Brazos County holds workshop on switching regular court from weekly to biweekly; staff raise payment, hiring and access concerns

BRYAN, Texas — Brazos County Commissioners Court convened a workshop Tuesday to consider shifting its regular court meetings from weekly to twice a month, a change county leaders said could free staff time for day-to-day operations and allow more public workshops but would require policy, deadline and process changes to avoid delays in payments and hiring. “This workshop will be detailed towards our court calendar for the next year,” the county judge said at the start of the session.

The court and departmental leaders described the proposal as an attempt to balance staff capacity and public access. The court asked departments to review operational impacts and told staff it will place the proposal on a formal court agenda for a decision before the end of the month. That timeline reflects new statutory posting requirements and the court’s need to adopt a calendar for the coming year.

Why it matters: Departments said a biweekly schedule could reduce the frequency of staff time spent preparing weekly court packets and allow the court to host more topic-specific workshops. But multiple offices warned the change could delay claims and vendor payments, slow budget amendments, and affect hiring and other time-sensitive approvals unless deadlines and procedures are adjusted.

Budget and payments: Nina Payne of the budget office said departments must plan further ahead under a biweekly schedule and noted the court will aim to adopt the budget on Sept. 8 next year. Katie Connor (budget/finance) cautioned that an Attorney General opinion requires the commissioners to “review all claims before they're paid,” and that moving to every-other-week court dates could add at least one week to payment timelines. Christian Villarreal in treasury said some counties use Local Government Code authority (cited in the workshop as “statute 113.047 in local government code”) to permit certain officers to authorize limited payments, but any such change would require a court resolution and auditor agreement.

Staff and systems: Eric Caldwell, chief information officer, and Katie Connor both cited recent improvements the county has made to invoice processing — including uploading invoices to Oracle after they arrive by email — which can help track payment timing. But they and others warned that disputes with vendors and late arrivals of invoices still lengthen payment times. Charles from purchasing estimated that, under the proposed calendar and holiday influences, a contractor submission could sit as long as three weeks before the next available court date unless an intervening meeting is scheduled.

Operational suggestions: Departments proposed several mitigations: using a consent agenda to clear routine items more quickly; creating training and written procedures for departments and vendors; expanding the use of invoice imaging and Oracle to record disputes and processing dates; delegating limited signature authority for low-dollar contracts where statutes allow; and scheduling after-hours or geographically distributed workshops to improve public access. Barbara Smith, public communications, proposed recorded training videos to help staff and external applicants meet filing requirements for agenda items.

Public access and perception: Members of the public (one commenter submitted written remarks) and several staff urged the court to preserve or expand access, including offering workshops in the evenings or rotating locations. John Book, a submitted public commenter, wrote that evening hearings or evening public comment opportunities would “expand court access” for citizens who cannot attend during business hours.

Risk and claims: Leslie Contreras of risk management said moving to a biweekly court could delay payment of citizen damage claims the department prefers to route through commissioners court; she underscored that giving risk an independent payout authority would change current practice and said she did not support that option.

Next steps and court direction: Commissioners expressed general willingness to try the change but said they want safeguards. Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Nettles voiced support; Commissioner Watson and Commissioner Condor said they were open but cautious about public perception and staff burnout. The court directed staff to prepare the proposed 2025–26 calendar and related policy recommendations, and to place the item on a formal commissioners court agenda for a vote before the September deadline created by new posting rules. No formal motion or vote on the calendar change was taken at the workshop.

Ending note: Departments and commissioners agreed the transition — if adopted — should be accompanied by clarified deadlines, additional staff training, and possible procedural tools (consent agendas, delegated signature authority for limited contracts, and invoice-imaging documentation) to reduce the risk of payment or hiring delays and to preserve public access and transparency.