It doesn’t take long for an urban county budget setter to recognize the joined-at-the-hip relationship between county services and the State Legislature. On the budget side, if the state’s financial flu results in “tough medicine” cutbacks to social programs, those who need help may seek assistance on the courthouse steps. And in the day-to-day delivery of urban county services, conservatively written statutory restrictions frequently present legal roadblocks to getting things done. Since counties can only do what the state law specifically authorizes, providing the simplest solutions to the problems of modern day Texas often require just a few words of statutory change – changes that can only be made with the majority consent of both houses and the governor.

But urban commissioners court members happen to have day jobs as public officals, as do the $600-a-month representatives and senators who are faced with considering up to 5,000 bills each session. Over the past two decades, urban counties have increasingly turned to full-time staff members to track legislation proposed by others as well as pursuing legislative changes that allow counties to meet citizen demands for service. For Dallas County, that realization came back in 1984. Until then, some individual court members in Dallas and Harris counties had assigned specific administrative assistants to track legislative matters, but with the devotion of limited resources to the county cause, results were often limited as well.

“Until then, Dallas County primarily played a defensive role in Austin, trying to kill bills that would adversely impact the county,” recalled Craig Pardue, who had bounced around various legislative clerking and administrative jobs for 13 years when Dallas County hired him to be their legislative guy.

Pardue’s first session representing Dallas County opened commissioners’ eyes that the county’s impact could be progressive as well as reactive. “Dallas County had never gotten anything passed before. It was their first session that they realized that if they didn’t like the law, ‘hey, let’s go change it,’” said Pardue, the “dean” of urban county legislative staff members. “It was a paradigm shift in their thinking.”

That year, the county instigated passage of five bills and suddenly, Pardue was embarked on a successful career dealing with Dallas County legislative matters. In 2001, 24 of the county’s 28-bill legislative package became law.

Since then, several other metropolitan commissioners courts have followed Dallas’ lead to establish full-time legislative operations to provide a local focal point for county-state relations. Even when the Legislature is not in session, there is plenty of work monitoring interim studies, tracking regulatory considerations of various agencies that might affect counties and learning from county departments about areas where the current law is insufficient or inefficient for county business.

It’s during the interim period between legislative sessions that the large counties put together their own legislative platform, usually derived from what departments or community leaders have said would be helpful. Harris County Legislative Relations Director King Hillier said that over the past year, he has visited in the offices of each department head to come up with the county’s 23-item package.

But once legislators begin filing bills the week after the November general election, attention centers on reviewing each bill to determine what it could mean to the county. Typically, Texas’ most urban counties have established procedural routines in which bills are referred to various departments to review for specific impact. How the process works depends on local preferences.

In Houston, for example, Hillier (or his assistant, Caton Fenz) and Assistant County Attorney Rose Garcia give every bill an initial once-over to decide which county departments are likely to be affected. “We shoot the bills straight out to the people who can tell us, what does this mean, is it good or bad or should we just ignore it,” said Hillier, who chairs a commissioners court staff committee that keeps court members informed about the most significant proposals. Each court member may also pursue their own independent legislative priorities. By contrast, the entire Dallas County court meets as a legislative committee each Friday to be briefed by Pardue and other county staff about the potential impact of legislation.

In Tarrant County, the bill review process begins among the budget staff, whose interns send bills out for departmental review and then input their responses into the “bill comments” section of the county’s electronic legislative tracking service.

Legislative Director Mark Mendez said his commissioners court doesn’t necessarily take positions on all county-related bills, but he gets clear direction from the court’s adoption of several broad policy positions, such as standing opposition to unfunded mandates and general support of additional, permissive county regulatory authority. But if there’s uncertainty on the court about whether to support a measure, Mendez remains silent.

“The Tarrant County delegation knows that my court won’t take a position unless it’s unanimous – five to zero,” Mendez said. “That helps me a lot because our members know they are not going to be blind-sided by disagreement back home.”

With direction from back at the courthouse, the county warriors hit the halls of the Capitol to spread the Gospel about their counties’ best interests. Frequently, the first opportunity to formally influence bills is after they are referred to a legislative committee and then scheduled for consideration in a public committee hearing. Much of the work, county staffers say, occurs during the day or so prior to the public hearing, when legislators (or their staff members) are contacted to explain the county’s point of view.

Mendez said he starts by carefully crafting a brief explanation of a bill’s impact (positive or negative) on Tarrant County operations. Then he methodically visits the office of each committee member prior to the hearing to explain the matter. The idea is to get that information included in each legislator’s briefing material in time for the public hearing. “That’s the part that takes a tremendous amount of time, visiting with each office,” he said. “Usually it means half a dozen or more meetings for every hearing, and there may be several hearings every week.”

But during that process he gets feedback on what likely areas of concern will be raised at the hearing. He feeds that information to the “expert” witnesses who have been lined up to testify. Like the other county lobbyists, Mendez said he seldom speaks to a committee on his own.

“The worst thing I can do is act like an expert,” said Harris County’s Hillier. “I have a rule that if a county department wants our help in shepherding a bill to passage or defeating something, they have to commit to being here when it’s necessary.”

El Paso officials rely on “hired gun” professional lobbyists to lay the groundwork for hearings, according to Jim Manley, chief of staff for County Judge Dolores Briones. Either Briones, Manley or County Attorney Jose Rodriguez are likely to be in Austin each week during the session, but before they arrive, they’ve been briefed by the county’s contracted private lobbyists.

“They serve in two roles. First, they’re the advance scouts, the forward observers who can let us know what’s going on in the Capitol, and secondly they act as strategic coaches for the legislative team, to make sure we have the right person testifying or when it would be beneficial for someone to make a phone call or write a letter to a particular member,” Manley said.

Rather than employ county staff, Travis County hires a two-person contract lobby firm to handle the county’s business over at the Capitol. Bob Kamm and Chris Shields also have four other clients, although Kamm reports that the county business is much more time-consuming. He meets frequently in regularly scheduled meetings with representatives of various county departments just as if he were on the county payroll.

While many private lobby clients are only concerned about three or four major issues, Kamm said, county representatives have to keep up with a much larger array of measures that may impact operations. “The county has a ton more issues than we deal with for our other clients,” he said. And, instead of meeting with a board of directors in private to discuss strategy, commissioners court issues are subject to open meetings and records requirements.

And in Travis County, public meetings are aired on the community access cable television program. “You’d be surprised how many people will stop me in a day and say they saw me on TV,” Kamm said. “In those circumstances I have to be more tactful – you don’t always want to be describing your strategy on TV.”

On the other hand, he said, the fact that his firm works for other clients means they have the opportunity to work with a wider assortment of legislators. “Between Chris and I, we have a relationship with virtually every member of the Legislature,” he said

The various large county legislative representatives all reported that they work together as a team, not only with each other but also with statewide organizations like the County Judges and Commissioners Association, the Conference of Urban Counties and the Texas Association of Counties. Most evenings, they get together to review that day’s activities and plan for the next day’s hearings.

“On issues with statewide implications, I’ve come to rely quite a bit on the associations. I’ll talk to them first before I do any work on statewide bills,” said Mendez. “If TAC sends out a letter representing all counties on an issue, it obviously has a much greater impact that what I can say solely on behalf of Tarrant County. Counties are fortunate to have such excellent associations to fall back on.”

Dallas County’s Pardue discounts the perception of some officials around the state that the larger counties only look out for themselves. He said his county rarely “brackets” legislation by population. “Historically, our court has taken the position that we work on legislation that’s good for county government. If it’s good for us, it should work for everybody.”

In fact, Pardue is quick to point out an impressive list of dozens of bills that Dallas County has initiated over the past two decades to the benefit of all counties, including the optional road and bridge fee bill passed in 1989, authorizing usage of optical storage capability by justices of the peace, making exceptions for expensive sprinkler systems in county jails, adjusting bid laws on jail food purchases, requiring district judges to hold public hearings on setting employee salaries, authorizing cremation of paupers and on and on.

“It would be easier for the largest counties to bracket bills just for us, but we’ve always had the attitude that we work with other counties around here on a lot of things so why would we want to address problems in a way that just helped us?” he said.

When calamities – natural or otherwise – occur, they can take their toll on an unprepared community. In accordance with state law, all Texas counties should have basic emergency management plans in place. But many counties’ plans do not have specific provisions for crisis communications – procedures for transmitting vital information about a disaster, said David Passey, public affairs officer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"Most states have a requirement for an emergency operations plan, but that tends to be more focused on emergency operations than communications,” said Passey, of FEMA’s Region 6 office in Denton.

Crisis communications can come in an endless number of forms – from delivering hurricane warnings over the radio to announcing dropoff locations for disaster relief donations. And crises are so unpredictable that even the most carefully scripted system must often be altered in a matter of minutes. But with smart planning and a little luck, good communications can help counties weather even the fiercest storm or most devastating chemical spill.

When dealing with a crisis, county officials may see television, radio and newspaper reporters as a hindrance – people whose questions stand in the way of more essential functions. But communicating with the media must be a high priority, Passey said, because they are a direct link to the public. The media is critical during a disaster; news outlets provide severe-weather warnings, evacuation notices, direct the public to safe shelters and perform other functions to increase public safety. Passey said that while talking to the media should not be first priority, it should not be ignored either. “Safety is clearly the priority,” he said. “You’re not going to pull a sheriff’s deputy off rescue duty so he can be an information officer. “But communication [with the media] is typically critical to public safety.”

Such was the case with Scheel and the recent Comal County floods. As the Guadalupe rose and conditions changed, messages to residents had to be continuously updated. The county partnered with Dave Ferguson, a DJ at New Braunfels’ two radio stations. Ferguson interrupted regular programming whenever updated information became available.

“They’d put us on the air with it immediately,” Scheel said. “As soon as we had information on new water depths and such, we’d call him, and he would break in and allow us to give that information to the citizens.”

Working on disasters often requires county officials to do a “balancing act,” trying to reconcile their disaster-relief duties with their duty to provide information to the public. Scheel said he balanced the two responsibilities by allowing several television stations to tape from inside the county’s emergency operations center, so he didn’t have to leave work to give statements. Comal County also created a Web site with information on river levels, radar maps and other essentials. This, Scheel said, cut down on the amount of calls from concerned citizens. “The residents were able to sit at home and monitor the same information we were monitoring at the EOC,” Scheel said.

The Web site, http://www.comalflood.com, is still operational, featuring photos from the disaster and information on applying for federal aid. When dealing with a disaster, the immediate reaction of many government officials is to shy away from media attention – especially if controversy is involved. But this tactic often backfires and leaves officials with a black eye, said Dallas Morning News reporter Lee Hancock. Hancock cited the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building, which killed 168 people. At the time of the blast, a group of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were not in their offices, which led some to speculate that the agents had prior knowledge of the bombing. However, it later came to light that a single ATF agent was in the building and survived the attack.

“There were, fairly quickly, some requests to talk to him,” Hancock said. “The immediate response from ATF was very protective of him. Many months later, he actually told his story, which was gripping and of great interest to people nationally … But by waiting, though, it allowed this false storyline about ATF to gain current. It’s actually still out there among some conspiracy theorists.”

When official sources do give information to the media, it’s important to ensure that all involved parties deliver the same information. With all the agencies involved in a disaster – local and state officials, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA representatives – and several media outlets demanding information simultaneously, mixed messages can sometimes occur. Galveston County Judge James Yarbrough, who recently helped coordinate emergency operations when Tropical Storm Fay hit in September, said he sidestepped this caveat by staying in constant contact with his colleagues. No officials were barred from talking to the media, but most communications were left up to John Simsen, the county’s public information officer.

“During an activated situation he becomes the spokesperson,” Yarbrough said. “We issue a single press release … we’re basically all singing from the same sheet of music.”

Since a large number of people were managing Tropical Storm Fay – representatives from 13 cities and Galveston County – they stayed in touch via conference calls. Passey said internal communications measures such as these are also essential for managing a disaster.

“Everyone immediately thinks of the public or the media, but often the communications need to include other departments,” Passey said. Internal communications are also critical for public safety. When a disaster strikes – a train derailment, for instance – the sheriff’s department must reroute traffic, road and bridge crews must repair damaged roadways, medical care must be coordinated and fires may have to be extinguished. Any confusion between departments could lead to traffic jams, uncontrollable blazes or worse. But Passey said having a central “command center” can eliminate a lot of the disorder.

“The model we try to establish is having a joint information center, where you may have people represented there, and you may have a spokesman for the county,” Passey said. “The joint information center might involve municipalities, school districts, large employers.” Within the joint information center, various agencies and departments can easily divide up duties related to public communications, if they so wish. Local hospitals may provide information about casualties or injured victims of the disaster; municipalities can decide if they want their own spokespeople.

“Knowing where your boundaries are is important,” Passey said. Scheel said this unified approach worked for Comal County, which had consolidated its emergency operations center with that of New Braunfels just weeks before the floods. Scheel said having all involved parties in one building made it easier to exchange information. “When the event happened, we all gathered at our EOC and managed the entire disaster from that area,” Scheel said. “We had state representation, we had our health department … everyone was represented in one room, so we were able to work together.”

Scheel said the 2002 floods were much easier to manage in comparison to the 1998 floods, during which two EOCs were operating simultaneously – one in the New Braunfels City Hall and one in the Comal County Sheriff’s Office.

“That left a communication gap between agencies and between the media, and I would recommend in all instances that the city and county emergency operations centers be combined into one operation,” Scheel said. “It makes everything accessible. Instead of having to deal with the city and county, we’re dealing with one center.” Scheel said two EOCs also doubles costs for the state and federal government, who must dispatch representatives to both facilities.

Yarbrough said Galveston County is also moving forward on a project to consolidate its EOCs. When the new facility is completed in 2004, all cities in the county will have the option of using it as their primary EOC, or using it as a backup. The building will also house the National Weather Service and the Galveston County 911 Emergency Services Administration.

In another step to improve communications, all Galveston County departments have switched to the same radio frequency.

“In years past, everyone was on a different frequency and it was impossible to communicate,” Yarbrough said. “Communication is certainly much improved and that not only helps us during disasters, but being a tourist community, we have a lot of events like Mardi Gras where we need multi-jurisdictional cooperation.”

But no matter how carefully one crafts communications plans, they’re irrelevant if they aren’t put to the test. Practicing emergency procedures is vital, Passey said, because test runs can expose weaknesses and inaccuracies. And this goes for all aspects of emergency operations, not just communications.

“Testing and validating the plan is where you get better,” Passey said. “Even if a local government doesn’t have a crisis communications plan – if they will test the plan, that’s better. My encouragement would be rather than start with a crisis communications plan, we would just test existing emergency operations plans.”

Such tests can take three forms. Some are conducted like seminars, with an instructor providing tips on emergency management. Others take the form of “tabletop” exercises, in which participants are given hypothetical scenarios and asked to respond verbally. Still more are given on a full scale, with participants actually acting out their responses as they would in real life.

Yarbrough said Galveston County holds tabletop exercises on a regular basis, to hone existing officials’ skills and introduce new employees to the procedures.

“Part of the challenge is making sure the new elected officials are brought up to speed,” Yarbrough said.

Usually, it’s not possible to control the occurrence or severity of a disaster. Often, the best that counties can hope for is to handle it well. Though the July floods caused considerable losses in Comal County, Scheel said he was very satisfied with the responses of government officials to the disaster. County personnel held a meeting recently to discuss the operation and suggest ways to improve their practices. “We couldn’t think of anything,” Scheel said. “It was just an outstanding operation.”