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 Eighteen
>> all right. Let's go to 18, which is approve personnel amendments. Some of these are routine. I move approval of the routine ones.>> second? Any discussion of those? Those will be through page 5, excluding the non-routine, right? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Two non-routine ones that be ppo, we talked about these last week.
>> one up above that, too, judge.
>> public safety. If we apply the newly adopted policies [inaudible]
>> what you have is a memorandum that indeed outlines the education, the experience and the skill sets of -- of the individual that -- that will be -- whose salary is above midpoint, the determination again is to the court in review of that particular memorandum, individual experience and skill sets.
>> it's under that 10%? It's under the --
>> it's above. It's above the 10%.
>> > it's above mid point plus 10%.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> but the documentation shows that it's falling under the -- under the policy.
>> certainly merits consideration --
>> certainly -- you all agree with all of the documentation and things that we talked about earlier.
>> yes, sir.
>> education, skill set, all of those other things.
>> I would move approval of slot 14 to the amount that the department is asking for related to the salary.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now the first p.b.o. Item, slot number 3.
>> this is -- this item is a -- is a career ladder move, which would be under the new policy that we are just -- just approved would be routine. Because it's below mid point.
>> move approval of this routine item.
>> would the other one be routine, also.
>> second.
>> the other one would be non-routine, not a career ladder. Salary adjustment.
>> hold off on that one.
>> move approval of routine item on slot 3.
>> seconded by commissioner Gomez, any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> this item would be still non-routine at this points, because it's above midpoint and we are also coming back with a salary adjustment policy later, so we don't have a policy approved for that. So in this particular instance there's not a policy that covers a 10% increase for an employee without some type of [inaudible] mobility action or career ladder.
>> I think we have appropriate documentation on this one, judge, I would move approval of slot 7 as recommended by the department.
>> shall I -- did you look at the other documentation? We have looked at the documentation for that one.
>> did it look good?
>> I think so. That's what we discussed.
>> it's just -- says we do it.
>> recommend, no recommendation, don't know? Recommend against?
>> on that one really it would be the -- the pleasure of the court. We have looked at documentation, I think, that the manager made a case for it and we would say that that would be the pleasure of the court since there is no policy that would govern this and this is above and beyond performance based pay.
>> the salary adjustment [multiple voices]
>> this particular title is among the i.t. Job family to be reviewed on next year. So typically our response to departments have been if they have the resources within, their 5% allocation that was awarded to all departments to make any kind of adjustment they could, but we were not in general supporting titles that were part of the -- of the job families that were approved in the strategic plan.
>> well if it gets reviewed now, does it get reviewed then.
>> if it were reviewed now, it would -- may not be reviewed again, but then we also have another departments who have requested reviews that are in the year 3 strategic plan in a we have not been authorized by your direction to do those individual reviews.
>> hum. You have this money in your budget?
>> move approval?
>> commissioner Sonleitner moves approval.
>> I would second. Tom thing is I think we need to get -- [inaudible] certain positions, then the lapse of time before [inaudible]
>> this -- this particular is really tied up more to a career ladder in flux for a person in its t that is not in the i.t. Department. This is an unusual circumstance, it needs to be fixed.
>> seconded by commissioner Gomez, any more discussion? All in favor? Show commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor.
>> voting in opposition.
>> voting in opposition show commissioner Davis.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM