Travis County Commissioners Court
April 19, 2005
Item 9
Why don't we call up number 9, consider and take appropriate action on the request to authorize human resources management department to conduct a classification review and analysis of all title ins the administrative support job family.
>> did we get the backup? Or was the backup from last week?
>> it really was pretty much the same data.
>> right. The question really is timing because when we discussed this the week before we were all talking about this in terms of the h.r. Work plan for this year, we're not doing any of these and it's normal, logical that these things would be kicking off, this and any others we would authorize with the new fiscal year. That's my clarification is what is the timing of this request in terms of when h.r. Is supposed to add this to their work plan and get working on it. I知 presuming it's October 1, but that's not within any kind of language here.
>> it's my understanding this would be a '06 project for h.r. And as with other projects that we start in -- at the beginning of the tp-dz year, we would bring it in -- fiscal year, we would bring it in around the budget period of '06. Which would mean it could be probably about may of '06 when we would bring it in.
>> do we think there's a need to take that loan?
>> I believe -- that long.
>> I believe it is, judge. We have a work plan in play for '05. With the wrapping up of the fiscal year we have a lot of processing-type work to do. As you approve the budget for '06, we have at least the first quarter of the fiscal year to get things set and even people are not aware and sensitive to the fact that we are really into processing actions on behalf of the department. At the earliest I would expect we would begin work on the project perhaps in early January. Concentrated work in early January.
>> I知 fine with this being authorized to be part of the '06 work plan. But if it's to be talked about during this fiscal year, we have to bump something from their work --
>> as mentioned, I think alicia mentioned last week that we do and are in progress with the peace officers comp study. Oh, great, great. The peace officers comp study, we're in full briefings with the stakeholders on that. We are also doing a court authorized project with i.t. Which deals with the major reorganization of the i.t. Operation, there are reclasses to do with that. In addition to that, as shown the list that you have, there are the processing issues. We have made a great deal of process with compensation policies that have been put on the back burner for a number of years and we're really close to getting that finished with the county attorney's office. And would like to have that completed, of course, in '05 also. So you have the list before you. Those are the tasks that we have remaining in '05, and as we open up the fiscal year, of course, we have the carryover from the budget process to implement. Yes, sir.
>> let me ask this. As far as completion, so what you are saying is that you won't be complete with the compensation pay scale, compensation and also the i.t.s., the two i.t.s. Items on 2 and 3? You won't be complete with that -- my question is when will you be complete with that, that's the question.
>> well, we are on schedule, Commissioner, to bring the peace officers comp, the consultant in -- into work session on may the 12th. That's a work session. And then after that it would be activities related to whatever the court would decide on that so that's not yet even the voting session. We have the policy on pops to do. It's more -- then we have the compensation scale to do, there's costing to do in collaboration with p.b.o. Against whatever those recommendations are. We come to court with items, but there's a great deal of work and very detailed involved work that, of course, not public that we're very much committed and obligated to implement.
>> I just need some time lines, specific time lines as far as when you will be complete with these other things. It's my intention that you would be complete with this by may.
>> well, we will be.
>> if it's going to be complete by may, I don't see any difference in you adding this on to this year's workload for this fiscal year.
>> Commissioner --
>> as far as I知 coming from and I知 not be adversarial, if the workload is complete, I can't see why this job can't be added to it. Especially with these time lines -- if these time lines are complete in a timely fashion and add that to it. That's what I知 not understanding. And this here is just something that's been [inaudible] today. So, again, verbal stuff and written stuff that's being contradictory and I知 having a problem with that kind of presentation.
>> we looked at your work plan, didn't we, and approved it, and it included all of these dates.
>> but I知 suggesting that I think -- and I would like to ask -- we talk about families in this assistive listening device support job family -- administrative support in this job family, I hope that it would be contingent on -- not con ingent on but being a part of being done in '05.
>> [inaudible] changing your -- hopefully when we looked at it we approved it and we knew what the time lines were for these studies. And I don't think we ought to pull you back and change it.
>> I知 fine with number 9 as long as we make it very clear that this is to be pre-loaded into the '06 work plan and I bet there are going to be maybe one more family as well that will be added to that and we'll get to that come budget in terms of when -- what else is on that same kind of cycle because we generally do one or two of these every year.
>> I don't really know how you prioritize as far as putting things necessarily in a survey. I don't really know how you are doing that. And, of course, I made the statement last week about the entire -- as far as transition is concerned, the job family being included, basically looked at the number of years there have not been any recognition in these particular job families. However, I知 really having some problems on this stand on what's really taking place here as far as who gets in and who gets out as far as recognition. And I don't know if it's a discretionary thing or what, I don't really know, but I do know that this job family is far past due being looked at and I don't see any reason why we can't look at it in '05, start looking at it in this fiscal year. I don't see any reason why you can't.
>> alicia perez, administrative operations. The two job families we looked at this year which were pops at i.t.s. Were at the request of the court. I think it is fair to say that pops being what it is and so many different individuals and employees involved and unions and [inaudible] will take considerable amount of time. When we first bring it to you on may the 12th, that will be -- and we'll brief you before then, but you will hear from different individuals from [inaudible] on what their perspective what the market should be, what the margins should be, what the other special pay should be so that that in and of itself, that will be an item that will take numerous meetings, I predict, several meetings. So that is one of the issues that will be time consuming. Then we have i.t.s. I don't think that will be as time consuming, but we do have, I think, some of the other items, then we have the year-end budget and the performance pay that all those have to be processed through human resources.
>> and what you are saying, there appears to be -- i.t.s. Won't be as long, I don't know. And then maybe it will be. But it appears that there are some uncertainties in the process as far as the length of time it would take to end the process. But what I would like to see happen is -- I知 going to make a motion to that effect is that I would like to move that we approve item 9 for the administrative support families that will be reviewed, the classification will be done by h.r.m.d. For all of those job titles for administration in the job family for this year to begin the process for this particular request on this motion for f.y. '05 fiscal year. I would like to make that motion to that effect. And, of course, I put [inaudible].
>> probably be better to separate the motion, one part to cover this item, the other part to cover the term. We've got two items that we need to get done.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...i thought where we were last week was to say let's just do the whole family and that's what the item does, and I think if we try to do it as expeditious as possible, I mean maybe that's all we can do today.
>> well, with that comment then i'd like to move approval of item 9.
>> I second it.
>> i'd like to try.
>> discussion of that motion?
>> yeah, i'd like to try, and that is that we pull this item and that we direct h.r. To let us know when the two major items that are on their '05 work list, and that is basically the pop schedule and the i.t. Work, that they bring this item back to us at the appropriate time for us to act on it and not act on this today.
>> we said last week we would put it back on the agenda. And I thought this was pretty much the unanimous sentiment of the court. If we approve this it would be basically saying we will conduct this. When we will determine that at the later point. Rather than taking the action later, I知 just saying we make the determination on when it's done later. So at least we get out of the way that we plan to do this and the list that you gave us today are things that we've already committed to and there is not a motion to change that so you would go ahead and do that.
>> I want to withdraw my motion and I want to make a different one in its place. I would move that we do number 9 with this being dropped in as the priority item in the '06 work plan for h.r.
>> second.
>> what's the difference between those two?
>> I知 presuming we'll get to i.t. And pops and they've still got a load of work to get done between now an September 30th. It's unfair to throw this thing at them without them be able to properly plan for it in terms of the timing. And there is also a presumption that there is requirements of the departments that are involved here in terms of having to fill out the questionnaires and spending time when they are also going to be very busy going through budget. There's time on both sides of this and I think it properly ought to get thrown into '06 and make it number 1, and maybe we can beat the January and you guys get working on it in October.
>> but the original motion was to go ahead and do the work plan. I知 hearing six and one-half and a dozen of the other. I think it keeps the pace. Any more discussion of the substitute motion?
>> yeah, judge.
>> Commissioner?
>> I知 not comfortable where this thing is at all. As a matter of fact, there have been some very aggressive, you know, motions to me about, you know, whether I知 supportive of this. And I am supportive of it. I just thought that we were going to do it in line with bringing it before the '06 budget. When I said, well, I don't have any problem looking at your salaries, I mean i've got an office full of people just like everybody else does. And so I want people to be dealt fairly with. Now, since last week, I mean i've been told that know what you were told by h.r., the 2001 study that we weren't and there's no backup on that showing that we were. I guess I need to ask that. I mean is there backup on showing what was done with this -- with this particular group, and if you can give me that, then I would appreciate that. I was asked whether or not I would support this, I mean I wasn't asked will you do it immediately. I mean given that, you know, we have a plan and the plan is what you all have given us. Now all of a sudden I realize people said, you know what, I want you to do it now because then it puts us in line for '06 versus if we don't do it until '06 it doesn't start until '076789 that's in s.sense what happens, we do the study and it's effective in '07.
>> the original motion is to do it after this work. The substitute motion is just prioritize it for '06. I don't know there's a whole lot of difference there.
>> unless there's some -- unless there's going to be somebody that feels like you know what, we're reading the tea leaves and we really know what the majority of the court wants to do and that is is to get it done, you know, by '06 or so that '06 can start. But unfortunately, I mean until we see what '06 is, I知 probably going to be pretty supportive of giving people what is due them. Once we do the studies. But that is more of a budget cycle kind of a thing, which I think makes more sense to do it in '06 versus going and saying, okay, we've studied it in '05, now we're going to implement it in '06. If everybody is comfortable saying you know what, that is something we're going to do in '06, that's the reason we got it done in '05.
>> and remember, the studies are just that. The studies don't automatically give somebody a raise. And in most places everybody in this division, and I mean that in terms of the entire family, nobody is going to be need be to be raised to a minimum salary level. We are talking about folks that are well within the range and it will extend the range for them. And if people want to delay making pay raise decisions until a later date to see what the true market study is going to be, but this isn't about getting people to the minimum of a new pay range. It just flat out isn't about that. And remember, the study is just that. Maybe somebody is 15 and they turn to a 16. That does not bring an automatic ratchet of money along with it. It just says that's what the market is. And it extends out how much is the ultimate pay and it ups the minimum pay. But we're not talking about people here complaining about I知 only making the minimum.
>> well, I suppose that I知 a little perplexed as to why we didn't bring this up at last budget, I mean if people were approaching some of us in our offices about, you know, we haven't had this done --
>> no one in my office has been complaining that somehow they are being inappropriately compensated and in fact still have room to go within their pay ranges.
>> well, my office -- I mean hey, what office doesn't want to make more money.
>> the market determines what we make.
>> I understand that and that's the reason I think --
>> if we're going to make more money, we need to look for a job in which we can make a vertical jump to something else that pays more than what we're making. We're not going the make money horizontally. You know, you just go from one a to z on that range, but you are not going to be making the money that everybody believes we deserve. And you cannot in a range eventually be making $200,000. You have to make a vertical jump to another position.
>> but on this item is basically -- all this item is basically is to get hrmd to study this family. That's all item 9 is. Then the question is when should they do it. And they have come in and said we already have a court approved work plan. So the original motion is finish this work plan, then do number 9. The substitute motion is do number 9 at the first of the year. And so if you finish this work plan, though, in July, the original motion would have them doing number 9. Substitute motion would have them waiting until the first of the fiscal year.
>> do you think, judge, that by getting a majority of the court that that's not telling hrm did do it? We don't care what the budget is, do it. If that's what we're being asked to do, then we --
>> I知 saying that --
>> we're just going to do the study.
>> their work plan that we approved, they ought to take this --
>> and i'd be realistic saying people, come on, they are going to be finished with the rest of the tp-dz year and -- fiscal year, but they are going to somehow magically start this process and let's say they start in September.
>> if we add it to the bottom of this work plan, I知 happy. That really is the original motion.
>> I don't have a problem starting it I suppose whenever we can. In other words, we're being asked to start it as soon as you can, but first you got to do all this stuff. If you do all this stuff by the end of the year, but if you come, you know, July and August and you say we're not going to be able to start that -- what I don't want to do is get pulled over in the hallway and say are you pushing hrmd to get all of this stuff done because we want this thing done and in place? No, I mean and maybe this is what needs to be said on television. I don't want that to happen. I want -- I want the group to -- you know, to get the study and I want you to do whatever is on here and I want you to take the time to do whatever we need to have done on this. If you can do it all --
>> I think if we have it on the '05 work plan it implies to these folks you need to start working on this in '05, not get to it if you've got time left over.
>> if they listen to this discussion today, there's no way in the world for them to think this is a '05 issue.
>> I think if we meant for it to happen in '05 we should have pre-loaded it into the budget. But I think it's unfair to leave them work that they are just not going to get there.
>> any more discussion of the substitute motion? All in favor of it, substitute motion. Show Commissioners Sonleitner Gomez for the substitute motion. All against? Davis, Daugherty and yours truly. Any more discussion of the original motion?
>> can you please restate it?
>> the original motion is to approve number 9 and to basically ask hrmd to add it to the work plan that they shared with us today. My understanding is if this work plan takes as long as they told us today, this effectively puts us in '06. But the original motion has that if they finish this in '05, in late '05, basically they would just start on number 9.
>> if I can get a clarification, judge. So they are not supposed to jump this in line in terms of the work plan. If it's clearly understood that it's on the bottom and everything else is ahead --
>> I don't know how it could be clearer than what I stated. If you like your language.
>> I知 fine with it the way it is any more discussion?
>> I just want quality work on this. I don't want them giving me half baked information.
>> all in favor? Show a unanimous court. Thank you all very much.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:34 AM