[00:00:01]
[1. Opening Items]
FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS CALLED TO ORDER.SUMMER IS TRADITIONALLY A TIME WHERE TEXANS GATHER TO CELEBRATE.
WE JUST WENT THROUGH A 4TH OF JULY INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION AND THE TEXAS HEAT IS WELL UPON.
AND THEN WE'LL BE CELEBRATING.
KIDS RETURNS TO SCHOOL STARTING HERE IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THROUGHOUT ALL OUR STATES, RETAILERS HAVE STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE TO ENSURE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, AS SUMMERTIME INVOLVES A LOT OF TRAVEL AND GATHERING AND FESTIVITIES.
SO A SHOUT OUT IN PROGRESS I GUESS THAT MEANS I'M NOT STARTING OVER BUT THAT'S.
UM, SO WE JUST, WE JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE.
BUT WE, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE BEING HERE TODAY.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO HONORING OUR NATION WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE ANY OPENING COMMENTS FROM ANY OF YOU? NOTHING? NO. IT'S ODD.
THE ASTROS LOST LAST NIGHT, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
SO LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM TODAY.
I SO MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER ATKINS.
OUTSTANDING. I THANK YOU, SIR.
I WANT IT. ALSO, BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WELCOME OUR INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES.
AND WE MOST RECENTLY HAD A MEETING OF OUR ENFORCEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
COLEMAN IS WITH THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.
[2. Reports]
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE LA UPDATE.INTERIM DIRECTOR ADRIANO, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS LUIS SORIANO, CFO.
I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU THE LBW, AS WE REFER TO IT, THE LA.
IT'S THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST.
WE RECEIVED THE LETTER, THE LBW POLICY LETTER.
AND I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT IT'S ALSO WRITTEN BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PLANNING.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO JULY THE FIFTH.
AND UNDER THESE INSTRUCTIONS, THE R IS DUE AUGUST THE 12TH.
AT THIS TIME, THERE ARE NO REDUCTIONS TO BASELINE AMOUNTS.
SHOULD AGENCY SHOULD BE MINDFUL THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY REQUIRE REDUCTIONS IN THEIR 24 AND 25 APPROPRIATIONS AGENCIES WILL BE EXPECTED TO FULLY JUSTIFY MAINTAINING BASELINE SPENDING AMOUNTS. SO I EXPECT.
[00:05:03]
IN A NUTSHELL, THE LAW, THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST OR THE OTHER LAW IS A COMBINATION OF A BASELINE REQUEST IN THE EXCEPTIONAL EXCEPTIONAL NINE ITEMS IN THIS FOUR 2425.OUR BASELINE IS 100,222,000 AND $168.
WE'RE ASKING 31 FTES THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE 2025.
THE SECOND LINE ITEM IS THE ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL RESTORATION AND RETENTION.
AND THIS IS THE COMPONENT OF A OF THIS IS A TWOFOLD REQUEST.
IT'S TO FILL EXISTING VACANT POSITIONS AS WELL AS RETAINED RETENTION OF CURRENT STAFF.
THE THIRD ITEM, IT'S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRANSFORMATION, AND THAT IS THE FOURTH AND FINAL FACE OF AIMS. WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR THE FOURTH EXCEPTIONAL ITEM ITEM.
THERE IS A THE CONTINUATION OF AIMS FOR THE PAYMENT OF LICENSING AND SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE IN THE TUNE OF $1.2 MILLION EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM.
WE EXPECT THAT THAT NUMBER WILL CONTINUE GOING FORWARD EVERY BIENNIUM.
FIFTH EXCEPTIONAL LINE ITEM IS CYBERSECURITY FOR 309 3000.
AND THE LAST ONE IS THE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE THE THE VEHICLES AND ENFORCEMENT.
WE USUALLY GET ABOUT 700,000 EACH YEAR.
THE BIENNIUM THAT REPLACES ABOUT 15 TO 1717 CARS.
WE HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH THE WITH THE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE.
AND SO WE'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL $1.3 MILLION TO REPLACE 30 CARS.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF SUVS AND AND SEDANS.
NEXT PAGE. IN SUMMARY, WE ARE REQUESTING SIX EXCEPTIONAL LINE ITEMS TOTALING $30.4, 67 FTES FOR THE BIENNIUM, FOUR FOR A TOTAL ESTIMATED REQUEST OF 130.6 MILLION AND 707 FTES FOR THE BIENNIUM.
BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE EXCEPTIONAL ITEM REQUEST WAS AT THE LAST BANK? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, SIR, BUT I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU.
SO OBVIOUSLY THE LARGEST NUMBER IS THE INCREASE IN ENFORCEMENT.
I THINK THAT I UNDERSTAND WHY AS IT RELATES TO INDUSTRY GROWTH.
BUT DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING I HATE TO USE THE TERM ALGORITHMICALLY, OR DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF QUANTITATIVE DATA THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US TODAY THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN US COMING TO SORT OF PUTTING OUR PUTTING OUR HEAD BEHIND THE NUMBER AND THE INCREASE? SURE. NOR IS THIS HERE TODAY.
SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
GOOD MORNING. BECAUSE IT IS THE LARGEST, OBVIOUSLY EXCEPTIONAL ITEM REQUESTED.
SO I THINK WE COULD I THINK WE WOULD APPRECIATE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND THIS INCREASE AND THIS REQUEST BE TO BRITTANY KNAUSS, CHIEF OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE GONE IN AND WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A STAFFING FORMULA THAT IS LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT ARE COMING IN EVERY YEAR, HOW MANY HOURS THOSE COMPLAINTS TAKE TO INVESTIGATE, AND THEN BASICALLY JUST DOING THE MATH AND EXTRAPOLATING THAT OUT.
THEREFORE, WE NEED X AMOUNT OF AGENTS.
IT'S FAIRLY SIMPLE, BUT IT'S A VERY VALID STAFFING FORMULA, IF YOU WOULD.
WHENEVER WE DID DO IT, WE WENT BACK TO NUMBERS TO 2019 BECAUSE 2020 COVID HIT AND SO EVERYTHING WAS SO SKEWED FOR 2020 AND 2021 WE DID GO BACK TO OUR NUMBERS OF 2019 AND ALSO LOOKED AT 2018 TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS WE COULD BEFORE THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN.
BUT IT CAME OUT TO THAT'S WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THE 62 AGENTS.
NOW THIS IS STRICTLY ENFORCEMENT.
THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE TRACE OR SIUE OR ANY OF THOSE.
THIS IS HOW MANY ENFORCEMENT IS SHORT.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
[00:10:01]
I'LL BE HAPPY TO BREAK DOWN THE MATH EVEN FURTHER IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO.BUT THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
SO ON JUST THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, IS THIS NUMBER SCALED AT ALL FOR SALARY BASED INCREASES SO WE CAN BE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALARIES.
HOW MANY AGENTS DID WE TRAIN THIS YEAR? NEW AGENTS. HOW MANY DID DIRECTOR DEMINT MISS HERE? IT'S A TEAM EFFORT THIS PAST YEAR WITH A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANOMALY.
DARRELL, THE MAN INSPECTOR GENERAL.
I OVERSEE THE TRAINING DIVISION AS WELL.
THEY WERE HOLDOVERS THROUGH THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION PROCESS.
AND I BELIEVE THE GRAND TOTAL WAS 24.
SO 24 IS A IS A IS A GOOD SWEET SPOT FOR US, ALBEIT THE AGENCY DOES HAVE A HISTORY OF HAVING HAD ACADEMIES AS LARGE AS 60 CANDIDATES IN THE PAST. IN FACT, AT LEAST TWO OF THOSE GRADUATES ARE NOW TWO OF YOUR REGIONAL MAJORS.
SO WE'VE HAD A GOOD TRACK RECORD ON IT.
SO ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES ACROSS THE STATE, I MEAN, THERE IS A DRAMATIC NEED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AT EVERY LEVEL MUNICIPAL, STATE, COUNTY, ETC..
SO HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO RECRUIT 62 NEW AGENTS? DON'T ANSWER THAT. GO AHEAD.
THERE'S A LOT OF BURNOUT ON THE STREET.
SO WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MILITARY POLICE AND SPECIAL POLICE THAT COME OUT.
WE'VE GOT THE UNIVERSITIES SUCH AS SAM HOUSTON AND TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, AS WELL AS THE COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT SCATTERED AROUND THE STATE THAT ARE ALL VERY GOOD CENTERS OF GRAVITY FOR US TO RECRUIT POPULATIONS OUT OF.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE UNIVERSITIES, WHY DID YOU USE WHY DID YOU DESIGNATE THOSE THOSE THOSE TO HAVE CORRECTIONS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEGREE PATHS THAT ARE MOST RENOWNED WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS? WE LOOKED AT ANY OF THE OTHER UNIVERSITIES THAT WE HAVE.
WE'RE WE'RE CANVASING ALL UNIVERSITIES.
SO WE'RE NOT EXCLUDING ANYBODY, JUST THE STUDENT POPULATION.
ANOTHER ISSUE, IF YOU DON'T GO AHEAD, DON'T MIND WHEN IT COMES TO HIRING OF POLICE OFFICERS, WE ARE ALL WHEN I SAY WE ARE ALL ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR BASICALLY WE'RE ALL FISHING IN THE SAME POND.
RIGHT. AND SO IT IS COMPETITIVE.
AND SO THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WE'VE GOT TO NOT PUT PEOPLE ON ICE PER SE.
AND THEN IF WE HAVE TO TWEAK THE THE PROCEDURE AND IF WE HAVE TO TWEAK THE WAY WE'VE HISTORICALLY DONE IT, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING, KIND OF LOOKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE OURSELVES GIVE OURSELVES AN ADVANTAGE? AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS SO WE HIRE THEM.
WE PUT THEM INTO MAYBE AN FTO PROGRAM INITIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY CERTIFIED, RIGHT? THEY'RE ALREADY CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS.
[00:15:10]
WE PUT THEM THROUGH OUR AVC ACADEMY AT THAT POINT.BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE DONE HISTORICALLY IS WE'VE HELD OFF ALL THE ACADEMIES, NOT TILL APRIL, ACADEMIES, NOT TILL APRIL, AND OFFICERS JUST AREN'T THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT THAT LONG ANYMORE, AND THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO.
AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY OF CHANGING OUR PROCESSES IN OUR PROCEDURES TO TRY TO MAKE IT MORE FRIENDLY TO THE GOOD QUALITY APPLICANTS THAT WE WANT TO BRING IN.
SO HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE? AND IT HASN'T BEEN THESE PROCEDURES THAT YOU REFERENCED.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY IN WRITING THAT YOU PROPOSE TO BRING BACK TO US TO TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE MOVING, OR IS THIS SOMETHING YOU'RE DOING UNILATERALLY? WE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING IT.
WE DID TEST THE WATERS WITH THIS THIS PAST YEAR.
WE HAD A GROUP WHO CAME IN, WENT TO THE POLICE OR WENT TO THE AVC ACADEMY AND THEN WENT INTO FTO.
AND THEN WE HAD A GROUP WHO CAME IN PRIOR TO AND THEY ALL MET UP IN THE ACADEMY, IF YOU WOULD.
AND IT ACTUALLY WORKED OUT VERY WELL BECAUSE WE FOUND WE HAD ALL NEW AGENTS WITH LESS THAN A YEAR OF EXPERIENCE, BUT WE ALMOST HAD SORT OF A MENTORSHIP PROGRAM SET UP BECAUSE WE HAD HALF THE CLASS WHO WAS ABLE TO SAY, WELL, I'VE BEEN OUT IN THE FIELD FOR SIX MONTHS.
THIS IS SOME OF THE THINGS I'M EXPERIENCING.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS WHAT WOULD THE GOAL BE LIKE TIMELINE? HOW MANY DAYS ARE YOU SAYING TO TRUNCATE THE PROCESS DOWN TO? AND THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A POLICY IN PLACE, SOMETHING IN WRITING? I'D LIKE TO SEE IT MATCH TOWARDS THAT GOAL THAT YOU'RE SAYING WOULD PUT US IN THE MOST PRIME POSITION TO ATTRACT CANDIDATES BECAUSE WE I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA, WHAT YOU'RE STATING.
IT'S JUST AT SOME POINT IF WE IF IT'S.
IF WE FAIL IN BRINGING IN THE 62 THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE SHOULD TWEAK IT.
SO IF YOU COULD KIND OF WORK TOWARDS THAT FRAMEWORK.
NOTHING VERBOSE BULLET POINTS OF WHERE YOU THINK THE GOALS THAT YOU WANT, WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, AT LEAST FOR ME.
AND ALSO, LOOK, WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.
WE AS A STATE HAVE A DIVERSE POPULATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT JUST BE ONE FLAVOR.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE RECRUITING IT.
WE HAVE TO I GUESS, TO HBCUS IN TEXAS.
WE SHOULD BE YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD BE BROADENING THE NET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
HOUSTON, TILLERSON, TSU AND PRIVETT, WHO I THINK ALL HAVE PROGRAMS. I DO. AND SO AND I COMPLETELY AGREE, CHAIRMAN, THAT WE SHOULD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE REFLECT OUR DEMOGRAPHIC OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND WHO WE SERVE. TIME FOR OTHER QUESTIONS AND OR COMMENTS ON THE LA PROCESS.
I HAVE ONE, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANKS A LOT FOR THE PRESENTATION.
BRADY THANKS. TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION PROBABLY ISN'T FOR Y'ALL.
IT'S FOR OTHER OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM.
BUT IT DOES HAVE TO DO SPECIFICALLY WITH WITH LA.
AND SO I'M BRINGING IT UP NOW.
AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE, THE LAW REQUIRES US TO SET REASONABLE FEES AT AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE COSTS OF ADMINISTERING THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE.
AND THEN SECTION THREE 16.045 REQUIRES AGENCIES THAT SET THEIR FEES AT REASONABLE AND NECESSARY AMOUNTS TO COVER THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, TO REVIEW THEIR FEES EVERY BIENNIUM AND TO LOWER THEIR COSTS SO THAT THEY MATCH UP WITH IT.
THEY LOWER THEIR FEES SO THAT THEY MATCH UP WITH ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
AND THEN HERE'S WHAT THE LA COMES IN.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEVER BOTHERED TO FIGURE OUT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO DO THAT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS BY SECTION 5.50, THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE, AND THAT WE HAVE NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION THREE 16.45.
AND AND I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE IN IN THIS PRESENTATION THAT WE'VE THAT WE'VE TRIED TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT. AND I WANTED TO ASK STAFF, WHOEVER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, WHY OUR LA DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION THREE
[00:20:09]
16.045 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.WHY WE NEVER BOTHERED TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 25.5 OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE.
COMMISSIONER, IF I CAN ANSWER THAT.
WHEN I WHEN I GOT THE BASELINE FROM THE LBB $100 MILLION, AND THEN I GATHER UP ALL THE EXCEPTIONAL MINE ITEMS TOTALING $30 MILLION, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE THIRD PAGE OF THE PRESENTATION, IT'S $130 MILLION ALTOGETHER.
AND SO I CAME OUT TO $162 MILLION THAT I NEEDED TO COLLECT COLLECT ENOUGH REVENUE TO MEET MY APPROPRIATIONS, EXCEPTIONAL LINE ITEMS AND INDIRECT COST.
IN MY REVENUE PRESENTATION, YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ARE HEADED TOWARDS THAT NUMBER.
AGAIN, THIS PROBABLY IS A IS IT FOR YOU? IT'S IT'S FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT MAKING ANY ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE LAWS THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.
SECTION 5.50 OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE AND SECTION THREE 16.045 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH REQUIRE US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE, WHICH WE NEVER DID, AND THEN SET OUR FEES TO COVER OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, WHICH WE NEVER DID.
AND THEN TO REVIEW OUR FEES AND LOWER THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MATCH OUR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, WHICH WE NEVER DID, AND THEN INCLUDE THOSE RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THAT IN OUR LA THAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE LBB.
THIS REALLY ISN'T ABOUT YOU, AND IT'S NOT A CRITICISM OF YOUR OF YOUR GOOD PRESENTATION.
SINCE THE QUESTION FOR WHOEVER MAY BE IN THAT ROOM IN AUSTIN WHO DECIDED NOT TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 5.50 AND SECTION THREE 16.045, AND IF NOBODY WANTS TO STEP UP AND TALK ABOUT IT, THAT'S FINE.
I DO, HOWEVER, HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS PART OF MY OATH TO EXHAUST BEFORE PROTECTING DEFEND CONSTITUTION LAWS THIS STATE UNITED STATES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH LAWS AND THAT WHEN WE DON'T DO THAT, DO WHATEVER I CAN TO MAKE YOU COMPLY.
SO I WANT ANSWERS FROM ANYBODY WHO CAN PROVIDE THEM.
THANK YOU. ANYONE CARE TO ADDRESS THAT OR.
I'LL BE GLAD TO, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT.
AND I THINK YOU ELOQUENTLY LAID OUT THE LEGAL ARGUMENT.
THAT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION TO DIRECT STAFF TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.
AND THE STAFF WILL BE GLAD TO COMPLY WITH THAT.
SOUNDS LIKE HE'S IN YOUR BASIS FOR THE NUMBERS YOU'RE DOING THAT YOU'RE JUST NOT SPELLING IT OUT ON PAPER AND PRESENTING IT AS PART OF THE FORMULA THAT YOU PRESENT TO THE BOARD. IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT YOU YOU STATED.
DO YOU THINK YOU COULD PRODUCE SOMETHING THAT HELPED LAY THAT OUT MORE IN A FORMULAIC MANNER FOR COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT? AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, YOU PROVIDE THAT AS KIND OF JUST THE BASELINE FOR PURPOSES OF PRESENTATION SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THAT SECTION IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS APPLICABILITY.
SO IT'S REALLY KIND OF COMBINING THE TWO TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE REPORT.
OKAY. SO THEY'RE REALLY THEY'RE RELATED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE THEY BOTH HAVE TO DO WITH WITH FEES, BUT THEY'RE NOT RELATED IN THE SENSE THAT THAT THE REVENUE PROJECTION DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SECTION THREE 16.45.
[00:25:04]
ANYWAY, MATT, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT LEGAL ADVICE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVIDED TO ME.THE ONLY LEGAL ADVICE THAT I'VE SEEN FROM FROM THE AGENCY, A FORMAL LEGAL OPINION PRODUCED BY OUR GENERAL COUNSEL CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY AND COMPLETELY AGREES WITH WITH MY TAKE, IF THERE'S OTHER LEGAL ADVICE, I NEED TO SEE IT.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IS AN ARTICULATION OF THE OTHER SIDE.
IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THESE STATUTES, FINE.
BUT WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS HAVE A COMMISSIONER LIKE ME BRING IT UP AT SEVERAL MEETINGS, CLEARLY LAY OUT MY OPINION, RIGHT OR WRONG, AND THEN HAVE NOTHING HAPPENED.
AND THEN WHEN I SAY WHY HASN'T HAD WHY HASN'T ANYTHING HAPPENED, BE TOLD? WELL, THERE'S LEGAL ADVICE THAT THAT CONFLICTS WITH THAT.
THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. THIS IS A PUBLIC LAW.
BOTH OF THESE LAWS FOR PUBLIC LAWS, THEY WERE PROPOSED, DEBATED AND ENACTED IN PUBLIC.
THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
ONE GOOGLE SEARCH TWO OR THREE CLICKS AWAY.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH THEM, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT PUBLICLY.
IF I'M WRONG ABOUT COMPLIANCE, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A PUBLIC CASE MADE ABOUT THAT.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BASELINE VERSION 162 MILLION.
IT HAS TO DO WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 5.5 OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE THAT WE SET REASONABLE FEES AND AMOUNTS NECESSARY TO COST COVER THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE CODE.
WE NEVER BOTHERED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR COSTS OF ADMINISTERING THE CODE WERE.
IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS LA DID.
IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT, I NEED A PUBLIC CASE, THOUGH.
I NEED TO HEAR IN PUBLIC WHY THAT'S WRONG.
SO MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS AT THE NEXT.
I WANT TO KNOW. I WANT TO KNOW DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I THINK WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT, FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE'RE MOVING TO THE NEXT AGENDA.
I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. NO, PLEASE.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIFICALLY AT 62 AGENTS.
THE NEXT ITEM IS. THE ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, RESTORATION AND RETENTION.
COULD YOU GIVE ME WHAT CONSTITUTES THAT NUMBER? IS THAT WHAT'S THE FORMULA THAT WE GOT TO AND HOW MUCH PERSONNEL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THESE ITEMS WOULD REALLY BE, I THINK, HELPFUL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN THE IN THESE NUMBERS.
YOU DID MENTION IN ITEM SIX THAT THAT NUMBER SPECIFICALLY IS GOING TO GO TO 30 VEHICLES, BUT WHAT'S THE CYBERSECURITY NUMBER GOING TOWARDS? AND I BELIEVE YOU ALSO MENTIONED AIMS IS LICENSING.
BUT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, WHAT ARE THESE NUMBERS REALLY GOING TO COVER? SURE, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLAIN THAT.
THERE'S ABOUT 15 LPS POSITIONS, 20 AGENT POSITIONS AND 15 POSITIONS THAT ARE VACANT.
THAT'S APPROXIMATELY $2.7 MILLION.
AS MENTIONED LAST COMMISSION MEETING, THE 2020 SALARY REVIEW STATED THAT TO VC, IT'S ABOUT 80% OF 80% OF THE STAFF AT ABC GET PAID BELOW THE MIDPOINT SALARY RANGE THERE IS CURRENTLY ON SALE STUDY UNDERGOING IN ITS WAY, AND IT'S POINTING OUT THAT IF THEY IMPLEMENT THIS THOSE SALARY, IF IF THEY IF THE STUDY GETS IMPLEMENTED AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THOSE SALARIES WILL BE UPGRADED TO SALARIES COMPARABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, I SPOKE TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS WHO WAS INTERVIEWING FOR ONE POSITION.
[00:30:06]
THAT DIRECTOR HAD TEN CANDIDATES SCHEDULED TO BE INTERVIEWED.ONLY TWO OF THEM SHOWED UP AND THE OTHER ONES CANCELED.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE ABOUT A 13% TURNOVER IN THE AUDITOR CLASSIFICATION AND 10% TURNOVER IN THE LPS.
OKAY. CAN I PIGGYBACK ON I KNOW WE NEED TO MOVE, SO NO, NO, NO, IT'S ALL GOOD.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND JUST DOING THE MATH ON THE ENFORCEMENT GROWTH.
WE SAY THE NUMBER OF FTES, 31 AT 4.8 MILLION, AND THAT COMES OUT AND TELL ME IF THIS IS BASED ON THIS TYPE OF OR AM I SEEING THIS RIGHT AWAY, THAT'S 155,000 PER PERSON.
BUT THEN AND THEN 62 FTES, 2025 IS $122,000 PER PERSON.
IF WE ARE APPLYING THE MATH TO FTE, IS THAT THE SALARY RANGE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO BE COMPETITIVE? OR JUST GIVE ME SOME BACKGROUND ON HOW THE NUMBER, THE SPECIAL ITEM REQUESTS AND THE NUMBER OF FTES ACTUALLY WORKS, BECAUSE IF IT IS BASED ON JUST THE SIMPLE DIVISION I, RIGHT, THAT'S A LOT OF EXPENSIVE.
SO I WOULD THINK WE'D HAVE NO PROBLEMS FILLING THOSE JOBS.
RIGHT. WHAT THE THE AMOUNTS IN THERE INCLUDE OFFICE SPACE.
THEY INCLUDE LICENSES, THEY INCLUDE THE CARS.
THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM, YOU'RE BUYING 31 CARS FOR 31 FTES.
SO YOU'RE NOW BUYING AN ADDITIONAL 31 CARS FOR THE 2025.
AND SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF CELL PHONES, BODY ARMOR, RIFLE AND SCOPE PISTOLS.
SO SO YOU'RE SAYING THE NUMBER IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ALL TIED TO FTES AND EXCEPTION ITEM ONE? THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S TIED TO I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF WE HAD INFORMATION.
I AGREE ON ALL OF THESE BECAUSE ITEMS. I HAVE TO ASK WHAT YOU HAVE TO DIG DEEPER BEHIND THIS.
AND THEN EVEN WITH FIFTIES, A SPECIAL ITEM REQUEST IS NOT GUARANTEED TO BE CONTINUED.
IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, IF THEY IF THESE POSITIONS WERE APPROVED IN 20 AND 25, THEN WE WOULD SPEND THE MONEY AND THEREFORE THE BASELINE WOULD GROW TO THAT AMOUNT. AND SO OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD BE FUNDED.
IN THE 25, 26, 27, WHATEVER THE LEGISLATURE GAVE YOU BASELINE, CORRECT? RIGHT. SO WHAT IS THE START RIGHT NOW? WHAT IS THE STARTING SALARY FOR AGENT LEVEL ONE? I DON'T KNOW. JUST RECENTLY.
IS AMANDA HERE? WHAT DO YOU HAVE? OH, THAT'S ALL.
SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER FOUR YEARS, THEY GO UP TO THEM.
THEY GET A RAISE AFTER A YEAR WHEN THEY GET OFF PROBATION.
SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE THE WAY IT WORKS.
THEY'RE HIRED ON A PROBATIONARY AGENT, AND THEN AFTER ONE YEAR OF SERVICE WITH SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE, THEY BUMP UP TO THE PROBATIONARY AGENT, WHERE EVERY THREE YEARS WE GET THAT BUILT IN PAY INCREASE.
SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO PREDICT FOR THE.
I'M GOING TO GO ON RECORD. THAT IS THAT'S NOT ENOUGH, RIGHT? I DON'T I DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THAT.
BUT IF ANYONE'S LISTENING, THAT IS TOO LOW.
THAT'S WE HAVE TO SHOUT ON A ROOFTOP THAT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.
I DON'T WITH WHAT THEY DO AND HOW IMPORTANT.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. IT'S MORE TO YOUR POINT.
PROBABLY THE HIGHEST PAID AREA IN THE STATE IS PROBABLY THE METROPLEX.
I MEAN, THERE'S PROBABLY EXCEPTIONS.
THERE'S POCKETS OF EXCEPTIONS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, STARTING AGENCIES OUT THERE, THEY'RE STARTING BETWEEN 60 AND 70.
AND SO TO YOUR POINT, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND IT'S CHALLENGING WHATEVER YOU'RE TRYING AGAIN.
[00:35:01]
SAME, SAME POOL.WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FISH OUT OF THIS NEW POOL.
AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT WHENEVER WE'RE COMING UP OFFERING 50 GRAND A YEAR AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, I CAN START 15, 20 GRAND HIGHER RIGHT HERE.
THIS GETS US TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THAT BASELINE TO BE COMPETITIVE.
IT HAD A NEGATIVE APPROACH OR PERCEPTION OF PAY FOR ALL OF OUR CEO'S.
THEIR PERCEPTION WENT UP BECAUSE OF THAT BUMP TO SCHEDULE.
SO RIGHT NOW WE BRING THEM IN A PROBATIONARY AGENT AT 49,000.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT FOUR YEARS.
SO 72,000 IS WHAT THEY HAVE FOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE AGENCY.
SO IT TAKES OUR AGENTS FOUR YEARS TO GET TO THE BALLPARK OF WHERE A LOT OF AGENCIES ARE STARTING.
AND IT'S GOT TO BE COMPETITIVE IMMEDIATELY.
WE'RE ARGUING AGAINST THE SCHEDULE, WHICH CLEARLY WE DON'T CONTROL RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S TRUE FOR DPS, THAT'S TRUE FOR PARKS AND WILDLIFE.
IT'S TRUE FOR ALL STATE POLICE OFFICERS.
THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE DID TRY TO GET AN ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION IN OUR IN OUR SCHEDULE C RIGHT NOW WE HAVE COMMISSIONER AGENTS AND AGENTS, BUT WE TRY TO GET A SENIOR AGENT CLASSIFICATION THAT BROUGHT THEM IN MORE.
THE SENIOR LEVEL. I'M SORRY, THE SERGEANT PAY LEVEL.
RECRUITMENT TOOLS, BUT THAT GOT DENIED BY THE LEGISLATURE LAST SESSION.
SO WE WILL BE. HOW TO GET THIS YEAR.
AND SO TO CLARIFY, WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT IF WE WANT TO MAKE A LATERAL HIRE OF, SAY, A SERGEANT FROM HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING HIM OR HER IN AT 49,000, WE CAN BRING THEM AT MORE OF A COMPARABLE PAY LEVEL, WHICH SEEMS VERY REASONABLE TO ME.
YES. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO GET THAT THROUGH AGAIN OR WE OR NOT.
AND ONCE WE IF WE GET THAT APPROVED, WE'LL BE ABLE TO BRING THEM IN AT ABOUT 81,000 VERSUS THE.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION NEXT.
COMMISSION MEETING. WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT BROUGHT UP.
SO IF WE COULD HAVE THAT ON THE NEXT AGENDA, PLEASE.
ABSOLUTELY. RIGHT. EXCELLENT DISCUSSION.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS REVENUE PROJECTION.
DIRECTOR ARIANNA, YOU DON'T GET TO LEAVE.
COMMISSIONERS, LAST COMMISSION MEETING.
THE BOARD ASKED FOR A REVENUE UPDATE.
I ONLY DID THOSE TWO BECAUSE THE OTHER ONES, THE OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE ARE ONLY 10%.
SO I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON LICENSING REVENUE AND EXCISE TAX.
FIRST GRAPH SHOWS TWO BIENNIALS 18, 19, 20 AND 21.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S ALL OVER THE BOARD AVERAGED FOR 18 AND 19.
IT'S $73 A YEAR, AVERAGE FOR 20 AND 21 WAS $73 MILLION A YEAR AS WELL.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN, IN THE JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER MONTHS, WE WERE EXPERIENCING OUR VALUES THERE.
SO WE'RE ABOUT TO EXPERIENCE IN 2022 OUR LOWEST MONTHS OF THE YEAR.
IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THIS WAS THE REVENUE PROJECTED TO MEET OUR OUR EXPENDITURES, AND WE ALSO PROJECTED JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER TO BE OUR LOWEST MONTHS OF THE YEAR.
WE PROJECTED $153 MILLION TO COVER THE OPERATIONS OF THE AGENCY BACK THEN.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH TEN MONTHS OF REVENUE.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT 2022 WAS A VERY ODD YEAR.
IF YOU SEE SEPTEMBER MONTH, WE'VE COLLECTED $17 MILLION IN SEPTEMBER.
[00:40:04]
AND THAT'S SKEWED A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN AMES STARTED.AMES WAS THE LICENSE RENEWAL AND APPLICATIONS WAS CLOSED IN AUGUST.
SO 2021 WAS SHORTED OUT AND 2021 HAS THAT INCREASE.
ALSO, IN NOVEMBER, THERE WAS A THE REVENUE EXTENSIONS EXPIRED AND THAT'S WHERE WE SEE A BIG JUMP IN IN APPLICATIONS AND RENEWALS TO THE TUNE OF 12 MILLION.
ALL IN ALL, FROM SEPTEMBER THROUGH THROUGH JUNE, WE HAVE COLLECTED $84.5 MILLION.
AGAIN, WE'RE HEADED INTO THE LOWEST INTO THE INTO THE VALLEY FOR THE NEXT FEW MONTHS.
WE WENT AHEAD AND TRENDED IT THROUGHOUT THE THE THE FISCAL YEAR THROUGH AUGUST 2023.
AND IT SEEMS THAT WE DID A PRETTY GOOD PROJECTION, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IN SEPTEMBER WE GOT $17 MILLION IN IN THE COFFERS. NEXT PAGE.
THESE ARE REMEDIES FOR EXCISE TAXES.
WE'RE RUNNING ABOUT $214 MILLION IN 2022.
WE'RE EXPECTING TO TO COME IN AT TO 60 TO $65 MILLION THIS YEAR.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE A SPIKE IN IN JULY OF 2020.
IF OUR REQUEST, AS WITH THE BASELINE IN THE EXCEPTION OF NINE ITEMS PLUS THE INDIRECT COSTS TOTALING 160, I THINK THAT WE ARE REVENUE PROJECTIONS WOULD WOULD WOULD MEET THAT.
AND I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO CONTINUE TO PRODUCE THIS METRIC SO WE CAN SEE THIS MOVING BASIS.
YOU'VE BEEN THE FIRST PERSON TO ACTUALLY WELL, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT WE PULLED THIS BACK.
YOU'VE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION NUMEROUS TIMES.
JUST I LIKE THIS FORMAT THE MOST.
BE SURE TO MENTION THAT TO MY STAFF, THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT COMPILE IT.
I AGREE. I MEAN, THERE'S JUST SO MUCH, YOU KNOW, DON'T PAY YOUR TAXES YET.
IT MAKES YOUR JOB HARD FOR A LITTLE BIT UNTIL YOU.
WOULD YOU LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE A MATERIAL DROP FROM PROJECTIONS? YOU KNOW, I GUESS YOU WOULD COME BACK.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COMES BACK EVERY MEETING NOW, THIS KIND OF SNAPSHOT.
OR WE CAN REQUEST THIS QUESTION.
YEAH. YEAH. SO MAYBE IF IT'S HELPFUL IN THE MONTHLY COMMISSIONER'S REPORT, WE CAN JUST PUT IT VERSUS THE HARD LINE DATA THAT COMES IN THE SPREADSHEET WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM FOR US TO HAVE THAT FOR YOU IN YOUR MONTHLY COMMISSIONER'S REPORT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO TRACK SOME MATERIAL DEFICIT FROM THE PROJECTED REVENUE MODEL WOULD NOT A REASON FOR ALARM.
IS THERE STORY THERE? YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. YES, CHAIRMAN LEWIS.
THERE AREN'T ANY. THANKS A LOT FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THERE AREN'T ANY EXACT FIGURES IN IT.
THERE ARE SOME RANGES ON THE Y AXIS AND AND I TRIED TO ESTIMATE WHEN A PLOT OF A WHEN A LINE ENDS UP TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY BETWEEN 7,000,008 MILLION ON A GIVEN MONTH, I TRIED TO SAY, OKAY, WELL THAT'S 7.7 MILLION, BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW.
[00:45:02]
I'M JUST GUESSING.COULD YOU GIVE US SOME EXACT FIGURES? I THINK YOU SAID YOU JUST SAID 84.5 MILLION.
SO WE'VE WE HAVE, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE IN THE PRESENTATION.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT.
WE HAVE COLLECTED 84.5 MILLION FROM LICENSING PERMIT FEES SO FAR THIS BIENNIUM.
IS THAT RIGHT? ONLY AN EXCISE TAX.
COMMISSIONER, I STAND CORRECTED.
I STAND CORRECTED. REVENUE THAT WE COLLECTED FROM LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES SO FAR THIS BIENNIUM.
HOW MUCH REVENUE HAVE WE COLLECTED FROM EXCISE TAXES SO FAR? THIS MY NAME IS A 214.
YES, SIR. YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO WE'VE COLLECTED ABOUT $300 MILLION FROM LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES AND FROM EXCISE TAXES SO FAR.
THAT'S FINE. THEN OUT OF THE 24 MONTHS OF THE BUDGET, A LITTLE LESS THAN HALFWAY THROUGH THE BIENNIUM, WE'VE COLLECTED $300 MILLION FROM THOSE TWO SOURCES OF REVENUE, CORRECT? YES. OKAY.
HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO COLLECT IN ORDER TO SATISFY RIDER SEVEN SO THAT THE COMPTROLLER DOESN'T INSTRUCT THE ASS THE LBB TO TO WITHHOLD OUR APPROPRIATION? HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE TO RAISE IN REVENUE INTO BIENNIUM PER THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT? WHAT IS THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT? IS IT ABOUT $130 MILLION? IT'S ABOUT 150 HUNDRED AND $60.
BECAUSE YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT INDIRECT COST.
HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THAT? WITH THAT FIGURE, I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH USING 2425 NUMBERS.
IF YOU ADD TO THAT THE $30 MILLION OF EXCEPTIONAL LINE ITEMS, YOU GIVE IT TO 130.
THEN YOU ADD AN ADDITIONAL 32 TO $33 IN INDIRECT COST.
SO THAT'S WHY IT SAID THAT IT'S ABOUT $163 MILLION THAT I WOULD HAVE TO COLLECT REVENUE IN ORDER TO PAY MY BASELINE AND EXCEPTIONAL LINE ITEMS. AND INDIRECT COST.
OKAY. SO LET'S LET'S SAY THAT THAT'S RIGHT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS 130 MILLION BECAUSE YOU ADD IN IN OUR APPROPRIATION, YOU ADD THE 2022 METHOD OF FINANCING TO THE 2023, IT'S 47.9 PLUS 48.9.
LET'S JUST SAY FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, IT'S ACTUALLY 160.
FAIR ENOUGH. WE HAVE COLLECTED $300 LESS THAN HALFWAY THROUGH THE BIENNIUM.
THAT'S OVER TWICE AS MUCH AS I THOUGHT WE HAD TO COLLECT FOR FOR THE BIENNIUM.
IT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS AS YOU'RE SAYING.
WE NEED TO COLLECT. WE'LL GO WITH THAT NUMBER.
CORRECT. COMMISSIONER, THE WAY I READ THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, THE REVENUE THAT IT'S USED TO MATCH MY EXPENDITURES, IT'S JUST COMPRISED OF FEES, LICENSING FEES, NOT TAXES.
GOOD. SO HOW DID HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THAT IN RIDER SEVEN TO APPROPRIATIONS ACT? IT SAYS FINES, FEES, FINES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES AUTHORIZED AND GENERATED BY THE OPERATION OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE, SECTION 205.02 SHALL COVER.
SO WE GO OVER TO SECTION 205.2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, AND IT LISTS THE KINDS OF FEES THAT WE THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR RIDER SEVEN OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ACT.
IT SAYS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF TAX STAMPS AND FUNDS DERIVED FROM TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINE, BEER AND ALE AND MALT LIQUOR.
IS THAT IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM EXCISE TAXES?
[00:50:01]
HONEST QUESTION.BUT IF IT IS, I NEED TO KNOW AREN'T THOSE EXCISE TAXES? SO, COMMISSIONER BULL. RIGHT. I'LL TAKE A STAB AT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.
SO AS CHIEF HARRY MENTIONED, WE'RE BASING IT ON THE FINES AND FEES THAT WE COLLECT, WHICH CURRENTLY THIS YEAR IS 84.5 MILLION TO 214 MILLION THAT WE'VE COLLECTED DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS OUR REVENUE, TOWARDS APPROPRIATION.
I'M TALKING TO YOU. IT'S PUBLIC, BUT ONE ON ONE.
IS THAT IN YOUR OPINION OR IS THAT NOT EXCISE TAXES? NO. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE COUNT TOWARDS REVENUE, TOWARDS PROCREATION UNDER THAT PACIFIC.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASK YOU.
ARE THOSE EXCISE TAXES OR NOT? JUST TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.
NO. WELL, WHAT ARE THAT? WHAT? WHAT? HOW, HOW.
HOW ARE THOSE NOT EXCISE TAXES? COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT, I'D BE GLAD TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE LEGAL OPINION OF COUNSEL AS THE APPLICABILITY OF THOSE FEES, IF THAT WOULD HELP THIS.
I'M JUST TALKING TO YOU. YOU'RE A LAWYER.
YOU'RE A VERY SOPHISTICATED GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE.
IF THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO HAVE? I'M GOING TO HAVE TO INTERJECT.
I THINK A DIRECT CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU AND THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CAN HAPPEN OFFLINE.
AND WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH AND RELY UPON OPINIONS OF STAFF AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.
SO AT THIS POINT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS HEARING? NO. I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TALKING.
HOLD ON. I'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU ONLINE OR OFFLINE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT YOU WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
IT APPEARS TO ME THAT RIDER SEVEN AND SECTION 205.2, TWO OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE CLEARLY INCLUDE EXCISE TAXES, AND WE HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED ENOUGH REVENUE FROM FEES AND EXCISE TAXES TO COVER THE COST OF OUR APPROPRIATION, WHETHER IT'S $130 MILLION OR FOUR FOR 160 MILLION.
WE HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED THAT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MORE DATA.
AND IF THIS KEEPS GETTING PUSHED DOWN THE ROAD, NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT.
I'M ONE OF FIVE, BUT I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, THAT I THINK AND I HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY, JUST STATS AS THIS.
I HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED IN PUBLIC OR IN PRIVATE WITH ANY REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PLAIN INTERPRETATION OF OF THESE LAWS WHICH APPLY TO US.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION WANT US TO BE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO FIRST.
IF WE HAVE LAWS THAT ARE CLEARLY TELLING US WHAT TO DO AND WE JUST FEEL LIKE, OKAY, NOW WE'RE GOOD.
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE ARE WE SENDING TO THE TO THE PEOPLE WHO WE ROUTINELY PENALIZE FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE AND TITTLE OF EVERY EVERY REGULATION WE PROMULGATE? IT'S NOT GOOD.
WE HAVEN'T DONE IT BEFORE. WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT THIS WAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ON DOING IT.
WELL, WE CAN'T WE WE CAN'T TOLERATE THAT KIND OF EXPLANATION FOR FOR FOR FOR THE PEOPLE.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SAY, OH, YOU DRIVE DRUNK.
OH, YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME.
WHAT'S OKAY? SO WHEN GIRLS OUT OF THE BACK OF A BAR, WELL, YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME.
WE DON'T SAY THAT. WE SAY THE OPPOSITE.
LET'S ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE LAW.
[00:55:03]
NOW, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSERTION.I BELIEVE THE AGENCY IS FOLLOWING ALL LAWS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH.
I THINK I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
I THOUGHT THAT YOU JUST SAID YOU'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE LEGAL ARGUMENT IN PUBLIC.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AS IT RELATES TO INTERIM DIRECTOR ARELLANO'S PRESENTATION? HAVING HEARD NONE. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER. GOOD MORNING.
WE STARTED THIS ROLLOUT WAY BACK ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO AND DID A LOT OF TESTING.
SO WE PUT THE SYSTEM ON HOLD BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GET THE HARDWARE THAT WE NEEDED.
WE THEN ACQUIRED MOST OF THE HARDWARE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS AND IN MAY OF 2022, WE MADE A DECISION WE WERE LACKING 35 PRINTERS TO CONTINUE THE ROLLOUT, BUT WE MADE A DECISION THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVELY START THE ROLLOUT AND GET THIS PROJECT FINISHED UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
SO I REACHED OUT TO ITD HAD A MEETING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF ITD AND WE GOT THE PROJECT ROLLING.
WE PROVIDED THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM WITH THE NUMBERS.
WE NEEDED A NUMBER OF DEVICES WE NEEDED AT EACH PORT LOCATION.
THEY DID ALL THE PREPPING OF THE DEVICES THAT WE HAD ON HAND AND INVENTORIED ALL THE ASSETS.
WE THEN HAD A HAD ALL OUR PORTS PROVIDERS COME TO AUSTIN JULY 7TH.
IT'D PROVIDED FOR ANY MODULE WE SENT OUR SUPERVISORS.
MA'AM, WHAT IS IT STAND FOR? INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT DIVISION.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE CONTINUED WITH THE USER TESTING THAT WE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
WE HAD A COUPLE OF LEVEL ONE PRIORITY ISSUES THAT CREPT UP.
ONE WAS TO FIX THE TAB FOR THE BEER AND MALT AND COMBINE IT AS THE LAW REQUIRES.
AND THE SECOND WE HAD A PAYMENT SYSTEM PROCESSING THAT HAD TO DO WITH REALLY BSD AND THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE PAYMENTS THAT CAME IN FROM ALL THE TRANSACTIONS.
SO THAT'S BEING WORKED ON AS WE SPEAK BY THE VENDOR AND WE HOPE TO HAVE A FINAL FIX FOR THAT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
WE WILL CONTINUE THE USER TESTING AND WE HAVE A SOFT ROLLOUT DATE AS OF THE LATTER PART OF AUGUST OR FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
THANKS FOR YOUR QUESTION. I WENT DOWN TO ONE OF THE PORTS OF ENTRY.
I SAW THE OLD SYSTEMS, VERY ARCHAIC.
SO TELL ME THE EFFICIENCIES OF THE NEW SOFTWARE HARDWARE.
AND THEN ALSO, WE DON'T KNOW THE MONEY THAT'S PAID AT THE PORT OF ENTRY.
DON'T THEY DON'T EVER HIT TBC COFFERS.
IT GOES STRAIGHT TO CONTROLLER ACCOUNTS.
CORRECT. THERE'S NO STOP AT THE TBC THEN TO THE CONTROLLER.
NO, THEY DO COME THEY DO COME TO STOP HERE FIRST.
YES THEY DO. WE HAVE TO REMIT THOSE TO THE CONTROLLER.
THERE'S NO ABILITY TO TAKE ANY OF THOSE FUNDS AND MOVE THEM IN.
OKAY. SO TELL ME ABOUT THE EFFICIENCIES AND THE INABILITY TO PAY, IF ANY, BECAUSE TODAY MOST PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO USE THEIR PHONE TO GET BY AND MAKE A PAYMENT. DO WE HAVE THAT CAPABILITY WITH THIS NEW HARDWARE? THE WEB. PORTALS FOR THE NEW HEALTH SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE A PORT PASS PORTAL WHERE IT'LL GIVE THE CUSTOMERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY ONLINE BEFORE THEY GET TO OUR PAYMENT BOOTH.
[01:00:04]
THEY WOULD PAY ON. AND A QR CODE WOULD BE PROVIDED AND THEY WOULD PROVIDE THAT QR CODE TO US.WE STILL VERIFY. THERE YOU GO.
SO THAT WOULD SPEED UP THE SYSTEM QUITE A BIT.
AND SO THAT'S THE MARKETING, THAT COMPONENT TO DO.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL MARKETING PART THAT'S INTERNAL.
BUT I'M SAYING TO THE CONSUMER, WILL THAT BE MARKETED TO THE CONSUMER AS AN OPTION? YES, SIR. THAT'S GREAT.
ANOTHER EFFICIENCY IS GOING TO BE THE FACT THAT WE CAN WE CAN WE WILL BE ABLE TO REALLY ADVERTISE AND HOPEFULLY INCREASE OUR USE OF CREDIT CARD PAYMENT.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S HOVERED ABOUT 19% OF THE CUSTOMERS PAY BY CREDIT CARD.
SECONDLY, OUR CURRENT POETIC SYSTEM ARE HARDWARE IS BASICALLY OBSOLETE AND WE HAVE A HARD TIME EVEN USING THE FUNCTION TO USE CREDIT CARDS.
GOOD. VERY GOOD. HOW'S EVERYBODY DOING? WELL, EVERYBODY'S DOING VERY GOOD, SIR.
YEAH. NOW, IN THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, WE'VE IMPROVED THE LAREDO FACILITY.
RIGHT. THAT'S BEEN COMPLETELY UPDATED.
LAREDO WAS UPDATED TWO YEARS AGO BY THE FEDERAL.
SO OUR FOLKS ARE NOT NECESSARILY OUT IN THE.
THEY'RE OUTSIDE, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE SOME GO IN AND OUT.
THEY HAVE TO WORK, MEET THAT AIR CONDITION.
AND THEN WHEN THE CUSTOMER COMES TO THE BOOTH, THEY HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE AND DEAL WITH THEM.
ARE ANY OF THE OTHER FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE, IN YOUR OPINION, SUBSTANDARD FOR OUR PERSONNEL? WELL, MOST OF THE FACILITIES THAT WE USE ARE RENTED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FROM THE GSA.
THEY DON'T BELONG TO ABC, SO SOME OF THEM ARE VERY OLD.
AS YOU GET DOWN TO THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY THERE.
SOME OF THEM ARE IN VERY BAD SHAPE.
THE VETERAN'S BOOTH IS IS RUSTING AWAY.
THE SALT AIR DOWN IN BROWNSVILLE AREA REALLY DESTROYING THAT.
AND WE'VE ASKED THEM TO REPLACE IT.
WE'RE NOT RELYING UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THOSE FACILITIES, SIR.
WE'RE 100% RELIANT UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE THOSE FACILITIES.
MY FOLKS DO A FANTASTIC JOB AND THEY THEY WORK DILIGENTLY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE.
AND WE WE DO OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WE HAVE A GOOD WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT.
IT MAY NOT LOOK GOOD ON THE OUTSIDE AND IT MAY BE OLD ON THE INSIDE, BUT IT'S CLEAN, IT'S PRESENT, IT'S PRESENTABLE FOR THE CUSTOMERS, AND IT WORKS FOR US.
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
CHIEF BRADY, YOU ARE DOING IMPORTANT THINGS AND WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS SUNSET IMPLEMENTATION.
THANK YOU. SO GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIRMAN.
I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TODAY OF UPDATING YOU ALL ON THE AGENCY SUNSET IMPLEMENTATION.
SO FOR THE 2019 SESSION, CIP WAS FORMED TO IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION, BUT ALSO TO EVALUATE INTERNAL PROCESSES FOR EFFICIENCIES AND EFFECTIVENESS. BUT FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS, THE FOCUS WAS DEFINITELY ON SUNSET IMPLEMENTATION.
SO SUNSET GAVE US TWO TO DO LIST.
ONE IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE BILL 1545, THE SUNSET BILL, AND THEN CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIVES IN THE FORM OF A MANAGEMENT ACTION THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THE SUNSET ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SO I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT STAFF HAS DONE EVERYTHING WE'RE DONE.
[01:05:02]
TEARS THAT WENT INTO IT AND ALL THAT WITH THE PLANNING AND COORDINATION.BUT EVERYTHING'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND EVERY STATUTORY DEADLINE WAS MET.
NEXT, SLIGHTLY. SO WE HAD THREE PHASES OF IMPLEMENTATION.
THE FIRST ONE WAS SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2019, WHICH WE'LL SEE IN THIS MOST RED COLOR.
THE HIGHLIGHT OF THAT, I WOULD SAY, WAS THE ELIMINATION OF 14 LICENSES OF PERMIT TYPES.
BY DOING THAT, THE LEGISLATURE GOT RID OF 30 INDIVIDUAL AGENT PERMITS.
PHASE TWO WAS DECEMBER 31ST, 2020.
THAT'S THE BLUE. THE HIGHLIGHT FROM THAT I WOULD SAY IS PRODUCT REGISTRATION.
SO WE USED TO CALL IT LABEL APPROVAL, BUT THE LEGISLATURE STREAMLINED THE PROCESSING OF A DISTILLER WINERY OR A BREWERY TO REGISTER THEIR PRODUCT IN TEXAS FOR SALE. AND THEN CAME SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021.
AND THERE WERE THREE MAJOR EVENTS THAT HAPPENED AT THAT TIME.
SO FEES ARE SET BY THE COMMISSION AND THEIR NEW LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES.
THE SECOND ITEM WOULD BE LICENSE AND PERMIT STRUCTURE.
SO NOT ONLY DID THE LEGISLATURE COMBINE BEER AND ALE INTO A BEVERAGE WHICH HAD AN IMPACT AND ALSO MANY AREAS, BUT ALSO THEY FURTHER REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LICENSE AND PERMIT TYPES.
SO WHEN THAT SUNSET BILL PASSED, WE HAD 76 PERMITS AND NOW WE'RE AT 37.
AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM, ALTHOUGH NOT IN THE SUNSET, BILL, WAS TECHNOLOGY.
SO AMES ALSO INTRODUCED SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THERE WERE SOME NON STATUTORY RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE SUNSET COMMISSION IN 2019 AND THOSE TOOK A COUPLE OF YEARS TO.
AND THE ONE THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS IS THERE WERE ABOUT A HANDFUL OF THEM.
I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE SECOND ONE ABOUT RULES.
SO THE SUNSET COMMISSION IN MANAGEMENT ACTION 1.6 TOLD US TO TOLD THE AGENCY TO EVALUATE AND ADDRESS GAPS IN THE AGENCY'S RULES BY ONE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUNSET BILL, IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF OTHER LAWS AND SUNSET MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, REVIEW EXISTING RULES AND THEN IDENTIFY ANY THAT NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
SO WE HAD A STRATEGY FOR TO MEET EACH OF THOSE DIRECTIVES.
ONE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE SUNSET BILL PASSED, SEBI HAD PUT TOGETHER A 24 MONTH PLAN TO DRAFT ALL THE NECESSARY RULES TO IMPLEMENT LEGISLATION.
SINCE THAT LEGISLATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT PASSED IN 2019.
AND THEN AND AT THAT TIME WE HAD ABOUT 200 RULES, 70% OF WHICH WERE IMPACTED BY SUNSET.
SO SO WE HAD OUR PLAN IN PLACE FOR THAT.
THE OTHER 30% WERE NOT IMPACTED BY SUNSET, BUT NEEDED TO BE EVALUATED.
SO THAT PLAN WAS EXPANDED SO THAT BY THE END OF 2022 WE WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL EXISTING RULES.
ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE ARE MARKETING PRACTICES ADVISORIES.
SO WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN TO REVIEW THOSE BECAUSE SOME ARE OBSOLETE, SOME ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE.
SO WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN THERE AND THEN INTERNALLY WE SET UP A PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SORT OF STEP BY STEP PLAN FOR REVIEWING RULES, GETTING THEM VETTED INTERNALLY, ENSURING THAT STAKEHOLDERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON THE DRAFT RULES BEFORE THEY WERE EVER PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THE STRATEGY WORKED.
AND Y'ALL KNOW BETTER THAN ANYBODY, BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONES THAT ADOPT THESE RULES.
HOW MANY RULES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ESPECIALLY IN 2020? THERE'S STILL TWO SETS OF RULES TO COME YOUR WAY.
BUT IF ALL GOES ACCORDING TO THAT PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THEM AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.
SO BY THE END OF THE YEAR, ALL RULES WILL HAVE BEEN REVIEWED.
SO WE ARE NOW SET UP BEGINNING JANUARY 20, 23.
WE CAN START THAT FOUR YEAR REVIEW CYCLE AND WE WON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO CATCH UP ON.
[01:10:01]
I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING, TOO, IS THAT THE WAY THE RULES ARE ORGANIZED, SO WE STARTED OUT WITH ABOUT 200.WE'RE ENDING WITH ABOUT 200 ENDING AS OF THE END OF THIS YEAR.
BUT IT'S THE WAY THAT THE. ORGANIZED, IT'S MORE LOGICAL, MAKES MORE SENSE.
THERE'S CONSISTENT CONSISTENCY WITH THE STRUCTURE.
SO IT ALL GOES BACK TO STAFF AND THE WORK THAT THEY PUT INTO IT.
SO THERE'S SORT OF A TIMELINE WHICH YOU MENTIONED AT A COMMISSION MEETING, WHAT THE TIMELINE WAS.
AMAZING WORK, THIS HERCULEAN EFFORT TO GET IT ALL DONE.
THANK GOODNESS IT'S ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS, RIGHT? OH, MAN. YEAH.
WELL DONE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? WORK PRODUCT IS ALWAYS A 30%.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENT HERE IN GENERAL COUNSEL.
[3. Public Comment]
HEALEY HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DO HAVE TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS.PEOPLE WANT US TO HAVE A VIRTUAL PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLEASE. COME ON. SHE'S NOT ON.
OKAY, THEN WE HAVE KELSEY STRATFORD WITH THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR AND SEE ME.
MY NAME IS KELSEY STRYKER AND THE CHIEF PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER FOR THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.
THANKS, AS ALWAYS, FOR CONSIDERING OUR INPUT.
THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THIS PROPOSAL, AND IN PARTICULAR HOW IT COULD BE INTERPRETED BY FUTURE TAB STAFF YEARS DOWN THE LINE. HOWEVER, YESTERDAY I HAD A REALLY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION WITH TBK RULES ATTORNEY SHANE HORTON.
BASED ON THAT CONVERSATION, IT'S CLEAR THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TIGHTEN UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSAL TO ENSURE THE INTENT IS CLEAR AND WE AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES DOWN THE LINE.
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AND WE WOULD JUST ASK THE COMMISSION TO TAKE OUR FEEDBACK INTO ACCOUNT, ASSUMING THE RULES MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AND AND POTENTIAL ADOPTION DOWN THE ROAD.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE'RE ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO YOU IF WE CAN HELP OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
QUESTION WHAT WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AGAINST? WHEN I'M READING THE RULE, I KNOW WHAT I'M LOOKING OUT FOR.
WHAT DO YOU ALL WANT US TO LOOK OUT FOR? BASICALLY, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T UNINTENTIONALLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE GOOD ACTORS WHO ARE GENERALLY FOLLOWING THE RULES, GETTING THEIR EMPLOYEES SELLERS CERTIFIED.
WE JUST DON'T WANT TO UNINTENTIONALLY MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO USE THE SAFE HARBOR IN SETTLEMENT.
AND THEN SO THE CASE PROCEEDS THAT WAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS. ABSOLUTELY.
TODAY IN OUR IN OUR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING, WE DISCUSSED WITH MR. GESSNER AS WELL AS MR. WILSON, THOSE THAT VERY TOPIC AND THE SAFE HARBOR WAS A FAIRLY ROBUST TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WHICH YOU NOT.
WOULD YOU AGREE? I WOULD AGREE.
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.
AND IT IS CERTAINLY A FRONT AND CENTER ITEM.
YEAH. DO YOU CARE TO COMMENT, JOHN? SO ONLY THAT I THINK THE CONVERSATION.
COULD YOU. DO YOU MIND IDENTIFYING YOURSELF? MY NAME IS JOHN GESSNER, A PARTNER WITH CARRINGTON COLEMAN.
I THINK THE CONVERSATION WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE INITIATED.
IT'S A PROGRAM THAT I THINK HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL.
THE MORE WE ADD TO IT, I THINK THE MORE BENEFICIAL WILL BE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES.
[01:15:01]
SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSION ON THAT.THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, THANK YOU.
[4. Rules]
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEES.SHORTEN BECOMES THE MORNING CHAIRMAN.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERS, YOUR FAVORITE PART OF OUR PROGRAM.
WE HAVE A LOT OF RULES TO GET THROUGH AS ALWAYS, SO I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF.
YOUR FIRST RULE IS ADOPTION OF 31.9 PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS AMENDED.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MARINO, WE WILL NOW VOTE.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ACTION ON ADOPTION OF REPEAL RULE 33.16 APPLICATION TO THE 2021 TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION. AND PLEASE, THIS PROPOSED REPEAL IS OF A RULE THAT IS ALREADY HAS EXPIRED BY ITS OWN TERMS. BUT WE HAVE TO FORMALLY DO A RULE REPEAL TO REMOVE IT FROM THE RULES, AND WE THINK THAT'S THE BEST THING TO DO.
SO IT'S UP FOR YOUR DECISION ON ADOPTION.
THANK YOU. I MOVE TO APPROVE ADOPTION OF REPEAL OF RULE 33.16 APPLICATION OF THE 2021 TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION TRANSITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS OUR SECOND SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND. WE'LL NOW VOTE.
NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION.
POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 33.73 GENERAL PROVISIONS.
MS.. HORTON COMMISSIONERS NOW ARE INTO YOUR PROPOSALS.
UNDERSTOOD. I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 33.73 GENERAL PROVISIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MACK.
WE HAVE A SECOND. WE'LL NOW VOTE.
THE VOTE IN MOTION IS APPROVED.
THE NEXT ITEM IS CONSIDERATION POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 33.78.
NON PROFIT ENTITY AT TEMPORARY EVENTS.
MS. WARD. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 3378 IS A RESULT OF SOME FEEDBACK WE GOT REGARDING THE ABILITY OF THESE NONPROFIT ENTITIES TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION ON ANOTHER LICENSED PREMISES.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALWAYS ALLOWED WITH A COUPLE OF PROVISIONS, AND IT JUST DISAPPEARED FROM THE RULES DUE TO REORGANIZATION AND FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS. AND SO WHEN FOLKS CAME TO US AND SAID, IS THAT HAS THAT BEEN ELIMINATED, WE SAID, OH, GOSH, NO.
SO THAT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S STILL ALLOWED UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 33.78 NON PROFIT ENTITY AT TEMPORARY EVENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. COMMISSIONER MACK.
THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE WE WILL NOW VOTE.
[01:20:04]
NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION, A PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 33.9 FOR REPORTING, PERMIT OR LICENSE CHANGES.THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ACTUALLY RESULT FROM A REVIEW OF CHAPTER 41 JUST ON OUR SYSTEMATIC REVIEW GETTING THROUGH EVERY RULE THAT WE HAVE AND WE NOTICE THAT RULE 4148, WHICH WE'RE PROPOSING FOR REPEAL AND RULE 3394 HAD A LOT OF OVERLAP ABOUT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND IT WAS CONFUSING AS TO WHEN ONE APPLIED AND WHEN WHEN THE OTHER APPLIED.
AND SO WE DECIDED THAT TIME THAT THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO COMBINE THEM, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GIVING UP ANY OF OUR ABILITY TO ASK FOR INFORMATION IF WE NEED IT, BUT THEN HAVE IT ALL IN ONE PLACE SO THAT THERE'S NOT THAT DUPLICATION AND CONFUSION.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
IT'S IT'S NOT THE PRETTIEST SINCE WE SMASHED TOGETHER TWO RULES, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE NO LONGER REQUIRE SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE USE TO ASK FOR, ESPECIALLY IN THE AUDIT SECTION, BECAUSE WE'VE STREAMLINED ACCORDING TO THE LEGISLATURE'S MANDATES WITH STREAMLINED WHAT WE ASK FOR AS FAR AS CORPORATE INFORMATION THAT AMES DOESN'T ASK FOR IT, WE DON'T COLLECT IT.
SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S UP FOR PROPOSAL.
QUESTION YOUR COMMENTS. QUESTION IT LOOKS LIKE IN SECTION C FOUR, IT'S BEEN MOVED TO A NEW SUBSECTION C TWO AND SAME LANGUAGE. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS A CHANGE.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS YOUR QUALIFICATION TO HAVE A LICENSE OR PERMIT.
DO WE HAVE THAT DELINEATED SO THAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO GO AND LOOK FOR THOSE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS, THEY WOULD AT LEAST BE ON NOTICE TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, THIS JUST HAPPENED TO ME.
I HAVE A LICENSE OR PERMIT, I NEED TO REPORT THIS.
I BELIEVE IT'S IN STATUTE AS WELL AS IN RULE.
SO THERE'S A THERE'S A KIND OF A LAUNDRY LIST.
AND I CAN'T QUOTE FOR YOU THE SECTION AT THIS TIME, BUT I'LL HAVE HAPPILY THEY CAN'T TELL YOU LATER.
ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN THEY REPORT THAT, DO WE HAVE THE BASIS TO ESSENTIALLY YANK THE LICENSE IF IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED THE INITIAL APPLICATION? YOU'RE ASKING WHENEVER THEY IF THEY LIE AND THEY HAVE.
RIGHT. THEY THEY DON'T QUALIFY.
CRIMINAL IN NATURE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISQUALIFYING FACTOR ON THEIR INITIAL APPLICATION.
SO THIS IS MORE OF A TOLD PROCESS.
SO IT'S TOLD UNTIL THE NEXT REVIEW.
SELF REPORTING OF FELONY CONVICTIONS TENDS TO BE LOW.
VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO A PUBLICATION OR PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 3394 REPORTING PERMIT OR LICENSE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? MR. ADKINS. THANK YOU, SIR.
WE HAVE A SECOND. WE WILL NOW VOTE.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT GEN ITEM IS CONSIDERATION POTENTIAL ACTION PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT RULE 45.117.
GIFTS AND ADVERTISING SPECIAL NEEDS.
AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD AUTHORIZE HOLDERS OF DISTILLERS AND RECTIFIERS WINERY, NON RESIDENT SELLERS AND WHOLESALERS PERMITS TO FURNISH SIGNS PROMOTING THEIR BEVERAGES TO RETAILERS WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DOLLAR VALUE LIMITATION.
THE CURRENT RULE THAT WE HAVE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO CAP THAT AT $125 PER BRAND PER YEAR, WHICH IS IS INADEQUATE IN TODAY'S MARKETING ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY.
[01:25:02]
AND SO WHAT WE DID WAS TAKE A LOOK AT THE RULE FOR MALT BEVERAGES, WHICH IS 45 113.SO WHAT WE PROPOSE IS TO BRING THE RULE FOR DISTILLERS AND RECTIFIERS AND ALL THOSE OTHER PERMIT HOLDERS IN LINE WITH THE MALT BEVERAGE RULE AND ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE THOSE SIGNS FOR LIQUOR WITHOUT A DOLLAR LIMITATION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I THINK THAT'S A THAT IS A WISE AND REASONABLE ACTION BY BY MAKING IT CONSISTENT.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
THIS NEW CHAPTER PROPOSED WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE CONSUMER DELIVERY DRIVERS SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS.
SO THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCES HERE ARE GOING TO BE WITH THE SELLER SERVER.
THIS CHANGE IS NOT INTENDED TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE PROCESS THESE.
THE PRIOR RULE USED THE TERM REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AND REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AS A LEGAL TERM OF ART THAT WHOEVER QUALIFIES FOR IT HOLDS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
AND IN THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENTS IN THESE CASES DO NOT HOLD THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
SO THAT LEGAL TERM OF ART WAS MISUSED.
I TALKED WE'VE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS.
WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, AND WE'VE WORKED ON THIS RULE A LONG TIME.
AND WHAT I'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS NOT CHANGE, CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE PROCESS THIS, BUT KIND OF TURN THE LANGUAGE AROUND SO THAT RATHER THAN USING MISUSING THIS TERM AND IMPLYING THAT SOMEONE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THEY DON'T, THAT WE'RE SAYING, LOOK, HERE'S HOW WE ACTUALLY PROCESS THESE.
SO LIKE I SAID, IT'S THERE'S REALLY AND IT'S LEGALLY KIND OF IN THE WEEDS.
I DON'T I DON'T THINK I COULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN IT FULLY IN THIS FORUM.
HOW DO YOU PLAN ON MAKING SOME SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE DRAFT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT STAGE? NO, SIR. I TALKED TO MS..
SIEFERT, WHO SPOKE EARLIER YESTERDAY, AND THE THE ITEMS THAT THEY WERE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT, THE RETAILERS, THE CHANGES THAT WE CAN MAKE WOULD SIMPLY BE MODIFIERS THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR WHO WE MEAN BY MANAGER, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING.
I'M JUST AND MY COLLEAGUES ON THE ON THE BOARD.
I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THIS. I DON'T LIKE IT.
THAT'S THAT'S FINE. BUT MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO TO WORK THROUGH A COUPLE OF MORE DRAFTS AND MAYBE EXPLAIN THE LAW TO COMMISSIONERS WHO MIGHT YOU MIGHT REALLY BENEFIT FROM THAT AND THEN PROPOSE IT.
IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH A WITH A FULLER DRAFT AND WITH MAYBE SOME SOME ADVISING OF COMMISSIONERS ON ON WHAT IT ALL MEANS.
ALL RIGHT, SO HELP ME, LAWYERS.
I JUST MOVE TO TABLE THIS TILL THE NEXT MEETING.
[01:30:06]
DO I NEED A SECOND? THAT SECOND.OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHRIS.
YOUR VOTE RIGHT. WE WILL NOW VOTE.
THIS FOCUS IS JUST ON THE CLARIFICATION OF THE IS THIS PROMOTION? ARE WE DOING THE VOTE TO PUT TO TABLE TO TABLE TO TABLE? SO THIS IS JUST SO WE CAN'T REALLY VOTE ON THIS.
THE DEFINITION. I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE AN ORAL.
YEAH. I'M SORRY. YOU JUST STAND CORRECTED.
ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR TABLING I HI.
FROM BOATWRIGHT. YEAH. YEAH, WE'RE GOOD.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY OUR TABLE, WE'RE TABLING IT TO.
THIS IS JUST REALLY CLARIFYING SOME DEFINITIONS.
IT'S NOT REALLY ADDRESSING CONTENT OF THE CLASSES OR THE CERTIFICATION.
WE'VE TABLED THE WHOLE CHAPTER AND IT IS A BRAND NEW CHAPTER.
SO TECHNICALLY IT'S IT'S ALL NEW.
SO I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ANY ANY PART OF THAT.
IN THE MEANTIME, I KNOW MESSAGING WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT EARLIER AS WELL.
SO YOU GUYS NEED TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON THAT AGENDA ITEM AND VOTE NO IF YOU INTEND TO NOT PUBLISH IT.
SO WE NOW NEED TO. I'M GOING TO OPEN IT.
RIGHT. SO A 4.7, IF YOU'LL JUST READ THAT, AS YOU WOULD NORMALLY READ.
WE NEED TO. SO WE NEED A VOTE.
I MOVE TO NOT APPROVE PUBLICATION OR PROPOSE NEW RULE.
I BEG YOUR PARDON? I'M IN THE WRONG SPOT.
EXCUSE ME. SOMEHOW MY SYSTEM GOT.
I MOVE TO NOT APPROVE PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED NEW CHAPTER 49 SAFE HARBOR AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IS THERE A SECOND? SAY THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER MACK WILL NOW VOTE.
I INSIST. SO ARE WE GOING TO FIRE IT? NO. WRITER. WE SEE IRONY ON THIS ONE.
BUT RIGHT THERE, THE PROMPT ON MY COMPUTER SAID, HEY, YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? THIS? THE ANSWER IS NO.
BUT ANYWAY, I INTENDED TO VOTE NO ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RULE.
FINE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MY COMPUTER SAID I WAS VOTING ON.
THE PUBLIC JUST CAN'T SEE WHAT YOUR COMPUTER SAYS.
SO WE WANTED TO STATE THAT OUT LOUD.
IT'S NOT ATTEMPTING TO LEAD ANYONE IN THEIR THEIR THEIR VOTE HERE.
BUT I MOVED TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED NEW CHAPTER 49 SAFE HARBOR AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN.
WE'VE ALREADY TURNED IT ON. THANK YOU.
OKAY. CAN WE TALK MORE ABOUT SAFE HARBOR? THAT'S NEXT TIME.
JON STEWART, YOU OPEN A CAN OF WORMS OVER THERE.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ACTION.
I THOUGHT WE DID. YES, WE VOTED.
WAIT A MINUTE. DIDN'T WE ALREADY KNOW? 4.8? 4.8.
MY SYSTEM HERE IS NOT ADVANCING.
[01:35:01]
I'M SORRY. NEXT AGENDA ITEM.THIS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO EVENTS AT A TEMPORARY LOCATION AND WHERE THE ALCOHOL FOR SUCH EVENTS MUST BE PURCHASED, WHETHER IN THE COUNTY OR AREA OF THE PRIMARY LICENSE OF THE PERSON HOLDING THE EVENT AT THE TEMPORARY LOCATION, OR WHETHER THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE IN THE COUNTY WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY HOLDING THE EVENT UNDER I'LL CALL IT BEVERAGE CODE.
AND WE'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT FROM THE REGULATED COMMUNITY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUY IT FROM FROM SOMEWHERE IN AUSTIN.
IF THE EVENTS IN AUSTIN THIS IS NOW BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR DECISION ON PROPOSAL, WERE THEY PROHIBITED PRIOR TO THIS RULE? IT WAS UNCLEAR.
FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MAC.
YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OR PROPOSED NEW RULE 33.81 PURCHASE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR A TEMPORARY EVENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS THEIR SECOND SECOND. MR. MARINO. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SECOND.
CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? SURE, SIR. SO IT WAS UNCLEAR.
SO PEOPLE WERE EITHER HAVE THE OPTION TO BUY OUTSIDE OF THE TERRITORY.
LET'S SAY THEY WERE COMING FROM OUT OF OUT OF COUNTY.
THEY COULD HAVE PURCHASED IN THEIR COUNTY, BROUGHT IT THERE FOR THEIR TEMPORARY EVENT.
BUT NOW WE'RE CHANGING IT TO WHERE YOU HAVE TO BUY IT IN.
THEY MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING IN. SO WE'RE NOT IT'S JUST LEAVING HAVE IT YOU CAN BRING.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED NEW RULE 35.1 REPORTING A BREACH OF PEACE FOR ACTION OF REPORTING A BREACH OF THE PEACE IN THIS ORDER.
PROPOSED RULE 35.1 IS A NEW RULE, BUT IT IS BASED UPON EXISTING RULE 3532.
IT'S NOT INTENDED TO SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE ANYTHING.
WE HAVE ADDED A REFERENCE TO THE LICENSE PREMISES DEFINITION AND 1149 OF THE CODE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT FOR CERTAIN PERMIT HOLDERS, THE LICENSE, THE PREMISES INCLUDES AREAS THAT ARE ADJACENT AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF OF THE LICENSE OR PERMIT HOLDER.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THE COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM.
BUT THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE, ACTUALLY IS NOT A CHANGE.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REALLY GOOD SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATION WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT THIS.
SO WE'VE GOTTEN IT TO WHERE WE THINK WE CAN ALL COME TO AGREEMENT.
AND IT'S NOW BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR DECISION ON PROPOSAL.
AND THIS WAS WHAT WE DISCUSSED AS WELL, RIGHT? IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THIS ONE? I'M HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR BACKGROUND FROM YOUR DISCUSSION.
WELL, I THINK THE ISSUE IS RESPONSIBILITY FOR BREACHES OF PEACE FROM A BAR OWNER.
IF SOMETHING PERHAPS REALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE PARKING LOTS.
AND IT WOULD BE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING, NOT FOR LIABILITY, FOR THE BREACH OF THE PEACE, BUT FOR SOME ISSUES HAVE ARISEN SUCH THAT IF IT'S IN A GROUP SETTING IN WHICH THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE CONTROL OF THE PARKING LOT, IS THE BAR OWNER RESPONSIBLE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS IN FRONT OF THE BOOKSTORE NEXT DOOR, BUT THEY NOT THE PATRONS, AND THEREFORE, DO THEY HAVE TO REPORT THAT AS A BREACH OF PEACE? IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.
[01:40:07]
HOWEVER, IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE COMMISSION'S BEST INTEREST TO PURSUE AN ACTION WHERE THERE'S A QUESTION LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ABOUT REPORTING A BREACH OF THE PEACE.IT'S NOT ABOUT LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF THE PEACE.
SO IF IT'S ON IF IT'S ON THE LINE, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US TO TAKE THAT TO TO COURT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? SURE? NO, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT GEN ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION AND PROPOSED REPEAL.
RULE 35.32 REPORTING OF A BREACH OF PEACE.
THE PEACE RESORT COMMISSIONER.
THIS ITEM IN THE NEXT ONE ARE REPEALS RELATED TO SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT YOU JUST SPOKE OF.
THIS ONE IS THE REPEAL OF 3532, WHICH IS THE CURRENT RULE FOR BREACHES OF THE PEACE.
AND YOU'VE JUST PROPOSED TO REPLACE THAT ONE.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MACK.
THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERATION.
POTENTIAL ACTION ON PUBLICATION OF REPEAL OF RULE 41.48 CHANGES RELATING TO CONTROL.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE REPEAL OF THE THE TWO RULES THAT WE COMBINED.
ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? I MOVE TO APPROVE PUBLICATION OF REPEAL OF RULE 41.48 CHANGES RELATING TO CONTROL RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? SECOND. COMMISSIONER MACK.
THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE A SECOND.
AND SHE YOU ON THIS NEXT ONE SINCE WE DIDN'T JUST FROM THE AGENDA.
SO DO WE JUST NOT WE'RE PULLING OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE.
SINCE WE ARE NOT PUBLISHING A NEW ONE, WE DON'T WANT TO RECOMMEND REPEAL OF THE OLD ONE.
SO WE'D LIKE TO PULL THAT FROM THE AGENDA.
THAT'S RIGHT. IS THIS JUST PULLING IN? WE'RE JUST PULLING THAT WE'VE JUST APPROVED.
NOT MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION. WE'VE JUST APPROVED REPEAL RULE 41.48.
THAT WAS ALL THAT IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU. SO WE WILL NOT VOTE ON THE SAFE HARBOR REPEAL.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM IS EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[5. Executive Session]
THE COMMISSION WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 551.074 AND 551.071.THE DATE IS TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2022.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION WENT A LITTLE LONGER THAN NORMAL.
FOUR OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE DISCUSS WOULD DISCUSS POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION OF THE COMMISSION'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ACTION ON THESE DISCUSSIONS.
I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION EXTEND AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT TO THE SOLE FINALIST FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POSITION, MR. THOMAS GRAHAM, AT THE STATUTORILY APPROVED SALARY.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION?
[01:45:02]
SECOND? LIKE WE ALL SAY.ALL RIGHT, I'LL JUST. SORRY, COMMISSIONER MARINO, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
CONGRATULATIONS, MR. GRAHAM. WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT DONE WITH YOU YET.
SO YOU CAN JUST SIT DOWN FOR ONE SECOND.
SECOND. COMMISSIONER MACK, THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A SECOND. WE WILL NOW VOTE.
THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
SO, MR. GRAHAM, IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO ACCEPT A POSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
DO IT. SHE'S GOT A BAD MEMORY.
OH, AS I SAY, IT'S LIKE, WOW, HE'S GOT A BAD MEMORY.
DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO TAKE A PICTURE? MEDIA. MEDIA? YEAH. HERE HE IS.
I HOPE YOU LOOK BEAMING WITH A SMILE, I THINK.
WELL, THEN YOU GOT TO TURN AROUND. I'LL MOVE AROUND.
LET'S DO IT THIS WAY. ALL RIGHT.
REPEAT AFTER ME. I STATE YOUR NAME.
RIGHT. THOMAS GRAHAM. DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR? I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES.
THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND WILL, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND WILL.
SO HELP ME GOD. SO HELP ME GOD.
VERY NICE TO MEET YOU. NICE TO MEET YOU.
NO. I WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE BEFORE I CAME HERE.
YOU'RE ALL SMILES. YEAH, WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST BORED.
YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. OH, SURE.
32. LET'S GET ONE THING ABOUT THE OLD PROVERBIAL.
YEAH. THOMAS, YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? I'LL KEEP IT REAL SHORT. GO AHEAD.
I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE FOR A BOARD.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO PUT A TON OF WORK INTO THIS AGENCY.
[01:50:01]
AND I'M GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, FOR Y'ALL, THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THE LEGISLATURE THAT WE SERVE.THANK YOU. I SAID THANK YOU TO IT.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ANNOUNCEMENT IS THE NEXT MEETING DATE
[6. Closing Items]
AND THE NEXT SCHEDULE. COMMISSION MEETING IS PLANNED FOR TUESDAY.AND IF YOU ALL WOULD PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO CHECK AND.
COMMISSIONER BOATWRIGHT, ARE YOU GOOD? WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
SO THE NEXT SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2022.
THE NEXT IS GERMAN. THE TIME IS NOW.
205. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.