Travis County Commssioners Court
September 24, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Agenda Item Sixteen
Captioned
video. (part one.
Captioned
video. (part two)
>> judge. Excuse me. If we could postpone that till this afternoon. We would like to get a legal briefing before you consider the policy, and I think our attorneys are not available at this time. They had something else that will be back this afternoon.
>> okay, for the court to get a legal briefing or for you all?
>> no, for the court to get a legal briefing.
>> so we need to call it up in executive session item?
>> yes, and if we could do that before we go through the policy, I think that will be helpful.
>> this will be advice of counsel.
>> yes.
>> could I have an inquiry so you know something is coming before you get there so you are not caught off guard and actually be thinking about it? You've got on the last page -- not realty last page, the big long sheet of the packet, the [inaudible] termination guide. To my sense, it still looks like even though we don't call it is matrix that is correct the matrix still exists because they are talking about levels be attached to years of relevant experience. And I think we've talked about the skill sets that become your relevant experience that are not day to day, calendar to calendar tied to a number of years that somebody has been in the profession. And so I just raise that question. Please don't answer it now. But it looks like the matrix still lives because we have references to years of experience and not competency levels, skill sets, et cetera, which are not necessarily defined by you. I'll wait.
>> am I correct then that for the p.b.o. Part of 18, we need to pick up after we pick up 16?
>> yes.
>> so let's do it this afternoon too.
>> yes.
>> number 16 involves the -- the possible modification of the Travis County matrix for determining salaries.
>> [inaudible], last week the court asked us to examine the policy on determining pay and that is 10.087. Travis County code 10.087 sets out how employees are compensated at Travis County. And it includes how we -- we cover pay adjustments to existing employees and also new hires. The court specifically asked us to review the policy and allow increased flexibility to managers to determine pay for both new hires and existing employees, allow for the use of permanent salary savings to increase employee salaries, simplify the process for hiring, promoting or salary adjustments beyond midpoint of the pay scale, and then make matrix really a -- an optional guide as opposed to a requirement. We a -- an optional guide as opposed adjustments beyond midpoint of the pay scale, and then make the matrix really a -- an optional guide as opposed to a requirement. We have taken from the court, also shared with the county attorneys, you received advice from them in executive session. This policy before you allows the use of permanent salary savings at the manager's discretion, it maintains the commissioners control at midpoint or 10% above midpoint, depending on what the court would like to have in the policy. The policy allows total flexibility for departments to hire, promote and adjust salaries up to midpoint. There are several options for the court to consider. And on page 2 we have outlined most of them. On new hire, the current policy has a matrix up to midpoint, above midpoint requires court approval. The proposed policy provides total nextibility to the departments within their budget to go to midpoint as option 1 or 10% above midpoint as option 2. Court approval required actions above either -- like I said, mid point or 10% above midpoint. If indeed someone is going to either go above midpoint or 10% above mid point. They are required just to -- to pen a people dumb to the court much like -- pen a memorandum to the court, much like what justice and public safety has done in your personnel policies today where they talk about relevant education, experience, including any certification, skill sets and any extraordinary skills which the individual brings to the job and makes his skills added value to the organization. On promotions, the way the policy reads now is that it is -- you use a matrix or to midpoint or 5%, whichever is greater. What we are proposing is a department have flexibility to midpoint or 5% increase to current salary, whichever is greater. What we did there is if you get a proper notion now or five percent above your current salary. We wanted to maintain that 5% so that would be the least that someone gets. But again up to midpoint it would be at the discretion of the -- of the department. It's only if they go 5% more than the mid point or the department heads require them to submit a memorandum to the court again pointing out what the added value of the individual skills, education or experience are to the organization. Lateral transfer, this is a different department or job, department flexibility, up to mid point or no pay change. Voluntary job change stays the same, a career ladder be department flexibility to midpoint 5% increase to current salary, whichever is greater, again if it's above midpoint they are required to submit memorandum. ... Whichever is greater, above midpoint they are required to submit a memorandum to the court. We added a section to the policy for salary adjustment. And the option here is option 1, department flexibility to pay one lump sum amount, each fiscal year limited to one of the percentages listed below. Which would be a 5%, a 10% or 15% increase. Option 2 would allow the department to add that -- that base, that award to the base of the individual's salary, again limited in one year to either five, 10 or 15. Remember that salary adjustments would go above and beyond pay based performance. This is for individuals that have already gone -- have already gotten pay for -- pay for performance and the department head would want or the manager would want to provide additional salary adjustments.
>> i'm going to ask on number 8, because this is one where we do not have a current policy, that we take a little bit more time to think about this one. Because I eat this stuff up for lunch but it's just like I have not really studied this one, I can't really compare it to anything that we've had because we haven't had anything before. I know one of the reasons that we were trying to get this thing threw is because we had things to deal with related to the m word. This is not connected to it. So I would ask that we defer on 8, take a few more weeks, talk to our departments and really get some more thought into this one. I'm sure it's logical, but I haven't been able to focus on it because it's brand new and I wasn't really expecting to see this in the packet as part of the cleanup because it wasn't something that pre-existed. That's just my thought. I think we just ought to take a little bit more time so we don't unknowingly do something, and then go okay golly, we should have taken a little bit more time to think about that. On number 8.
>> I don't have any problem with it.
>> all right.
>> let's shop it around a little bit more, maybe talk to the administrative office, subcommittee, let's get some more discussions going on. I'm not there yet.
>> okay.
>> I don't want any surprises for departments. It may be a totally logical, good idea.
>> okay.
>> those are the major changes proposed in the policy. The policy is presented in legislative format. We highlighted in red the -- the additions in the wording to the policy and in blue strikeout what we deleted. Like I said, I do believe that it provides flexibilities to the department. It maintains 10% or above the midpoint as a threshold for people wanting to come in and for managers to -- to justify why the individual that will be paid above that has -- adds value to the organization. And -- and used as a matrix, as a guideline or what we call it determinive pay guideline. We will change that, though, where it says experience to make sure that it includes education or skill sets so there is more flexibility other than just years of service.
>> judge, I would propose, I would move under item no. 1, we have two options there about whether the flexibility is limited to midpoint or 10% above, i'm going to move that we go with option number 2 of 10% above midpoint. I think a lot of time midpoint is misunderstood that somehow that's a magic number. What it means it's an anchor in the market. It still says half the people are paying more than that. I'm trying to give a little bit more flexibility to departments with the proper documentation. That is what this is contingent upon is proper documentation that goes with that flexibility. We will be doing spot checks to make sure indeed the departments are doing the proper documentation and the controlling legal authority here will be the budget related to -- there is a limit as to the funds that are appropriated to a department.
>> I know we said here, but we think the departments will understand that the -- that there are budgetary constraints on them.
>> I believe --
>> no matter what we say, no matter how much flexibility we give, they don't have the budget to do it. That's -- they have to live with that.
>> yes, sir. Your budget will be one of our constraints and then 10%, if that's what the court votes or midpoint would be the other one. I do believe that -- that p.b.o. Will need to send out a memorandum to the departments setting out and explaining, defining what permanent salary savings are. Because at this point in time, the departments will not have any compensation dollars other than those that can -- that can be gained from -- from permanent salary savings to make any adjustments to salaries.
>> it might be helpful if we put on this pay determination guideline sheet, something in big old bold letters someplace that -- that a department is still -- still bound by the budgetary minutes. There's some appropriate legal language i'm sure john can assist us with, but it's basically the budget still rules relating to dollars, appropriated to that department.
>> I would like to make a substitute motion. That is to go with option 1, which is just the midpoint.
>> I don't think I got a second yet.
>> commissioner Gomez seconded.
>> the substitute motion is to go to option one instead of option two, is there a second? Substitute motion dies for lack of a second. There is some need for us to monitor --
>> yes.
>> -- whatever we do at least for a year, to see what impact this has. We will have to communicate that to managers. I guess along with the new policy here.
>> we would --
>> let me ask this question. On -- i'm sorry, judge --
>> i'm just asking, I think that human resources ought to -- to get with ppo, come up with appropriate language to try to communicate that. Now, is that -- does option 2 include a provision that says that if you want to go above 10% above midpoint that it has to be approved by the commissioners court?
>> yes.
>> i'm assuming there are cases that -- that maybe settling in excess of 10 percent above midpoint would be justified but I think we ought to --
>> court approved above, if we pick option two I think that would be absolutely appropriate. Again it means that you have to come see us and we need the proper documentation of showing added value to the organization.
>> commissioner Davis?
>> yes, sir.
>> who actually examines and [inaudible] the bone phied determination of the aspects as far as skill paid, education, all of that stuff, who actually have the legitimate qualifications to ensure, i'm looking at option 2, where it says midpoint plus 10%. Bona fide. Who actually looks at these criterions that we are looking at, who actually looks at that and said hey this is the real deal.
>> under this policy the court would make that determination, sir.
>> so the court would have to determine whether -- whether it's relevancy of education -- I was always thinking that was something that hsm r. Ended up doing as far as skill sets, all of these other things. Education, the relevancy of those things would come to your shop. That was my impression that it was an h.r. Function.
>> under this policy the court would make that determination.
>> well --
>> in the past has been reviewed by h.r. --
>> well, I think that's where it should reside. I'm no expert and I will not profess to ever be an expert in personnel policies such as what h.r. Is do and having [inaudible] full amount of time. As far as skill sets, well, what are skill sets? They are -- as far as education, well, we all have education. You know, we got different degrees and stuff up here. All right. There are other factors that I think should house and reside in the responsibility of the human resource department. I am not the human resource department. So I can't agree with what you are doing here.
>> don't you see -- [multiple voices]
>> don't you see as meeting the same role as it's been doing.
>> yeah.
>> it's not changing at all.
>> it will change also on the basic job description the requirements for the position are listed on the job description and we do [inaudible] before the process the [inaudible]
>> but we are doing, but that's like a final step, most of the time it's fairly passive. The requirement submits this information to h.r.m.d. If there's a problem, we hope hrmd will get with the manager submitting the requested action, trying to iron out whatever discrepancies there are. Then when it's on the court's agenda, we will know whether there's agreement on it or whether there are issues that the court should address, right?
>> this policy does not do that. If you wish to include that in the policy, but this policy just goes directly from the department through h.r. To be placed on personnel amendments. The final determination is with the court. In fact the determination is with the court. [multiple voices]
>> which is bypassing -- if it's bypassing the experts that we already hire, in other words -- I do not want to take away the function of h.r. In any way, form, shape or capacity. Now, if -- if this is bypassing, if this policy is bypassing what you have been looking for in the past, then of course that's the difference. If it's something going through a rubber stamp type scenario, that's a different story.
>> same thing that you are doing in the past, except that you have new guidelines to work with. What's the problem?
>> we have weekly personnel amendments and many of them are called routine and it has new department, new hires, department, slot, position title, department requested grade assignment level and salary and the h.r.m.d. Recommended grade, assignment and salary, they always agree on routine items. We are saying there's a little bit more of what's going into the routine stack. But over that --
>> probably [inaudible]
>> well, I think you are the one just interrupted me.
>> I think we are in agreement. My intention is for hrmd to do the same thing. Except they have new standards that come into play. Providing that, what am I missing?
>> routine actions are those actions where a matrix has been completed, we agree with the level that that matrix supports. That's what we do now. This policy gives flexibility to the departments to -- to 10% above midpoint, that means they don't have to even do a -- a pay determination guideline, that they can have that flexibility to go directly to 10% above midpoint when we don't -- would not necessarily have the-- ask for justification.
>> you don't see them submitting some kind of documentation for whatever decision they make?
>> if that's --
>> if it's not a requirement --
>> this does not require any documentation for 10% above midpoint.
>> that's what we added to the policy.
>> that's what we added to that. We just said it. This is still contingent, this flexibility it still contingent upon proper documentation being submitted.
>> we will come back to you then with a definition of proper documentation because -- because we don't have that in the policy. [multiple voices]
>> what we have been discussing. I'm saying hr doing the same thing, except different standards. Different authorization, additional authorization given to the manager, a person requesting the action, but hrmd roles are being the same. I don't know that commissioners court wants to get more actively involved in these. We have elevated the standards for routine decisions, though. So the routine lists will involve more compensation, but the justification for the decisions should be saying that they have been -- is that previously we were using the thing called the mate tricks to fill out a sheet and send it on. We are substituting now something called a paid determination guide, which helps a manager walk through the kinds of things that years of experience being one of many things that are relevant mad to degrees, education, special skills, it's all part of the puzzle and not simply years equal level.
>> are you -- are you -- is that this thing still needs to be filled out.
>> okay. That's where the clarification, that's not what I was understanding. But you are saying that indeed the documentation would be the guideline from the departments and they still need to do it, even if they are going to go 10% below the midpoint.
>> right. It's just part of the backup file saying, you know what, I thought about this, and they are not going to be questioned on it in the sense of well, we disagree with this, that, or the other. But we are going to make sure that the thought process can be documented in case somebody says well why is it that that manager gave that person x versus y. They thought about it.
>> verify that.
>> consistent with the legal advice we got, too.
>> absolutely.
>> I don't see us -- without documentation [inaudible] -- paid determination format that we audit to confirm that it meets the criteria established.
>> my point was as I stated, I would like to see [inaudible] to make sewer that it goes through hsm r., Comes back to us, i'm not going to depend on no department head in this county, I don't care who it is, telling me that this person is qualified for this, had that not been reviewed or the proper documentation hasn't been provided to prove those points. Particularly when it comes to spending money.
>> I think we agree it's the same.
>> remains the same. I want to be sure that it happens. That's what i'm trying to put on the table.
>> you are -- it still says there -- stays there.
>> all right.
>> I want to make sure.
>> still there.
>> all right.
>> the need for documentation --
>> documentation.
>> will be in the file somewhere.
>> very important.
>> that you all are reviewing, basically where there are problems the court needs to address those. But where they are consistent with the new guide lines, we hope to see just a routine listing same as today.
>> at the risk of belaboring it, just final clarification for us, we now receive what we know as the m form. And on the m form we audit that form to confirm that the person who is selected meets the criteria as established, ie the pay level is determined. It's my understanding from this discussion is that we will continue to use this form,.
>> the g form.
>> the guideline form.
>> the g form known as the pay determination form and we would continue to audit the actions of the personnel actions against the criteria that's been established.
>> right. The mame difference there is that you are not simply looking at years equal level.
>> exactly.
>> you will be able to go this person made a qualified decision based on years, experience, education, skill set, and for you all to still go, looks like they went through a process and it looks like that is an appropriate --
>> so this form is not an optional form at this point. It is one that comes into our office as the documentation to support the actions.
>> and do we need to make the clarification, judge, that these are departments that report to the commissioners courted or any elected officials or appointed officials who voluntarily opt into our policies? I'mization it outloud.
>> the option is if you don't get necessary back up, you recommend against it. It wouldn't be on the routine list, it would be on another list.
>> a discussion sheet. Yes.
>> now we all feel a lot better. Any more discussing of the motion? All in favor? Show commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Moore absent and commissioner Davis --
>> voting no. Voting no [inaudible]
>> to clarify on the promotions and the other policies that are affected, do you want the same thing in terms of the department flexibility up to 10% of midpoint? On the promotions and lateral transfers?
>> you know, i'm actually in a place where I think our currents number of five percent works for me. Again, I hope that's consistent with commissioner Davis and those would wanted to keep --
>> yeah.
>> but I think 5%, I wouldn't change that at this moment.
>> okay.
>> 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,, we are missing five, right? 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 -- [inaudible]
>> yes.
>> yes. Is that a motion?
>> yes, sir. All of the rest of them are just fine.
>> commissioner Davis seconded that. We pulled 8 for consideration. Okay, any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything else on -- on this one? -- on 16.
>> > no, we will come back with salary adjustments whenever the court wants to address that. Do you want us to bring it back next week?
>> actually, we need a little more time than that.
>> okay.
>> but I do think we need to look at real, real soon whatever notice will go out to the managers notifying them of these changes. And kind of clarifying what they are expecting to do in the future. And the fact that no matter how much flexibility this gives you, there is a budgetary parameter that you must keep in mind.
>> so -- i'm just wondering, wanting to make sewer that we haven't done something inappropriately that we wanted to do. Basically if it was something other than 5% realitied -- related to a career ladder or a promotion, that means it needs to come to the excisioners court for us to bless something other than the 5% number that we just said.
>> this has the flexibility so that you can indeed give someone a 15% if it's below midpoint on the promotion. But if it were above midpoint, and more than -- more than 5%, then they would have to come to the court. So the threshold is above mid point, more than 5%.
>> got it. We will get it fixed in a second.
>> okay.
>> it comes to us. So -- ready for -- for personnel amendments?
>> nothing further on this item, right? 16? All right.
Last Modified: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 11:06 AM