Travis County Commssioners Court
October 15, 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.
Item 18
18. Approve personnel amendments. Move approval of the routine.
>> second.
>> amendments. And of which there are many. Seconded by commissioner Gomez. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And then there are some non-routine.
>> judge, could I ask a real quick question on the routine. Norman, on the career ladders, there's a slot here, it's the third -- second one down of somebody that's moving from a corrections officer to a certified corrections officer. And I'm just making sure based on -- based on the action of this court of saying there was a cutoff points. Anybody in process still gets to continue. But I'm making sure that we have a process in place to make sure that these are being looked at, that, yes, they were in process before --
>> these are the one that's are in process. [inaudible] [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> I figured we had a safety valve there to make sure, I just wanted to make sure that these are indeed --
>> thank you.
>> there's one note for the routine if we may. There were some approvals that the court had made during the budget process related to the tax office. You will see that there are a number of personnel actions that are included in the routine items to create the special unit that had been discussed and approved during the budget process. And in addition to that, I believe there's one other office that we have worked with, norman can you help me real quickly? That same thing would apply to. It's escaping me at the moment. But it's in the budget, many of the routine items are all included in this package as routine items.
>> on the non-routine, the first one is a classification change for constable precinct 2, to create a constable sergeant slot. That was reviewed in light of what was the budget as far as funding is available for that. And the fact that we have created a constable sergeant slot in precinct 3, so we reviewed that. The way that would work is this position would be created and then a senior deputy slot would be closed upon the promotion of one of those individuals into that slot.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> I'm not seeing this. Where is this --
>> on the non-routine classification review. In with all of our classification changes on the ad hoc on page 14. But we hieltd it on the -- highlighted it in the front box of the personnel amendments because that particular one is a non-routine item.
>> thank you.
>> I --
>> [inaudible] motion.
>> so the recommendation from hr is to approve it.
>> yes.
>> motion and second. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> next one we have a couple of non-routine personnel actions. One is for the couple of lateral transfers for the tax office. And normally the mobility policy states that if someone is being transferred to the same position within a department, they retain their current pay. And in this instance, the tax office wants to increase the salary for these two individuals. And I believe dusty is here if you have any specific questions related to those requests.
>> wouldn't the normal procedure here, you are correct somebody moving from slot to slot, that's just administrative. If there is indeed performance based pay, somebody can make changes in somebody's salary when that time comes in terms of givinghis person a 3.6% pay increase, but we all know that's kind of a hold for the moment. But I'm a little perplexed why somebody would change a slot number and get a raise. I don't get it.
>> uh-huh. Uh-huh.
>> we've -- we have a pilot program. One phase of this. We are asking someone to leave as a supervisor in a particular group that's been here forever and go into something that's being funded for one year. It is call on some -- calling on some talents he has had from a prior position within the county that's going to benefit us to put this person into the new slot, the temporary slot, so we wish to give that individual a raise so that -- taking them out of their comfort zone to go off into a job that may be funded for am a year, do something that he has -- if something was changing, the old matrix type of thing, he would be benefitting to do this. But this is a change from --
>> we never discussed that, when that came up before us in the budget process we looked at funding that pilot project, which I supported it, stuff like that --
>> this is I agree. We are taking a person currently here, putting him in there. We are staying within budget. We are not asking you all for any additional moneys.
>> I understand that.
>> is this person picking up additional duties and responsibilities.
>> yes.
>> does that matter to hrmd.
>> with the lateral that they are proposing, those duties would fall into that same pay grade it wouldn't matter with us.
>> I'm sorry, I just can't hear you.
>> the lateral is from the same pay grade performing one set of functions to the same value pay grade performing yet different functions and as dusty mentioned there are new -- there are new duties and responsibilities based on the initiation of this new program that has been approved. What he's choosing to do is to provide this employee for the challenge associated with getting a new program off the ground, to provide this employee with some level of compensation to take it on on, incentive.
>> I have a suggestion here.
>> you can -- [multiple voices]
>> our policy doesn't allow that?
>> sir the --
>> the policy does not.
>> I know how to get throughs.
>> the policy on the books -- we are in the process of working with the policy that we brought before the court. I guess two or three weeks ago, that would allow departments to use permanent Sam larry savings to August augment individuals --
>> there's not a county policy that says if you pick up -- if you accept additional duties and responsibilities, additional compensation can be provided.
>> yeah.
>> under the mobility policy there is -- there is a section that indicates that if someone has picked up additional duties over and above what their normal duties are, that the court may consider approving additional pay for that individual.
>> uh-huh.
>> that's where I was going to head on this. Is rather than we are getting into this thing of because you change a slot all of a sudden you trigger a policy that is not where you want to be. Is that these two folks stay in the slot numbers that have been assigned to them, they get add pay because as you correctly said, this is a one-year pilot project, which we will re-evaluate, it may be at the end of the year we go not a great idea, in which case you then remove those duties from that person and they go back to their old sal dears.
>> what were -- salaries.
>> what were you planning to do with the old slot?
>> the one that we are talking to right now I was going to attempt to hold it open, I'm an optimist, but I want to not take away something --
>> you have permission to create two new slots. You would still have those two slots to fill with what those folks used to do, correct?
>> correct. Could. I think we are going to find out very quickly whether this is going to be -- going to work or not.
>> even under current policy, if the court agrees that a certain employee is picking up additional duties and responsibilities, we can authorize additional compensation.
>> exactly. Changing the slot numbers triggers a policy where we don't have that flexibility. But if you keep the same slot numbers and we handle this as add pay for a special pilot program, let's do a worst case scenario here. If you change these slot numbers and give them that salary, if it doesn't work out, you are now paying them more for something they they are not doing anymore. The better way to handle it would be add pay, it gets evaluated. You may or may not choose to fill the other two slots in terms of what they used to do.
>> does this apply to both of these?
>> it could. One of them is -- one of them is specific to the pilot program. The other one was you allowed us to do a reorg in which a person left a supervisor role, went into a management role. We are now moving into supervisor into this. They can stay at the same slot that they are. We can do the same thing. It's a little bit different circumstances, but once again people are not wanting to leave a comfort zone that I have right now today to do something different, lose any chance of getting a -- give me a little bit of an incentive, that's where we are.
>> the incentives are going above -- I'm having a problem with that.
>> move approval of the first one.
>> second.
>> based on the fact that this person is ping up additional -- picking up additional responsibilities and duties and we are providing additional compensation for that during the pilot period.
>> okay. Judge, are you suggesting that they stay in that slot and then the add on, whatever the add on amount is within that slot it can be looked at it and of course if -- if again if the program fails or whatever, well, it's, you know, won't hit us as far as the ratchet up type of situation and those duties are removed if necessary. Because it is a pilot project. Is that part of your motion on the --
>> how important is moving to another slot?
>> well --
>> the slot numbers can be assigned to whatever -- same position, so if you consider this slot number to be now assigned to this program, they can maintain the same slot number.
>> I was concentrating on the additional compensation which I thought was the issue.
>> but if you are suggesting it's an add pay issue of 3.6% for slot 14/9.
>> unless you want to -- is it important to move the slot --
>> no. Slot numbers mean nothing to me. It's the ability to deal with people.
>> that's a processing matter that we can execute.
>> basically we provide additional compensation for additional duties and responsibilities.
>> that works for me on both of these.
>> add pay.
>> for a year? Are we looking at that just for a year.
>> the one that's the pilot program it is just for a year. The individual understands that if this goes away, that goes away because we are holding a position hopefully open so they can go back. They would be more than happy to go back versus losing a job.
>> losing a job, I understand.
>> the budgets is for a year.
>> that's all, that's all.
>> we understand that. We are going to hopefully make it long before April the first that this is going to be successful.
>> hr, are you pleased --
>> we can manage that, process it that way.
>> okay.
>> was there a second?
>> yes. I seconded.
>> my more discussion? All in favor? Any more discussion? All in favor that passes by unanimous vote. Now let's move to the second one for the tax office.
>> those were the only two for the tax office. The next is for -- [multiple voices]
>> I'm sorry, I thought you all already seconded that, auto I'm sorry.
>> the second one not for 3.6% is it, either?
>> nope.
>> what is the explanation for that now.
>> you all have me confused now. Which one are you looking at.
>> not temporary.
>> this is one with a 10% increase.
>> the 10% -- excuse me. Because I'm not seeing what you are seeing. The 10% was the temporary slot. That was the temporary slot for me. The other person that's 3.6, that would take the person to the -- what's the proper term?
>> we approved the 3.6.
>> okay.
>> that wasn't the temporary.
>> that's not the temporary then. I'm sorry, I didn't see the numbers that you were looking at. The 3.6 is taking a person to maximum range. It is replacing -- it was taking over from a supervisor that moved up during this reorg. That's the one that's this amount. It is going to be some extra duties, granted, but it's not temporary in nature. It would be forever and ever hopefully, that the 3.6 one.
>> okay. The 10% was the individual that's temporary --
>> add pay.
>> if it goes away, the individual drops back down to where they were.
>> how did we arrive at 10%.
>> a round number.
>> round number meaning pulling it out of the air.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's going to be a very important job.
>> it's a very important challenging position that we are having to deal with. The individual has worked with the judges before. I thought it was very beneficial. We are trying to make -- we want to get the enthusiasm and to make this pilot work, so I'm trying to generate some enthusiasm of what I can do first. This obviously gets a person vote mated. If we -- motivated. If we can't do it, we can't do it, that's what we are shooting for. No promises have been made to the individual.
>> let's hear from hrmd.
>> the 10% increase would take the employee to 12.36% above midpoint. There have been 10% increases in the past for additional duty type of actions that the court has approved.
>> there also has been just for salary adjustment. So that's what this would be, it would be a salary adjustment.
>> 3.6 --
>> part of the reorg.
>> part of the reorg, right.
>> 10% is the add pay situation for the new duties. To clarify, I move approval of both the tax office non-routine items.
>> second.
>> you have this in your budget now.
>> yes, sir, we are not asking for anything but approval.
>> this motion would supersede what we just did.
>> yes.
>> actually I think don't we have to --
>> motion to reconsider, do we need to do that?
>> because you already approved it, yes, you would need a motion to reconsider.
>> motion to reconsider the motion I made previously which was passed by the court.
>> second.
>> all in favor? Show -- that passes by unanimous vote. And I move that we rescind that motion.
>> it's already done.
>> doctor00. By reconsidering it we rescinded it.
>> all right. I move that we approve both of the tax office non-routine items.
>> still second. Any more discussion? All in favor.
>> show commissioners Sonleitner, Moore, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor.
>> voting -- voting no on this.
>> commissioner Davis voting no. Constable precinct 3 --
>> for the reasons -- the reasons is that -- that the requirements and recommendations by hrmd on this does not allow me to support this -- to sustain actually doing 4.36 -- 3.36 above the midpoint, that's significant. As far as I'm concerned, especially when you have other incentives to pay. That's the reason that I am voting no.
>> constable precinct 3.
>> this item there are two -- first one non-routine, a promotion for an individual who does not quite meet the -- the requirements for the job of the constable sergeant, requires two years experience within the department and the employee has -- has I believe one year and eight months in the department. And so that's why we listed it as non-routine because the person did not meet the minimum quals for the constable sergeant.
>> why would we waive the minimum requirement in this case.
>> judge, this is a matter of a routine employee. I need to be able to as an elected official to have a person in a supervisory position that I have faith, confidence and trust in. This individual has 35 years police experience, he was former captain with the Travis County sheriff's department. He is also -- he's also had 8 years at constable precinct 3 with a short break. When I took office he came in. It's not like he doesn't have the experience, ability or the training to too the -- to do the job. What I'm asking to you be able to do is promote him. Quite honestly he's been fulfilling this role for about a year and a half already. Now that we have the constable's position, the sergeant's position for our office, it's a natural progression to move him into that position and allow him to be paid for the work that he's already currently doing.
>> so you believe this person's overall qualifications greatly exceed --
>> without question.
>> plus the person has been acting in this capacity for sometime already.
>> that's correct.
>> and you have this amount of money in your budget.
>> yes.
>> I'm confused you just said this person had been with precinct 3 for how many years.
>> about -- about 8 years. There was a break, then he came back when I took office.
>> okay. Because this says here that this person [multiple voices] has not had two years within the department. Is it the continuous service.
>> continuous service.
>> okay. I would hope that as we -- I'm going to support this. Is that we make it very clear in our record that it is -- it is in response to us compensating for the break in service that this person does indeed meet all the requirements related to the pop scale because I do not want to open up something related to our definition of pops because -- we are fixing to get hit with some about people trying to go from department to department and how we count time. We need to handle this as we are going to allow for the break in service to be more than what normally is there because this person does indeed meet all of the requirements.
>> let me make one other comment. The placement of the individual's salary on the pop scale is appropriate. Based on our current rules and policies. It's just the fact that the person lacked four months of -- of --
>> what -- [multiple voices]
>> they are not trying to place the individual at a higher step.
>> I guess my question, though, what is the policy -- what's our personnel policy on this, human resources what is the policy, even though there may be a break in service, do we go back and add up the total number of years that person have had -- no. The years of service policy on pops --
>> I'm asking hr.
>> the years of service policy on pops is that it's continuous service within the owe within a constable --
>> continuous, continuing meaning --
>> no [multiple voices]
>> would be a reinstatement within one year. But other than that, it's continuous service and the years of service are counted between constables, park rangers and investigators as one set of years of experience. And then the sheriff's office he is counted separately from that. So it has to be within the constable, park ranger or investigator position of continuous service, that's how they are placed on the pops.
>> how do we come up with the year and eight months as opposed to the requirement of having these two years.
>> the individual has a year and eight months in a pops position in constable three continuous service. So that's why looking at the job description requires two years within the department. And so this person lacks four months. But as far as the placement, the step placement is appropriate.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> you are saying let's waive the two year requirement this time because before the break the person was employed in the precinct 3 office.
>> how many years.
>> about 8 years.
>> and the person was gone.
>> right.
>> and when I took office I brought him right back in.
>> 35 years of.
>> police experience. He was the first captain of the sheriff's training academy, he's a graduate of the f.b.i. National academy, he's got more experience than most of us could ever dream of having. Management experience, he was a captain with the sheriff's office for years and years. Well qualified.
>> but in terms of respecting --
>> I'm not talking about experience per se in this case. I'm talking about, my concern at this point is are we setting a precedence here. What are we doing? In other words if it's required for two years, for requirement, experience, I'm not doubting the experience that this person has. Don't -- that's not the question. The question is policy. Now, we are talking about a year and eight months the person has. Opposed to a two year requirement that h.r. Is suggesting that -- that meet the needs. And so are we establishing a precedence here where someone else could come understand say the same thing because they don't have the same set of circumstances? That's what I am trying to avoid is establishing a precedence that I may not want to [inaudible] I guess legal what is the situation on this? From a legal standpoint of view?
>> I can make it even easier than that. You have an elected official sitting in front of you, who has the money in his budget, he has a spot. He's telling you this is what I want.
>> we also want to be consistent with our policy. I think -- consistent with the policy.
>> you can lay that out you can fit it in both.
>> I mentioned that -- [multiple voices]
>> justify an exception, if the commissioners court agrees you can approve, that's for everybody -- we would expect you to come in and have compelling reasons for us to -- [multiple voices]
>> yes, sir.
>> absolutely.
>> anything out of the policy we have always brought that forward as that, the court has always maintained that.
>> come in, make your case, pleasure of the court. [ laughter ] [ laughter ]
>> I hope we get confronted with this precedent again.
>> sorry I'm creating such a problem here this morning.
>> the point is it was brought up as such, I want to make sure as far as what I'm doing from a policy directive, it's something that I can live with and not establish any type of precedence that I will not be able to live with. But I wanted to hear all of the facts. This is why I'm asking the questions that I'm asking, even though it is policy.
>> I fully understand your questions.
>> policy, also.
>> okay. I understand that.
>> all right. Thank you. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> the second issue is a 2.07% salary adjustment for a current employee. This is listed as nobody routine simply because as of today we don't have a policy to just allow a salary adjustment for an individual incumbents. That's why it's listed as a non-routine.
>> okay. This adjustment is appropriate because?
>> several reasons, judge. This individual is -- has continuous service with Travis County for 35 years, she is currently our warrant clerk, she is also getting ready to assume some of the responsibilities that was associated with our asap clerk. She's going to be having a little heavier workload going on with -- with picking up some of those duties that we can no longer keep our asap clerk employed. In that position. And looking at her salary having been an employ for 35 years with Travis County, this is something I feel important to do to be able to bring her salary up. We are talking about, I think it's about a 30-cent raise per hour, it's $2.40 a day, which I don't think is a lot to ask for. But it also brings her salary up to a better level for her than having an employee that long, I think it's something that I would truly like to be able to do for her, so say thank you for the work that she's doing, plus doing the extra workload.
>> you have a wonderful clerk.
>> I will let the court know that the person we were going to have to rif, we were able to get her laterally move into another slot as of today.
>> excellent.
>> is this within your budget.
>> yes.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> is there h.r., You did suggest that there's no policy that governs what we are doing here today. There's not a policy today, for salary adjustment for an incumbent employee outside of mobility or --
>> I guess my point is since this may happen again is that I would like to suggest along with that motion that -- that commissioner Moore brought up, that we also look at bringing back a policy from h.r. Soon, I guess because something else may fall through the cracks as far as me not having policy to address --
>> yeah, that's the plan. That's the plan.
>> so I would like to make sure that that other part of this because again, the precedent setting situation or something that -- that we are aware of. Trying to avoid as much as possible if it's not -- affect other employees in Travis County, other than in his shop, so I think the policy should be appropriate to bring back so we can look at other possibilities, if warranted. So I would like to -- to offer that as a friendly to the motion of the commissioner.
>> friendly to the seconder.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That carries unanimously.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> that's all. Any more non-routine? Judge and commissioners. I just want to point out on to make sure that we were all cognizant of the fact that on page 14 is the i.t. Project coordinator for e filing, that went from a 19 to a 23, we have the money to fund it, we will come with a non-routine personnel amendment probably next week to justify that. Just wanted to make sure.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM