M GLAD THAT JUDGE MORGAN POINTED OUT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY EASY TO BE OUTSIDE OF THINGS AND HAVE THE PAPERS IN FRONT OF YOU AND NOT FEEL WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON IN REAL LIFE. I WILL TELL MY CLIENTS ALL DAY LONG, WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU AN ORDER.

BUT WHEN WE'RE WORKING THIS OUT, YOU GUYS NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS GOING TO PLAY OUT LIKE.

AND SO IF YOU HAVEN'T VISITED OUR COURTS LIKE JUDGE INVITED YOU, PLEASE COME OUT.

DON'T COME OUT JUST FOR A MORNING. COME OUT FOR SEVERAL OF THESE DOCKETS SO THAT YOU SEE WHAT KIND OF CASES ARE BEING HEARD, WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND NEEDS TO HAPPEN QUICKLY.

I'VE BEEN PRACTICING FOR 20 YEARS. LIKE JUDGE MORGAN SAID, I'VE NEVER BEEN IN A COURT, AND I'VE BEEN IN MANY COUNTIES.

I'VE NEVER BEEN IN A COURT THAT DIDN'T HAVE AN AJ.

I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A SITUATION WHERE OUR FAMILY COURTS WEREN'T ALL BACKED UP, AND IT IRRITATES ME TO SOME DEGREE THAT WE HAVE COUNTIES LIKE EL PASO.

I'M FROM THE VALLEY, Y'ALL. I GREW UP IN HARLINGEN.

I WENT TO PAN AM SO I UNDERSTAND THE DEMOGRAPHICS.

I KNOW HOW MUCH THEY'VE GROWN, BUT THAT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE GROWTH THAT WE'VE SEEN IN FORT BEND COUNTY. AND SO TO SAY THAT THEIR NUMBERS WHEN THEY HAVE.

I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM EXTRA COURTS BECAUSE I DON'T PRACTICE DOWN THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW BUSY THEY ARE, BUT WHEN WE HAVE JURISDICTIONS WHO HAVE COURTS THAT SEEM IN EXCESS OF WHAT THEIR POPULATION REFLECTS, THAT SKEWING THE NUMBERS FOR ALL OF US, AND AS ADVOCATES FOR OUR COUNTY AND FOR OUR PEOPLE, FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

AND WE HAD A VERY GOOD I'M JUST GOING TO END ON THIS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAMILY LAW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

WE HAD A VERY AMAZING PRESENTATION TODAY ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS ABOUT THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN AND JUGGLING THEIR WORKLOAD AND FAMILY LOAD, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING AT THEM.

WHAT A SLAP IN THE FACE TO OUR FAMILY JUDGES TO SAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE AWAY SOMEBODY'S CHILD.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR ABOUT ALL OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABOUT PEOPLE HIDING MONEY, ABOUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE EVIDENCE, JUDGE.

WE NEED THESE WITNESSES TO COME IN AND TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF THOSE DECISIONS ON THESE JUDGES AND SAY, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU GOT IT. YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO SEE YOUR OWN KIDS WHEN YOU GO HOME.

[02:10:04]

WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT YOU TO WORK LONGER HOURS, KEEP WORKING THROUGH YOUR LUNCH BREAKS, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH OUR COURTS WERE ALREADY OVERLOADED AND WE'VE HAD TO WAIT AND WE'VE HAD THESE DELAYS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY 50% OF YOUR HELP AND HAVE YOU SHOULDER THAT BURDEN. AND MEANWHILE, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT MENTAL HEALTH IS WHEN THE FATE OF OUR FAMILIES FINANCIALLY. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT GENERATIONAL TRAUMA, BUT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO SAY, BUT YOU GUYS GOT IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO DOWN AND AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK TO THE FAMILIES WHO'VE HAD TO WAIT.

WE'RE GOING TO JUST LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS THAT, LIKE WE SAID, FACTS AND FACTS ARE LIES.

DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS. I'VE BEEN IN STATISTICS.

I'VE SAT AS SPECIAL MASTER BECAUSE WE WERE SO OVERLOADED AND WE HAD TO HAVE NIGHT IN FORT BEND COUNTY, BUT BECAUSE THE COURTS WERE SO OVERLOADED ALREADY IN NOT HAVING ENOUGH HELP.

AND SO I WILL ONCE AGAIN, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS REITERATED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT LUXURIES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A FIGHT IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW. THEY WANT JUDGES TO CLOCK IN AND OUT IN ORDER TO GET A PAY RAISE THAT THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED, AND I THINK OVER A DECADE. IT'S RIDICULOUS. AND IT'S, AGAIN, A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT OUR COMMUNITY DOES.

SO I WILL IMPLORE YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A LUXURY.

IT IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR HEARING US.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND LET'S SO THE THIS IS A NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION FOR ME.

SO WHEN WE HAVE A FAMILY DISTRICT COURT THAT COMES WITH AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, THAT'S NEWS.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THESE NEW COURTS BEING A FAMILY COURT.

SO WHAT DO WE IS IT. SORRY, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY FROM WHAT I READ, IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY IF IT'S FAMILY OR GENERAL IT. I WOULD ASSUME THEY'RE BOTH GENERAL, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY IT'S NOT CLEAR.

THE BUDGET THAT I PUT TOGETHER WAS FOR GENERAL.

IT DID NOT ASSUME FAMILY. SO THEREFORE IT DOESN'T IT DOES ADD LIKE THE DA'S OFFICE AND ALL THE ANCILLARY BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT FAMILY DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE ANCILLARY, LIKE JUDGE MORGAN MENTIONED, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THOSE.

SO THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT THAT IN THE PAST, THE FAMILY COURTS INCLUDED AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE.

CURRENTLY, THE FAMILY COURTS INCLUDE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE AND JUDGE.

JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THERE ARE ALL OUR COURTS EXCEPT, I BELIEVE, THE 328, OUR GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS, THE COURTS THAT ARE FAMILY. OKAY. IT'S BEEN DESIGNATED FAMILY.

THREE FAMILY COURTS. ALL THREE HAVE THREE. YES.

SO WE ONLY HAVE TWO DESIGNATED ORIGINALLY, I BELIEVE THEY STARTED OUT AS GENERAL JURISDICTION.

SO WE HAVE TWO THAT HAVE NOW BEEN DESIGNATED FAMILY COURTS AND THEN ONE THAT IS GENERAL JURISDICTION, BUT IS ONLY FAMILY CASES OR ONLY FAMILY CASES ARE FILED THERE.

SO AND IN HEARING WHAT WAS SAID IF, IF, IF ONE OF THOSE COURTS ENDS UP BECOMING A FAMILY COURT AND COMES WITH AN ASSOCIATE, THAT MEANS THERE'S ONLY ONE COURT LEFT TO TAKE OVER, POTENTIALLY OVER THE WORK OF 4 OR 5 ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

THAT'S GOING TO BE A RIDICULOUS WORKLOAD. I ALSO WILL ECHO WHAT JUDGE BELL HAS STATED, WE DON'T TAKE LUNCH BREAKS BECAUSE IF WE DO, THEN THAT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ FILES.

WE WORK ON THE WEEKENDS TO READ FILES, AND THE FILES ARE NOT REFLECTIVE.

THE NUMBERS ARE NOT REFLECTIVE OF WHAT EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE ENTAILS.

ON THE CIVIL SIDE I HAVE A CASE THAT HAS OVER 1500 FILINGS.

BEFORE I GET THAT THING TO TRIAL, I HAVE TO READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS.

AND THAT'S EITHER ON MY TIME OFF OR OR LATE HOURS, OR I CAN DELEGATE THAT TO MY ASSOCIATE TO TAKE OVER FOR ME AND SUMMARIZE IT.

SO TO SAY THAT THE GENERAL JURISDICTION COURTS OR THAT ONE GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORK OF FIVE ASSOCIATES, WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO START WITH BACKLOG, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMOVE OUR SPECIALTY COURTS, WHICH HAVE AND WILL HAVE COLLATERAL EFFECTS ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

THANK YOU. WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION ABOUT THE DESIGNATION OF THE COURT? I WANT TO KNOW THAT TOO. IS THAT IS THAT DETERMINED WHEN THE COURT IS CREATED? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CAN DO, OR THE JUDGES AND TOGETHER CAN DECIDE WHAT LEVEL OF JURISDICTION? NOW THAT'S UP LEFT UP TO AUSTIN. AND THEN WHEN THE COURTS ARE DESIGNATED EITHER GENERAL JURISDICTION OR FAMILY, AND THEN WHEN THEY GET HERE, DEPENDING UPON THE FILINGS OR WHAT THE DISTRICT BOARD OF JUDGES OR DISTRICT BOARD OF JUDGES DECIDES, OR WE VOTE UPON WHAT FILINGS, IF IT'S GENERAL JURISDICTION, IS GOING TO BE THE MAJORITY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE FOR ONE OF THE FAMILY COURTS I'M TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL.

[02:15:03]

IN GENERAL, COULD THERE ARE EIGHT DISTRICT COURTS NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THREE OF THEM OR TWO OF THEM ARE WERE DESIGNATED FAMILY COURTS BY SOMEBODY EITHER WHEN THEY WERE CREATED OR WHATEVER.

AND THERE'S ONE WAS BY LEGISLATURE AND ONE THOSE WERE STATUTORILY IDENTIFIED.

OKAY. CAN CAN THAT CHANGE. CAN A CAN A COURT BE CHANGED FROM A GENERAL JURISDICTION TO A FAMILY COURT. IF YOU GO TO AUSTIN, THEY CAN CHANGE THE DESIGNATION, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE CHANGED BY AGREEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DISTRICT JUDGES AT THAT GENERAL JURISDICTION. COURT WILL ONLY TAKE FAMILY FILINGS COULD BE CHANGED LOCALLY.

YES. ANSWER. OKAY. OKAY. BECAUSE I IN MY RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC JURISDICTION COURTS, I FOUND THAT SPECIFIC JURISDICTION COURTS CAN BE CREATED OR TAKE A GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT AND MAKE IT A SPECIFIC JURISDICTION COURT BY LOCAL ORDER.

BUT IT DIDN'T. I COULDN'T FIND WHERE LIKE, IS THAT AN ORDER OF THE COUNCIL OF JUDGES OR AN ORDER OF COMMISSIONERS COURT OR WHAT? THAT WAS A HOLE IN MY RESEARCH THAT IT WOULD BE BY THE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT JUDGES, IF IT'S BY AGREEMENT LOCALLY, IF IT'S THROUGH LEGISLATURE, THEN IT COMES FROM AUSTIN, FROM AUSTIN. OKAY.

LET ME AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE LAST WEEK, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET CAUGHT UP RIGHT NOW.

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE GOT TWO, TWO ISSUES.

ONE IS, IS WHAT DO WE DO POLITICALLY. OKAY. IT'S A POLITICAL QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE POLITICIANS IN AUSTIN WHO WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THE FATE OF FORT BEND COUNTY. PERIOD. OKAY.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF DOUBT CAST ON IN MY MIND BECAUSE THAT BAD INFORMATION GOES IN, BAD INFORMATION COMES OUT, AND THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM. IF THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON THE FATE OF FORT BEND COUNTY AND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS WITH BAD INFORMATION, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC. BUT AS FAST AS INFORMATION TRAVELS NOWADAYS, THEY NEED TO BE GIVEN GOOD INFORMATION IN A TIMELY FASHION BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION. OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S THE FIRST POINT.

SECOND POINT. AND THIS IS JUST WALKING IN AT THE LAST MINUTE LOOKING AT THE SITUATION, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'D BE MUCH BETTER OFF BY NOT GETTING THE DISTRICT COURTS IN TERMS OF DISPOSING OF CASES.

I MEAN, WE COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE SYSTEM WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

IS REDUCING THE CASELOAD. YOU'RE TURNING THEM OUT, YOU'RE MOVING OVER.

AND THAT THE ADDITION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DON'T COME WITH AN ASSOCIATE, TAKES ANOTHER DIRECTION. TOTALLY ANOTHER DIRECTION.

AND I DON'T SEE HOW WE'D EVER CATCH UP. I DON'T SEE HOW WE'D EVER CATCH UP.

OKAY. THE GROWTH IS NOT GOING TO STOP. IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP.

WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THIS FOR A WHILE, OKAY? I INTEND TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE AND I'D RATHER NOT, YOU KNOW, PUT OURSELVES IN THIS UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHERE WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

OTHER THING, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND ANYTHING WE WANT TO FUND.

THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE EVEN WITH WITH WITH PAMELA GOBLE'S PRESENTATION, $300,000 SURROUNDING AREA FOR STUFF WE DO AROUND HERE.

WE CAN YOU YOU PRIORITIES ARE BASED ON WHERE YOU PUT YOUR MONEY.

OKAY. AND WE HAVE THE MONEY. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, OKAY? IT'S IT'S ABOUT THE POLITICS. IT'S ABOUT THE POLITICS.

AND SO I ASK THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THE RIGHT THING.

LET'S GET WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND SAY, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, WE GOT OFF TRACK AND IT HAD TO BE SOME SUBTRACTION TO GET ADDITION. OKAY. THAT PERHAPS WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

DO THEY KNOW THAT WE HAVE EIGHT COURTS AND COMPARABLE COUNTIES HAVE TWICE AS MANY? YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY KNOW THAT OR NOT. LET'S MAKE THAT CASE.

OKAY. I'VE BEEN A PART OF THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR 35 YEARS.

WE'VE ASKED FOR COURTS ALL THE TIME. I NEVER RECALL SOME CONDITIONS ON THESE COURTS THAT WE'LL GIVE YOU THIS IF YOU DO THAT.

SOMETIMES THE CONDITION WAS WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD START AT A CERTAIN TIME WHERE THE GOVERNOR CAN APPOINT, OR WHETHER IT'S DONE BY AN ELECTION. OKAY. AND PART OF THAT.

BUT BUT BUT NEVER, NEVER A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THIS AND YOU DO THAT AND WE'LL GIVE IT TO YOU.

THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM THAT IT'S IT'S GENUINE.

AND SO HOWEVER WE GOT THAT INTO THE ARGUMENT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN TRY TO CORRECT THAT RIGHT NOW.

YES. WE DO NEED ADDITIONAL COURTS. YES. THAT THAT THAT IS THE TRUTH.

WE DO NEED ADDITIONAL COURTS. BUT AS A CONDITION OF THAT TO REDUCE OUR COURTS IS REALLY NOT GETTING US

[02:20:03]

ANY FURTHER AHEAD. IT PUTS US BEHIND, IF YOU ASK ME.

AND SO IF IF THE THREAT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T GET IT NOW, IT'LL BE TEN YEARS BEFORE.

WELL, OKAY. FINE. WE'LL BE BETTER OFF. OKAY. WE'LL BE BETTER OFF.

I'M TELLING YOU, WE'D BE BETTER OFF BECAUSE WE CAN DISPOSE OF THESE CASES AND ALL THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE THAT HAPPENS IN AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T KEEP THESE AGES. YES, SIR. YEAH. SO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED HERE IS WE NEVER THEY WON'T GIVE IT TO US DISTRICT JUDGES OR DISTRICT COURTS. WE NEED TO GO ASK FOR IT. LAST TEN YEARS, WE NEVER DID.

WELL, WE'VE DISCUSSED IT. NO, WE NEVER WENT. BUT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT.

YOU WEREN'T HERE. WE'VE DISCUSSED IT ALL THE TIME.

EVERY EVERY, EVERY, EVERY TIME BEFORE WE DISCUSS IT.

SO MY QUESTION IS NOT ONLY THAT, BUT KIND OF COURSE, OF LAW TOO.

OKAY. SO YEAH, I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN HERE. OKAY.

SO I'M SAYING WE DO. BUT WE ASKED THIS TIME. CORRECT.

I MEAN, SO ALL WE ARE SAYING IS WE ASKED THIS TIME, NEXT TIME MOVING FORWARD, WE NEED TO ASK THIS TIME WITH A RESOLUTION.

DO WE HAVE A RESOLUTION? WE DID. DO WE HAVE. IT WAS UNANIMOUS.

YES WE DID. DID IT HAVE CONDITIONS IN IT? NO.

SO WHERE DID THE CONDITIONS COME FROM? I'M ASKING A QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. I KNOW YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT I'M ASKING THE QUESTION I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO. YOUR MICROPHONE.

TURN YOUR MIC. SORRY. I'LL ADDRESS THE ISSUE AS BEST I CAN.

FIRST OF ALL ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE CONDITION THE STATE TOOK THE POSITION THAT IF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO FUND THE COURTS, THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FUND THEM. OKAY. SO THEIR DEAL IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY, GO AHEAD AND SPEND THE MONEY, AND THE STATE WON'T SPEND THE MONEY.

BUT IF YOU WANT THE STATE TO SPEND THE MONEY, THEN, YOU KNOW WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE, THE OVERALL CASES, ETC. BEING HANDLED BY JUDGES ARE BASICALLY WHAT THE AVERAGE IS, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, ACROSS THE STATE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT THEY PRESENTED FOR THE FIVE COUNTIES THREE OF THOSE COUNTIES HAVE NO ASSOCIATE JUDGE AT ALL.

TWO OF THEM DO. FORT BEND HAS EIGHT AND EL PASO HAS FIVE.

EL PASO HAS ESSENTIALLY 17 COURTS AND FIVE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

WITH REGARD TO THE CASES FILED FOR JUDGE FORT BEND HAS THE LEAST AS CASES DISPOSED OF.

FORT BEND COUNTY HAS THE LEAST WITH ACTIVE PENDING CASES.

FORT BEND COUNTY HAS THE LEAST. SO THAT IS THE INFORMATION THAT THE LEGISLATORS WERE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY WHEN THEY ARE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO AGREE TO CREATE COURTS BECAUSE THE STATE IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE.

SO THEY POINTED OUT THAT BASED ON THEIR ANALYSIS, WE CURRENTLY HAD TWO EXCESS FTES, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT A COMBINATION OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND DISTRICT JUDGES, THEN THEY CONSIDER TO BE REQUIRED IF WE ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL COURTS, THAT WOULD BE 4.7 SEVEN PHDS BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE IS CONSIDERED 75% OF A DISTRICT JUDGE.

SO THEIR DEAL WAS, IF YOU WANT THESE COURTS CREATED AND YOU WANT THE COUNT AND YOU WANT THE STATE TO PAY FOR THEM, THEN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COURTS BY 4 OR 5. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT THERE.

AND TWO WEEKS AGO, WE TOOK THE ACTION WITH THREE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT VOTED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE COURTS, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TEN YEARS SINCE FORT BEND COUNTY HAS ADDED ANY COURTS, WHICH I THINK IS UNFAIR TO FORT BEND COUNTY.

WE SHOULD HAVE HAD ADDITIONAL COURTS ALL ALONG.

IT MAY BE ANOTHER TEN YEARS BEFORE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL COURTS.

SO THE DECISION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT AT THE TIME WAS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL COURTS, AND IF THE CONDITION AND THE CONDITION WAS PUT ON BY THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL.

WHO? THE BILL SPONSORS. I'M SORRY. THE SPONSOR OF THE HOUSE BILL WAS LEECH.

IT WAS HIS REQUIREMENT THAT WE GOT WE WERE IN THEY THEY DECIDED TO DO, QUOTE, AN OMNIBUS BILL WHICH INCLUDED NUMEROUS COUNTIES THAT WERE GETTING COURTS. SOME ONE, SOME TWO. ET CETERA.

SO WE'RE WE WERE IN AN OMNIBUS BILL. IT WAS LEACH'S BILL.

THERE'S A COMPANION BILL IN THE SENATE, BUT LEACH WAS LEADING IT, AND IT WAS HIS CONDITION THAT HE PUT ON THE SENATE SPONSOR.

I DON'T RECALL, RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

AND COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE, IF I MAY, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BILLS THAT ARE BEING SPONSORED THAT STATES THAT IN ORDER FOR THOSE TWO COURTS TO BE PASSED AND LEGISLATED ON, THAT THERE HAS TO BE THE REMOVAL OF 4 OR 5 ASSOCIATES.

IT'S NOT PART OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN AGREEMENT,

[02:25:03]

A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT, A HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT, BUT LEGISLATIVELY IT'S NOT PART OF THE BILL.

SO SO THERE'S ONE BILL THAT WRAPS UP A WHOLE BUNCH OF REQUESTS.

CORRECT. OKAY. AND IT'S ALL OR NOTHING. IF WE, YOU KNOW, IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE EVER HAD A SINGLE BILL WHICH WAS ONLY APPLIED TO FORT BEND COUNTY, WE OBVIOUSLY COULD TELL THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL. KILL THE BILL. SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'RE PRETTY LATE IN THE PROCESS, BY THE WAY.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE ESSENTIALLY THREE WEEKS LEFT IN THE LAST TEN DAYS.

OTHER THAN VOTING, NOTHING ELSE REALLY HAPPENS.

I'VE BEEN TEXTING OUR CONSULTANTS TO FIND OUT WHERE WE'RE AT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT TWO WEEKS AGO, AFTER THE COURT VOTED, WE SENT THE INFORMATION TO THEM TO LET THEM KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE WERE AT A, AT A POINT WHERE WE WERE GOING TO SAY PUT A FLOOR AMENDMENT ON REDUCE THE TAKE FORT BEND COUNTY OUT OF BOTH BILLS, OUT OF THE HOUSE AND A SENATE BILL. BUT WE ENDED UP SENDING A MESSAGE.

DON'T DO THAT. I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHERE THE BILLS ARE BECAUSE THE BILLS HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE CALENDAR FOR A VOTE.

I KNOW THAT CURRENTLY BILLS ARE STACKING UP. THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY MORE OR LESS THREE DAYS BEHIND AT THE MOMENT.

AND A LOT OF THE BILLS THAT ARE PENDING SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE STAND EXACTLY.

I'M TRYING TO GET AN UPDATE FROM THEM TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO TAKE FORT BEND COUNTY OUT OF THE TWO OMNIBUS BILLS.

YOU CAN ALWAYS, BUT BUT WAS WAS THAT OMNIBUS BILL SO SPECIFIC THAT IT SAID REDUCE? IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THAT WAS A CONDITION THAT LEACH PUT ON THERE IN ORDER FOR HIM TO AGREE TO PUT FORT BEND COUNTY IN HIS BILL.

AND, YOU KNOW, LEACH, YOU KNOW THIS GUY. I'M SORRY. YOU KNOW THIS GUY? I'VE MET HIM. I DON'T I CAN'T SAY I KNOW HIM.

OKAY. HAS ANYBODY. WHAT IS OUR WHAT ABOUT OUR LOCAL DELEGATION? OKAY. I'M SORRY, I HAVE THE ANSWER. CAN YOU COME UP HERE WITH US? COME ON. FOR THE RECORD, MR. WESLEY WITT, A SECOND ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

THERE WERE THREE BILLS, TWO HOUSE BILLS AND ONE SENATE BILL PUT FORTH THAT WERE ESSENTIALLY COPIES OF EACH OTHER AS A WHAT WE CALL THE OMNIBUS BILL.

THAT IS VERY COMMON TO DO THINGS THAT WAY. YOU RARELY SEE A BILL THAT WILL ESTABLISH COURTS FOR ONE COUNTY ON ITS OWN.

THEY'RE PUT IN A, IN A, IN A HUGE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, MIX UP OF THAT.

LEACH'S BILL IS A HOUSE BILL. THE OTHER HOUSE BILL OR ESSENTIALLY DEAD IN THE WATER WHERE THEY'RE AT.

THEY HAVE NOT MOVED. THEY'VE NOT MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE. THE SENATE BILL 2878 BY HUGHES HAS MOVED.

IT'S BEEN VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND HAS NOW BEEN SENT TO THE HOUSE, JUST AS RECENT AS YOU SAY.

SENT IT OUT OF THE COMMITTEE. YOU MEANT IT. IT WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE.

IT'S BEEN BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY, THE ONLY WAY IT'D BE SENT TO THE HOUSE IS IF IT WAS.

THAT'S CORRECT. THE SENATE BILL BY HUGHES HAS BEEN VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND HAS BEEN READ ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND HAS NOW BEEN PASSED TO THE HOUSE.

THAT IS THE ONLY ONE MOVING AT THIS TIME. OKAY.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR THE OTHERS TO TO GO, AND THEY DON'T NEED TO. IF THIS ONE IS THE ONE PROGRESSING.

OKAY. SO WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU HAVE THAT I JUST CITED THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE SITUATION IS WITH THE BILLS.

WHAT JUST TOLD YOU HAD BEEN VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND OUT OF THE SENATE AND IS NOW WITH THE HOUSE.

OKAY, BUT IT HAS TO YOU KNOW, MY POINT BEING, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE HOUSE BILL IS GOING TO BE TAKEN UP TO BE VOTED ON.

MY POINT IS, I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE THAT IF THEY HAVE ONE, THERE WERE THREE COPYCAT BILLS.

THE SENATE BILL BY HUGHES IS THE ONE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IS THAT THE YOU BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS SIMPLY GOING TO ACCEPT THE SENATE BILL AS IT IS AND VOTE ON IT? THE OMNIBUS BILL IS TYPICALLY TREATED THAT WAY.

IT'S NOT OBJECTIONABLE. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. OKAY.

YEAH. THERE'S THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE OTHERS TO GO THERE. THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY COPIES OF EACH OTHER. OKAY.

SO SO THE SAME AIM IS BEING ACHIEVED. IT'S JUST THROUGH HUGHES'S SENATE BILL.

OKAY. THAT'S MY BUT BUT NONE OF THESE BILLS ARE SPECIFIC TO, SAY, FORT BEND COUNTY OR A BRACKETED.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT. NOT THE WAY IT WORKS, COMMISSIONER. WELL, I'M ASKING I'M ASKING YOU, I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. SO I'M ASKING. I DON'T KNOW, ANDY. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. SO. SO IS IT IS THERE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL THAT SAYS FORT BEND COUNTY WILL REDUCE THIS THING, OR DOES IT, COMMISSIONER? WE DON'T PUT IT THAT WAY.

OKAY. SO WHERE DOES THE. NO, IT'S NOT IN THERE.

WHERE'S THE TEETH IN THIS THING WHERE THE THE TEETH IS IN ORDER TO GET FORT BEND COUNTY AND LEACH'S BILL, LEACH'S WAS THE ONE. AND I'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE OTHERS TO SEE IF THEY MADE THE SAME AGREEMENT WITH HUGHES. I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW THAT THEY ASK IF FORT BEND COUNTY WOULD DO THIS.

WE VOTED ON IT AND WE SAID WE WOULD. SO I'M TRYING I'M TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM.

WE VOTED. THIS WAS IN THE WORKSHOP LAST TWO WEEKS AGO TO BASICALLY SAY, WE WANT TO CREATE THE COURTS, AND WE WILL AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL ARE PUTTING ON THERE TO INCLUDE FORT BEND COUNTY IN THEIR BILLS.

[02:30:06]

WE DIDN'T VOTE. WE DIDN'T VOTE. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.

THAT WAS LAST WEEK. THAT WAS THE WORKSHOP. IT WAS POSTED BY ACTION POLL.

IT WAS MORE OF A POLL. OKAY. BUT THE INFORMATION WAS WE WE WE WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD COMMUNICATE WITH THE SPONSORS OF THE BILLS TO TELL THEM THAT WE'LL AGREE TO YOUR CONDITION TO KEEP FORT BEND COUNTY IN THE BILLS.

SO THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT WASN'T THAT WASN'T AN ACTION OF THE COURT, THOUGH. THAT WAS SOME SENSE OF COMMON AGREEMENT.

WELL, GUYS, YOU'RE SPLITTING HAIRS HERE. I'M SORRY.

WE HAVE, WE HAVE. IT WAS IT WAS, IT WAS ACTUALLY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT SAID THIS IS OKAY WITH US.

MOVE FORWARD. WE DID. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHERE WE SIT.

OKAY. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN HAVE A FLOOR AMENDMENT BEFORE THE VOTE IS TAKEN TO TAKE THEM OUT. NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING OUT, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE PART ABOUT REDUCING ASSOCIATE JUDGES AS A CONDITION. WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER MYERS IS SAYING IS THAT AND THIS IS THE NUANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THAT I'M STILL LEARNING ABOUT.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT SOMEONE. SO THE SENATE BILL BY HUGHES HAS COME BEEN SENT TO THE HOUSE.

ONCE IT GETS TO THE HOUSE, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD AMENDMENTS TO IT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE IF IT DOES, IT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE, TO THE SENATE FOR THEM TO VOTE ON ON THE WHAT WHEN ESSENCE WILL BE AMENDED BILL, WHICH AND DO WE THINK WE HAVE THE TIME FOR THAT TO HAPPEN? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. WE DON'T THEY NORMALLY GO TO CONFERENCE.

I'M SORRY. DON'T GO TO CONFERENCE. BUT IT WOULD BE A VERY SIMPLE DEAL OF YOU ONLY GOT ONE COUNTY THAT WANTS TO BE TAKEN OUT.

I'M NOT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT TAKING OUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS GETTING THE COURTS WITHOUT THE CONDITION.

WITHOUT THE CONDITION OF REDUCING. COMMISSIONER, WE'VE ALREADY MADE THAT AGREEMENT.

I MEAN, YOU WANT TO TAKE THE AGREEMENT BACK. I MEAN, REALLY, WE MADE THE AGREEMENT TO AN AUDIT.

THAT WAS A CONDITION, BUT THEY MADE. BUT IF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY.

AND THAT'S MY. THAT'S JUST AN OPINION, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT CHANGE A BAD DECISION BEFORE IT'S FINAL? WE WON'T BE KEEPING AN AGREEMENT WE MADE WITH THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL TO TO PUT FORT BEND COUNTY IN HIS BILL.

RIGHT NOW IT'S HUGE. BILL. I'M SORRY. RIGHT NOW IT'S HUGHES'S BILL.

IT'S NOT THIS GUY, LEECH. THAT. WHY DON'T WE. WHY DON'T WE FIND OUT, DOES IT? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THEY MADE THE SAME AGREEMENT WITH HUGHES. I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL I KNOW IS THAT THAT WAS A CONDITION THAT LEECH PUT ON THERE.

WE SAID THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD DO THIS. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, I DON'T REMEMBER. THEY MAY HAVE TOLD ME, AND I HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS BEEN GOING ON, AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO HAD A LOT OF LOT OF ISSUES WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH WITH THE LEGISLATURE. I'M NOT MAKING ANY DECISION ON THIS.

THIS I UNDERSTAND, BUT I THINK IT'S I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ON WHERE WE'RE AT.

WHERE WE'RE AT IS IN ORDER TO GET OUR BILLS, OUR TWO COURTS IN THIS OMNIBUS BILL.

THE CONDITION THAT AT LEAST LEACH PUT ON THERE, AND IT MAY BE THE SAME CONDITION AS HUGHES PUT ON THERE.

WE WE AGREED THAT WE WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES, BECAUSE THEY KEPT POINTING OUT TO US THAT IF YOU CREATE THESE TWO ADDITIONAL COURTS, YOU WILL HAVE 4.7 EXCESS IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT.

JUDGES. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO CREATE TWO ADDITIONAL COURTS.

WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO TO TALK TO LEACH AND LET HIM KNOW THAT THAT THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE THE DATA? OKAY. JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE DATA AND HOW IT APPLIES TO FORT BEND COUNTY. SITUATION RIGHT NOW, AND THAT WE MAY NEED THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR FORT BEND COUNTY IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK TO HIM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, SINCERELY TALK TO HIM.

I CAN'T BE HONEST. WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH OVER THIS ISSUE FOR SOME TIME.

THAT'S HOW WE DIDN'T DO THIS ONCE. THAT'S HOW SAUSAGE IS MADE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S BEEN BACK AND FORTH, COMMISSIONER.

YOU KNOW EARLY ON, YOU KNOW, IF YOU RECALL, WHENEVER WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE COURTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, I POINTED OUT THAT IT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR US TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES BECAUSE THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION ANALYSIS, WHETHER YOU WANT TO ACCEPT THE DATA OR NOT. AND ALL THAT DATA, BY THE WAY, IS FED BY OUR OWN COURTS.

THEY DON'T MAKE IT UP. IT IS LIKELY THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COURTS IN ORDER TO GET TWO ADDITIONAL COURTS CREATED, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CREATE COURTS IF THEIR ANALYSIS SHOWS WE ALREADY HAVE MORE COURTS THAN EXCUSE ME JUDGES THAN WE NEED WHICH THE DATA THAT IS WHAT THE DATA THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT SHOWED. SO SURE ENOUGH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE CASE AFTER MY CONVERSATION WITH YOU FOUR WEEKS AGO,

[02:35:05]

OR HOWEVER LONG IT WAS. YOU SAID THAT WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT SAID WE WOULD DO THIS.

THAT WAS LAST FRIDAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE FRIDAY BEFORE LAST? YEAH. FRIDAY BEFORE LAST. WE DID PASS THE RESOLUTION AND TOOK IT.

NO, WE PASSED THE RESOLUTION DID NOT INCLUDE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN IT.

SO IN OUR CONVERSATION I SAID, LOOK TIME OUT WITH REGARD TO PUTTING US IN UNTIL I GET A CLARIFICATION FROM MAJORITY OF THE COURT, WHICH BECAUSE I WOULD NOT I COULDN'T DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH THE OTHER GUYS.

I DISCUSSED IT WITH YOU. SO IN WORKSHOP, WE BROUGHT IT UP AND DISCUSSED IT, AND THREE GUYS BASICALLY SAID, YES, WE WANT TO HAVE THE COURTS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE COMMUNICATED TO THE SPONSORS.

SO WE'RE IN THE BILL CURRENTLY. LET ME REPHRASE THAT.

WE'RE IN LEACH'S BILL FOR SURE. CURRENTLY I BELIEVE WE'RE IN BILL ALSO.

I'M SURE WE'RE IN BILL. WHETHER OR NOT THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH LEACH IS MADE WITH HUGHES.

I CAN'T TELL YOU BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL THAT DISCUSSION.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SITTING RIGHT NOW, IS WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF A BILL THAT MAY NOT, MAY NOT END UP BEING PASSED. IT MAY BE A SITUATION WHERE THEY SIMPLY PICK UP THE SENATE BILL.

AND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WASHINGTON PURPOSES, THE HOUSE IS KIND OF CLOGGED UP WITH ALL HIS BILLS.

IT'S WAY BEHIND. IT STARTED BEHIND AND IT GOT BEHIND HER AS THE SESSION WENT ON.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF BILLS, INCLUDING ONE OF OURS, ALTHOUGH IT WAS GOING TO BE DEAD ANYWAY.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY RAN IT OUT OF TIME.

SO WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, I'LL DO THIS. I'LL CONTACT.

I'VE BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT MICHELLE AND JIM.

AND I WILL CONTACT THEM AND AND I WILL HOW DO I COMMUNICATE THIS TO EVERYBODY WITHOUT I'M SAYING THIS IF IF YOU REACH OUT TO THEM WHO WORKS FOR THIS COURT? THEY'RE ENGAGED BY THIS COURT.

IF YOU REACH OUT TO THEM AND I WILL SUGGEST YOU CONTACT EACH OF YOU.

I'M NOT GOING TO. NO, NO, NO, I'M SAYING I'M ASKING YOU AS THE OUR GO TO GUY ON THE LEGISLATURE.

YOU YOU YOU FOLLOW THAT MORE THAN ANY OF US. IF YOU'RE WILLING TO TALK TO THEM AND CONVEY A MESSAGE THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL OUR OWN DESTINY WITH OUR COURTS, I'LL BE HAPPY.

BUT NOT HAVING THESE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON OUR ABILITY TO TO MAINTAIN, ASSOCIATE.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO CARRY THAT MESSAGE. AND WHAT I WILL DO, I'LL I'LL SUGGEST, WILL NOT DIRECT THEM TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU GUYS.

OR MAYBE THEY CAN COMMUNICATE WITH US. I CAN'T COMMUNICATE.

THEY CAN VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS. I SAID THEY CAN. RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID. THEY CAN COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.

I THINK WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE. I'M SORRY. I THINK WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE, IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE BUDGET, AND WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THAT. WE HEARD THE BUDGET OFFICER SAY WE'VE GOT TO CUT 90 MILLION OUT OF THE BUDGET, OUT OF THAT REQUEST, BUDGET REQUEST OUT OF THE REQUEST.

EXCUSE ME. THAT IS CORRECT. SO AND IF WE DON'T GIVE ANYBODY ANY NEW EMPLOYEES, THAT'S ONLY 20 MILLION. BUT THESE ARE ALREADY CURRENT EMPLOYEES.

I GET THAT. I GET THAT. BUT LIKE I SAID, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IF WE GET THE TWO NEW COURTS, THAT'S HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS? YEAH. SO THE COST OF ADDING TWO DISTRICT COURTS IS APPROXIMATELY $4.8 MILLION.

SO $4.8 MILLION AND ONLY HALF A MILLION OF THAT COMES FROM THE STATE.

TWO JUDGES SALARIES AND BENEFITS. NO, NO, THAT'S THAT'S JUST THE COUNTIES.

THAT'S THE COUNTY. I KNOW THE COUNTIES PORTION, BUT I'M SAYING WHAT THE COUNTIES PORTION IS 4.8 MILLION.

AND THAT INCLUDES THE, OF COURSE, THE COURTS AND THE ANCILLARY DEPARTMENTS.

EACH ASSOCIATE JUDGE IS APPROXIMATELY 370 TO $375,000.

SO IT'S CHEAPER TO HAVE ASSOCIATES. AND WITH THAT SAID COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO GO AND AGAIN REITERATE THE WEIGHT, BUT BUT IT'S THE 375 PER. SO THAT'S TIMES EIGHT.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE $2.8 MILLION OF ALL OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

NO, THE JUDGES ARE HERE NOW. RIGHT. AND THEY'RE ALREADY FACTORED INTO OUR BUDGET.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW MONEY. NEW MONEY IS 4.8 MILLION, ALMOST 4.9.

OKAY. OKAY. SO I STILL SAY AGAIN, WE GET TWO NEW COURTS, A WHOLE LOT OF EXTRA MONEY, LESS SOCIAL JUDGES UNDER THIS SCENARIO, AND LESS EFFICIENCY, LESS COURTS, LESS.

WE'RE BETTER OFF SAYING. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS SPACING.

[02:40:05]

I'M SORRY. WHAT SPACE? YEAH. THE SPACE. THAT'S SPACE.

THAT'S THE OTHER CONCERN. AND SPACE IS NOT DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR.

IT'S DEBT. IT'S DEBT. NO, I MEAN SPACE IN THE COURTROOM.

IT'S DEBT. SO THE BILL OUT OF THE COURT IS DEBT THAT'S SPREAD OUT OVER 20 YEARS.

IT'S NOT I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET, SIR.

I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST SPACE IN THE COURTROOM, IN THE.

IN THE COURTHOUSE. THE COURTHOUSE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COURTROOM BUILDING. OKAY.

THAT IS DEBT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S DEBT. IT'S NOT.

IT'S NOT $1.7 MILLION AT ONE TIME. IT'S SPREAD OUT OVER 20 YEARS.

CAN I ASK? I MEAN, SINCE WE ARE NOT. LET ME LET ME MAKE CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M GOING TO BE ASKING.

TALK TO WHOEVER YOU NEED TO TALK TO. LET THEM COMMUNICATE.

SO IT'S A PROCESS ANYWAY, WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY DECISION TODAY.

AND MY REQUEST TO SOMEBODY. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR, GUYS, YOU'RE RUNNING OUT OF DAYLIGHT HERE.

THE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING A VOTE. OKAY.

AND IF WE HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT, IF THEY TAKE A VOTE AND WE AND THE COUNTY HAS MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE SPONSORS OF THE BILLS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO X IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BILL, AND WE DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH AND DO X, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE DOWN THE LINE.

IT'S GOING TO BE ISSUE DOWN THE LINE IF WE ELIMINATE THESE COURTS.

SO IT DOES APPEAR THAT WE ARE LISTED IN HUGHES SENATE BILL.

SO WE'RE IN THAT. AND THEN THE CLARIFYING POINT WOULD BE THAT I'LL HAVE TO FIND OUT THAT WHAT WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO HUGHES IN INCLUDING FORT BEND COUNTY IN THAT LEGISLATION.

BUT TO THE BUDGET POINT, IT LOOKS LIKE REGARDLESS, WE'RE LOOKING AT.

AN ADDITION, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL COST FOR SPACE BY ADDING THE DISTRICT COURT.

SO WE'RE IN FOR $2 MILLION REGARDLESS, JUST ON THE SPACE BUILD OUT, IF WE ADD TWO NEW DISTRICT COURTS, WHETHER WE REDUCE IT. WELL, NO, WE ONLY APPROVED ONE.

RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS, THAT NUMBER DOESN'T CHANGE WHETHER WE ADD OR TAKE AWAY ASSOCIATE JUDGES OR NOT. THAT'S A FIXED SET. THAT'S, THAT'S MOVING FORWARD.

BUT IT'S THE IT'S THE OTHER PARTS WHERE IT LOOK, I, I'M STILL I'M SORRY I'M SICK.

AND SO I STILL I HAVE BRAIN FOG RIGHT NOW AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL THESE NUMBERS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE TWO DISTRICT COURTS, EVEN IN REDUCING AJS, WE STILL HAVE MORE THAT THAT'S COSTING US, RIGHT? IT'S NOT NET ZERO OR WE SAVE MILLIONS BY REDUCING AJS AND THEN WE JUST DON'T SPEND AS MUCH.

WE JUST DON'T SPEND AS MUCH. GOT IT. OKAY. SO CAN WE.

WHAT ARE YOU DECIDING? CAN WE JUST MOVE ON? IT'S ALMOST 4:00, BUT.

BUT I WANT TO. IT SOUNDS LIKE THOUGH WE. COMMISSIONER PRESTWICH HAS ASKED FOR A GENUINE EFFORT AT GETTING CLARITY ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THE HUGHES BILL. BUT CONVEYING WHAT ARE THE NEEDS HERE ON THE GROUND FOR US TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? YES. WITH THE BUDGET IMPLICATIONS AND US TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, BUT BASED ON WHAT OUR JUDGES HAVE TOLD US, ARE OUR NEEDS ON THE GROUND FOR FOR THESE COURTS? COMMISSIONER MYERS, I JUST SENT HIM A TEXT, SO WE'LL SEE IF THEY WHO LEACH WHO I THE ONLY ONE I CAN.

I DON'T HAVE LEACH'S CELL NUMBER. YEAH. I'LL GET IT, BUT I'LL HAVE HIS CELL NUMBER, AND IT'S NOT HIM I NEED TO TALK TO.

IT'S GOING TO BE HUGHES. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE ON? WELL, I JUST WANT TO JUST IN FINAL STATING THAT THAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE WITHOUT ANYONE, AT LEAST TO MY KNOWLEDGE, DISCUSSING IT WITH THE BOARD OF JUDGES AND ASKING US WHAT IT WAS WE WANTED OR WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE.

AND ALSO, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SINCE THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION AND BACK INTO THE 80S WHEN THEY CREATED ASSOCIATED BENCHES, THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN WITHDRAWN BECAUSE OF THE CREATION OF NEW COURTS, AND THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE LEGISLATION.

NOWHERE IN THE LEGISLATION IS TO SAY, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU TWO NEW COURTS, YOU HAVE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATES IN YOUR COUNTY. THANK YOU.

AND I WOULD LOVE OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE TO LOOK INTO TO? WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? ESSENTIALLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE IF WE REDUCED ASSOCIATE JUDGES, WE DON'T HAVE THE. FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN ADVISED BY THE JUDGE, THE JUDGE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO DEFUND POSITIONS IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROCESS ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE, BUT THE BUDGET PROCESS, SAY AGAIN, IT WILL BE THROUGH THE BUDGET. THROUGH THE BUDGET, I WOULD THINK. OKAY.

OKAY, KEN, WITH THAT, CAN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM?

[48. Meet in Closed Session to deliberate the following matters as authorized by the Texas Government Code:]

[02:45:04]

WOULD YOU PLEASE GO AHEAD AND READ THE CLOSED SESSION ITEMS, PLEASE? MEETING 48. MEETING CLOSED SESSION TO DELIBERATE THE FOLLOWING MATTERS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE A SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ONE T-C-E-Q PROPOSED PERMIT NUMBER 74419. CONCRETE ROCK CRUSHING FACILITY TWO. CAUSE NUMBER 23.

300481. GONZALEZ CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED VERSUS FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS. THREE CAUSE NUMBER 20 5-076595, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS JOHN O. IKE, KATHRYN C, IKE, ET AL.

READING ROAD INTERSECTIONS, PROJECT NUMBER 20109.

PARCEL 16, PRECINCT TWO FOR CAUSE. NUMBER 25 DASH CC 07661 FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, VERSUS JEFFREY FORTENBERRY.

CAPRICE ARIANA FORTENBERRY, ARIE ET AL. BOWSER ROAD PROJECT NUMBER 20306.

PARCEL 24 PRECINCT ONE FIVE CAUSE NUMBER 20 5-076550 FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS MATTHEW I'M SORRY MATTHEW MCCLURG, ANGELA MOSES, AKA ANGELA MCCLURG, ET AL. BOWSER ROAD PROJECT NUMBER 20306. PARCEL 23, PRECINCT ONE SIX EEOC CHARGE NUMBER 460. DASH (202) 406-6827. FORT BEND COUNTY BID NUMBER 20 2-032. PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON GREENBUSH ROAD.

MOBILITY. MOBILITY BOND PROJECT NUMBER 13312 BE SECTION 551.072.

72. DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY. REAL PROPERTY IN ROSENBERG.

AT THIS TIME, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL STAND IN RECESS.

WE WILL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING.

IT IS TIME. 348. I CALL TO ORDER FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING.

TODAY IS TUESDAY, MAY 13TH, 2025 AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER.

TWO. ITEM NUMBER TWO. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON DRAINAGE DISTRICT AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER TWO.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW MOVE ON TO DRAINAGE DISTRICT. AGENDA ITEM THREE.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS PRESENTED. SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA.

ITEM FOUR. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW I PRESENT DRAINAGE DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER SIX. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL.

WE ALSO HAVE. CAN I INTERRUPT JUST ONE SECOND, I APOLOGIZE.

YES, SIR. I JUST GOT A TEXT BACK FROM MY REQUEST.

WE MADE THE SAME DEAL WITH HUGHES. TALK TO YOU, MIKE.

WE MADE THE SAME DEAL WITH HUGHES. SO WHETHER THE HUGHES HUGHES BILLS PASSES OR THE LEASE BILLS PASSES, WE HAVE THE SAME AGREEMENT WITH THE SPONSORS OF THE BILLS THAT IN ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BILL, FORT BEND COUNTY WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

SO WE CAN TELL THEM THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF JUDGES, THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, AND THEY CAN TAKE IT OUT. MY, MY. HERE'S WHAT I DIDN'T SUGGEST.

THEY DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN I'M INFORMING YOU OF WHAT OUR SITUATION IS SO THAT WE I'M NOT GOING TO SAY TAKE THEM OUT.

[02:50:05]

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY LEAVE THEM IN. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING. ALL I'M GOING TO SAY IS WE'D LIKE TO HAVE HAVE THE ASSOCIATE, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE COURTS CREATED. BUT WE'RE NO LONGER GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

SO DO I NEED TO TELL THEM? THAT IS MY QUESTION.

WELL, IF WITH A GUN TO MY HEAD, I SAY YEAH, BUT OKAY.

AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS LEAVE IT UP TO THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY LEAVE THEM IN OR TAKE THEM OUT.

I DON'T WANT TO DIRECT THEM TO DO ANYTHING, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT FORT BEND COUNTY INFORMS THEM THAT WE HAVE CHANGED OUR POSITION IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT WAY, THAT THAT THINGS CHANGE TO SIGNEE DIE.

OH. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET IN TROUBLE.

OKAY, LET'S LET'S MAYBE WE COULD TALK IN THE CLOSED SESSION OR WHATEVER.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN TAKE THIS INTO CLOSED SESSION OR NOT, BUT BUT WE CAN WE CAN BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

I'M JUST. I'M UPDATING YOU OF WHAT WE CAN DO.

I'M RUNNING OUT OF DAYLIGHT, GUYS. FOR CLARITY, YES, WE DID RETURN TO THE OTHER AGENDA.

SO WHEN WE COME BACK, WE COULD SHARE YOUR MIC.

SORRY. WE CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT. WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY FOR THE MINUTES THAT THIS IS PERTAINING TO THE PREVIOUS AGENDA FOR.

LET'S MOVE ON. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE COULD OPEN THAT UP.

MAYBE IT'S WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. THE RECORDS JUST NEED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT WHICH AGENDA YOU'RE ON.

IT'S JUST A RECORD ISSUE. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE.

WE HAVE A CLOSED SESSION ITEM FOR DRAINAGE DISTRICT SEVEN MEETING CLOSED SESSION TO DELIBERATE THE FOLLOWING MATTERS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE A SECTION 551.07 FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS. SENIOR MANAGEMENT POSITION.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME, FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING WILL RECESS FOR CLOSED SESSION.

I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT SPLASH DESIGN. AND WE ARE ALL REASONS.

WE WON'T GET IT DONE. OKAY, NOW IT IS 441. WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION.

[49. Reconvene Open Session and consider taking action on the following matters:]

RECONVENING. SO, COMMISSIONER, YOU WANTED TO GO AND ADDRESS.

CAN WE REVISIT THE WORKSHOP ON DISTRICT JUDGES? OKAY. SO I NEED A I NEED A CLEAR INDICATION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO TELL THE SPONSORS THAT WE ARE EITHER GOING TO ELIMINATE THE FOUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES, OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO ELIMINATE THE FOUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THEY INCLUDE CONTINUE TO INCLUDE FOUR BEING IN THEIR BILL OR EXCLUDE FORBID FROM THE BILL.

SO WE'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THEM. SO WHAT'S THE DECISION? IS THAT ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS? WHAT? THAT WE EXCLUDE THE STIPULATION WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THEY REQUIRED IN ORDER TO INCLUDE FORT BEND COUNTY IN THE BILL.

BOTH HUGHES AS WELL AS LEACH WAS, WE WOULD AGREE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES SO THAT THE TOTAL JUDGES EQUAL WHATEVER THE AVERAGE IS ACROSS THE STATE, THAT THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION ANALYSIS SETS US AT.

SO. SO MY OPINION IS THAT WE NEED TO ASK THEM TO APPROVE THE COURTS WITHOUT CONDITION. OKAY. SO I NEED TO TELL RESPONSIBLE, BUT I'M.

I'M WORRIED, LIKE, I WANTED TO WORD IT, THAT WE APPROVE THE.

I'M NOT GOING TO. I EITHER HAVE TO TELL THEM WE'RE EITHER GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COURTS OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

WHAT POINT OF ORDER ARE Y'ALL PROPOSING AN ACTION BY THE COURT? BECAUSE YOU'RE PROPOSING AN ACTION YOU HAVE TO HAVE MAKE A MOTION AND TAKE A VOTE.

IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A POSTED FOR ACTION. RIGHT, RIGHT? YEAH. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, AS IS THE CLERK WHAT THE POSTURE OF THE COURT IS RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE TRACKING.

YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE CASE. WE SHOULD DECIDE.

BUT. BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS TAKE AN ACTION ON A WORKSHOP ITEM WHETHER OR NOT IT'S POSTED AS AN ACTION OR NOT.

WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, HAVE WE? YOUR YOUR ITEM SAYS THAT YOU WERE RECEIVING INFORMATION.

OKAY, I'M RECEIVING INFORMATION. ARE WE GOING TO ELIMINATE THE COURTS OR NOT? ELIMINATE THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES OR NOT? GIVE ME THE INFORMATION.

PLEASE. PROVIDE ME WITH THAT INFORMATION. OKAY.

YOU WANT ME TO GIVE IT TO YOU, OR YOU WANT YOUR MEMBERS TO GIVE YOU.

BECAUSE. BECAUSE WHAT? YOU CAN GIVE IT TO ME IF YOU WISH.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL ARE GOING TO DO. I WON'T KNOW UNLESS YOU VOTE. OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THIS. LET ME JUST SAY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

[02:55:04]

DIRECTLY AS I CAN, IN RESPONSE TO THEIR INQUIRY, I'D SAY WE WANT THE COURTS WITHOUT CONDITION HERE. NOW, IF THAT IF THEY TAKE THAT AND MEANS THAT, THEN THAT'S ON THEM.

BUT I MY. I'M ONLY ONE MEMBER. I UNDERSTAND. I REMEMBER ONE MEMBER COURT THAT WE WANT THE COURTS WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

OKAY. I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH OUR SPONSORS AND OUR LEGISLATORS.

I DON'T WANT IT TO BE ANY CONFUSION WHATSOEVER.

I WANT TO BE UPFRONT WITH THEM. I'VE BEEN UPFRONT WITH THEM ALL ALONG.

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY WOULD LEAVE US IN IF WE TELL THEM THAT YOU KNOW, THE CONDITION THAT THEY SET WE WE HAVE DECIDED WE'RE NOT GOING TO TO AGREE TO THE CONDITION, BUT WE WOULD STILL LIKE THE COURTS.

OKAY. SO I USE LESS WORDS. I'D SAY WE LIKE THE COURTS WITHOUT CONDITION.

WE LIKE THE TWO NEW DISTRICT COURT, FORT BEND COUNTY, WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

AND I THINK IT'S A FAIR POINT THAT WE'VE HEARD FEEDBACK FROM OUR JUDGES THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR US AND OUR BUDGET SITUATION. AND WE HAVE NOT HAD REQUISITE TIME TO DO THAT.

WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BASED ON OUR LOCAL INFORMATION.

SO SO IT'S JUST OUT OF TIME. COMMISSIONER. WELL, I MEAN, THIS LEGISLATION, THIS HAPPENS LITERALLY ALL THE TIME IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

THAT NEW INFORMATION COMES IN, SITUATION CHANGES.

WE ARE OUT OF TIME WITH REGARD TO NOTIFYING WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

WE NEED TO NOTIFY THEM. NOW THESE BILLS ARE GOING TO BE.

SO AGAIN I THINK THE ASK IS WOULD THEY BE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO MOVE IT FORWARD WITHOUT CONDITION TO ALLOW US AT THE LOCAL LEVEL TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE COURTS? THAT'S JUST AN ASK BASED ON THE BUDGET PROCESS, BASED ON OUR BUDGET PROCESS, WHICH WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF. I'LL HAVE TO. I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT I'M ABSOLUTELY CLEAR SO THAT NOBODY COMES BACK AND SAYS, GUYS, YOU MISLED US. THAT'S THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO HAPPEN FOR FORT BEND COUNTY.

THAT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE WHEN I NEED TO TELL THEM.

WE HAVE TOLD THEM SPECIFICALLY. WE HAVE TOLD THEM SPECIFICALLY.

WE ARE GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES BY AT LEAST FOUR.

WAS THAT AN ASK THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE AUTHORS OF THE BILL? DID THEY SEND AN EMAIL? DID THEY CALL AND SAY, ARE Y'ALL GOING TO REDUCE COURTS BEFORE THEY EVEN DRAFTED US INTO THE BILL? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE JUST OFFERED UP THAT, HEY, IF Y'ALL INCLUDE US, WE'LL.

WELL, THIS IS THIS IS INFORMATION. AND I THINK IT'S A IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S UP TO THE COURT TO DO WHAT THE COURT WANTS TO DO.

BUT I HAVE A CAUTION FOR YOU THAT YOU CAN EITHER TAKE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OR DISREGARD AT YOUR OWN RISK.

GO AHEAD. MICHEL. AND THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGES IN HERE.

THE MORE SPECIFIC YOU ARE, THE MORE AKIN YOU ARE TO TAKING AN ACTION OF THE COURT THAT IS NOT NOTICED FOR ACTION, AND YOU WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A VOTE. THE MORE GENERAL YOU ARE, THE MORE YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT AND MORE ORIENTED TOWARDS DISCUSSION.

SO IT'S UP TO YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. BUT ALL I CAN DO IS ADVISE.

ISN'T THE SPIRIT OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT THAT WE DELIBERATE IN PUBLIC? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW WHERE THERE'S NO SECRET CLOSED DOOR.

THIS IS ON THE RECORD. THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AND ABOUT WHAT FOR SURE.

WE DO WORKSHOPS LITERALLY ALL THE TIME. WE'VE CREATED COMMITTEES BASED ON JUST DISCUSSION HERE ON DIFFERENT.

YOU DO? YOU DO NOT HAVE UP THERE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE ON HOW YOU WERE GOING TO STAFF YOUR COURTS.

IT SAYS YOU WERE SIMPLY GOING TO RECEIVE INFORMATION.

A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD SAY I'M NOT GOING TO GO BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST RECEIVING INFORMATION.

THEY'RE NOT DOING ANY ACTION. IT IS UP TO YOU.

IT IS UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD. LOOKING FOR IS IT IS IS INFORMATION WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT IS GOING TO.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER. AND SHOULD YOU ALL HAVE TO DEFEND THAT DECISION TO GO FORTH.

THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE MORE SPECIFIC YOU ARE, THE FURTHER YOU ARE SUPPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT CODE.

CAN I ASK YOU THIS? WE JUST GOT THIS INFORMATION.

IF WE NEED TO CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OR SOMETHING NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS OR WHATEVER, WE COULD DO THAT.

BUT WHY? WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AND CONTINUE TO BE DELIBERATING THIS FOR 2 OR 3 HOURS NOW.

AND SO THE LEGISLATURE WORKS. THE BILLS COME UP WHENEVER THEY COME UP.

BUT, COMMISSIONER, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHATEVER YOU JUST TELL THEM THIS IS WHAT THE CONSENSUS AND WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO DO IT.

LET THEM DO IT. OKAY. THE BEST I CAN DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS THAT THERE'S NOT A CONSENSUS.

[03:00:06]

YEAH, HOW ABOUT THAT? I WILL I JUST WANTED TO SAY, CAN YOU INSERT WHAT I JUST SAID? JUST SAY WE WANT THE COURTS WITHOUT CONDITION AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

OKAY. DO WE NEED TO. VERY SPECIFIC WHAT WE AGREED TO.

I'M HAPPY TO GO TO. I WANT TO BE. I DON'T WANT TO.

I DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANY. I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY WOULD COME BACK AND SAY, THAT WASN'T VERY CLEAR, AND IT WAS MISLEADING, AND YOU RENEGED ON A DEAL.

I DON'T WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE WANT TWO COURTS WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

THAT'S CLEAR. THAT'S. I'M ONLY ONE MEMBER. I'M ONLY HERE.

YOU AND US. ALL RIGHT. I WILL PUT THAT IN AN EMAIL TO THEM, AND I WILL ASK OUR CONSULTANTS TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE SPONSORS OR OR LET US KNOW WHAT THEY COME BACK AND SAY, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND TELL US WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY ANYWAY.

YEAH. BUT YOU KNOW, SO IS THAT IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? YEAH. AND THEN AND THEN A VOTE. NO, WE'RE NOT VOTING THAT I'M NOT TAKING A POINT.

I'M GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE PEOPLE SO I CAN FEED THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THERE'S NOT A CONSENSUS.

I'VE EXPLAINED MY CONCERN. SO IT'S UP TO YOU.

OKAY. NOTED. THANK YOU. THERE'S NOT A CONSENSUS.

LET'S. LET'S MOVE ON. COMMISSIONER, PLEASE. IT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR AS FAR AS THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.

YEAH, RIGHT. WE MAY END UP ELIMINATING FOR ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET THERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AND, YOU KNOW, THEY MADE THE MADE THE CLAIM THAT THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION NUMBERS ARE INCORRECT. SO LET'S GET THE CORRECT NUMBER. SO WE'RE OPERATING ON REAL DATA HERE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S SHOWING THAT FORT BEND COUNTY HAS THE LEAST NUMBER OF CASES FILED, THE LEAST NUMBER OF CASES DISPOSED OF, AND THE LEAST NUMBER OF CASES PER JUDGE LEAST NUMBER OF CASES PENDING.

SO OF THE FIVE COMPARISONS WE HAVE. SO THEY SAID THAT THE NUMBERS ARE INCORRECT.

OKAY. LET'S GET THE CORRECT NUMBERS BECAUSE THAT RIGHT NOW THAT'S WHAT IT SHOWS. AND I HAVE SEEN EMAILS WHERE THE COMMITTEES HAVE ASKED FOR THE OCA INFORMATION.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BASING IT ON. RIGHT. SO ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. LET'S CONTINUE. LET'S MOVE ON. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

49 RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND CONSIDER TAKING ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS.

A SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ONE T-C-EQ PROPOSED PERMIT NUMBER 174419.

PIT CONCRETE ROCK CRUSHING FACILITY ACTION ON IT.

I MOVE THAT IN LITIGATION MATTERS RELATED TO PROPOSED PERMIT.

NUMBER 174419. JEWELPET. CONCRETE SLASH ROCK CRUSH FACILITY.

THE FORT BEND COUNTY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO INCUR ADDITIONAL LITIGATION EXPENSES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 IN NO SENSE, AND THAT FUNDING TO BE APPROVED AT A LATER DATE BY THE AUDITOR.

I JUST READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN. YEAH. SO WHAT? FUNDING TO BE APPROVED AT A LATER DATE BY THE AUDITOR.

OKAY. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

TWO CAUSE. NUMBER 20 3-300481. GONZALEZ CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED VERSUS FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.

I MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, OR HER DESIGNEE, TO ENTER INTO A FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORT BEND COUNTY AND GONZALEZ CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED IN EXCHANGE FOR MUTUALLY AGREED CONSIDERATION.

IN ORDER TO RESOLVE IN FULL THE CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS RAISED OR WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN CAUSE NUMBER 23-300481. GONZALEZ. CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF VERSUS FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, DEFENDANT IN THE 240TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.

AND TO MAKE AND FILE ALL OTHER PLEADINGS AND OR DOCUMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

[03:05:05]

THREE CAUSE. NUMBER 25. DASH. DASH 076595 FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS JOHN O.

IK CATHERINE C IKE ET AL. READING ROADS INTERSECTIONS, PROJECT NUMBER 20109, PARCEL 16, PRECINCT TWO.

I MOVE THAT IN 25. DASH. DASH 076595 FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS JOHN O.

IKE, CATHERINE C IKE, ET AL. THE READING ROAD INTERSECTIONS PROJECT NUMBER 20109, PARCEL 16, IN PRECINCT TWO BRIDGE. SMITH, LAWSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BE AUTHORIZED TO INCUR LITIGATION EXPENSES FOR ANY AND ALL COSTS OF PRETRIAL TRIAL APPEAL AND INCIDENTAL COSTS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL AD LITEM FEES, CITATION BY PUBLICATION, BY PUBLICATION FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 IN NO SENSE, AND THAT MOBILITY BONDS BE DESIGNATED AS THE FUNDING SOURCE.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY FOR CAUSE.

NUMBER 25. DASH 07661 FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, VERSUS JEFFREY FORTENBERRY, CAPRICE ARIANA FORTENBERRY, ET AL. BOWSER ROAD, PROJECT NUMBER 20306.

PARCEL 24, PRECINCT ONE. YES, I MOVE THAT IN 20 5-07661 FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS JEFFREY FORTENBERRY. CAPRICE.

ARANA. FORTENBERRY ET AL. BOWSER ROAD PROJECT NUMBER 2306.

PARCEL 24, PRECINCT ONE. BRIDGETT SMITH, LAWSON COUNTY ATTORNEY OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BE AUTHORIZED TO INCUR LITIGATION EXPENSES FOR ANY AND ALL COSTS OF PRETRIAL TRIAL APPEAL AND INCIDENTAL COSTS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL AD LITEM FEES, CITATION BY PUBLICATION FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000, AND THAT MOBILITY BONDS BE DESIGNATED AS THE FUNDING SOURCE. SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY FIVE CAUSE.

NUMBER 25. DASH. DASH 076550. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS MATTHEW MCCLURG.

ANGELA MOSES, AKA ANGELA MCCLURG ET AL. BOWSER ROAD PROJECT NUMBER 20306.

PARCEL 23, PRECINCT ONE. YES, I MOVED THAT IN 25 KV.

076550 FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS VERSUS MATTHEW MCCLURG.

ANGELA MOSES, AKA ANGELA MCCLURG ET AL. BOWSER ROAD PROJECT 2306.

PARCEL 23, PRECINCT ONE. BRIDGETT SMITH, LAWSON COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BE AUTHORIZED TO INCUR LITIGATION EXPENSES FOR ANY AND ALL COSTS OF PRETRIAL TRIAL APPEAL AND INCIDENTAL COSTS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL AD LITEM FEES, CITATION BY PUBLICATION FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000, AND THAT MOBILITY BONDS BE DESIGNATED AS THE FUNDING SOURCE.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

SIX. EEOC CHARGE NUMBER 460. DASH 2024. DASH 06682.

YES. I MOVE THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE TERMS OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO RESOLVE THE CASE.

EEOC CHARGE NUMBER 460202406682, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000.

AND I FURTHER MOVE THAT THE COUNTY JUDGE BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASE, AND TO APPROVE SUCH TERMS AND PROVISIONS FOR THE FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ALL MATTERS SET FORTH HEREIN IN THAT ACCOUNT.

855 OTHER SELF-FUNDED INSURANCE BE DESIGNATED AS A FUNDING SOURCE.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM? ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

SEVEN FORT BEND COUNTY BID NUMBER 22-032. PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON GREENBUSH ROAD.

MOBILITY BOND PROJECT NUMBER 13312. YES, I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVE AND ACCEPT A FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT

[03:10:04]

AGREEMENT RECOMMENDED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN CLOSED SESSION, TO APPROVE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS ASSERTED, OR WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ASSERTED BY OR BETWEEN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS AND RAK INDUSTRIES, LLC PERTAINING TO PROJECT 22 DASH 32 GREENBUSH ROAD.

AND THAT THE FUND ACCOUNT MOBILITY BONDS BE DESIGNATED AS THE FUNDING SOURCE.

SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

JUDGE, YOU WILL NEED TO ADJOURN GENERAL SESSION.

NO. THERE IS ONE MORE. THERE'S ONE MORE. YEAH.

OH, MY GOD, I'M TIRED. I'M SO SORRY. SECTION 551.072 DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY.

REAL PROPERTY IN ROSENBERG. NO ACTION. IT WAS ONLY FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES AT THIS TIME.

GOT TO TAKE THAT UP, JUDGE. WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T EVEN WE WE FORGOT TO DO THAT IN THE BACK.

NO WE DID, WE DID, WE DID, WE DID. YEAH. THAT WAS.

YEAH. HE HE GAVE US. OH YEAH. I THOUGHT IT WAS STRANGE THAT ITEM WASN'T ON THERE.

I WAS GOOD AT CATCHING EYE CATCHING. SO WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? AND WITH NO OBJECTION, THIS FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

THE GENERAL SESSION IS NOW ADJOURNED. BUT NOW WE WILL RECONVENE FOR FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. IT IS 5:00 EIGHT.

RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND CONSIDER TAKING ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS.

SECTION 551.07 FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS. SENIOR MANAGEMENT POSITION.

YES, I MOVE TO TAKE ANY AND ALL ACTION TO RECLASSIFY A VACANT DRAINAGE DISTRICT POSITION TO A FIRST ASSISTANT ENGINEER POSITION. PAY GRADE 115. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY WITH THAT, DO I MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MEETING ADJOURNED WITH NO OBJECTION.

THIS FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING TODAY. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

NOTICE OF MEETING FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT SECOND FLOOR, FORT BEND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 401 JACKSON STREET, RICHMOND, TEXAS TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025 1:00 P.M. AGENDA

May 13, 2025 REGULAR SESSION AGENDA

NOTICE OF MEETING FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT SECOND FLOOR, FORT BEND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 401 JACKSON STREET, RICHMOND, TEXAS TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2025 1:00 P.M. AGENDA

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item