Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Limestone County court votes to raise pay for court-appointed attorneys in mental-health cases
Summary
After extended discussion about lengthy, resource-intensive mental-health cases and a lack of hospital placements, the county court voted to increase compensation for court-appointed attorneys handling those cases; the court cited budget availability but did not record a roll-call vote.
The Limestone County court voted to increase compensation for court-appointed attorneys who handle mental-health cases after a detailed discussion about the extra time and coordination those matters require.
County judge Daniel Burkin, who addressed the court during the item, described mental-health cases as more complex than routine misdemeanor appointments, saying they ‘‘require, first of all, coordinating with the family and with the doctor... getting placements for them, working with [a] behavioral health center out of Waco,’’ and that such cases ‘‘go on sometimes for years.’’ Burkin said he manages multiple ongoing files and follows them through extensions and civil-commitment proceedings.
The court’s presiding officer (speaker S1) described frequent emergency-detention referrals, saying the county gets ‘‘at least 3 to 4 to 5 a month’’ and lamented a lack of available hospital beds: ‘‘Almost I hate to say that there's no beds available... There's nothing — there's no place to go.’’ That exchange framed the court’s rationale for raising pay to account for longer, more complex work.
After discussion about budget capacity and county-side limits raised by a staff member, the presiding officer moved to increase the pay rate for court-appointed counsel in mental-health cases. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The oral record registers the approved increase as ‘‘7 50’’; the court stated it would discuss rates with the two district judges who set appointments and said the county budget could absorb an increase for only mental-health cases.
The court did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript; proceedings show a motion, a second and a voice ‘‘aye’’ vote accepting the change. The court also noted it previously often overbudgeted court-appointed attorney expenses and would coordinate with the district judges about formalizing any rate change.
Next steps: the presiding officer said he would speak with the district judges about the rate and return with any needed budget adjustments or confirmations to the court.
