Travis County Commssioners Court
October 29, 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 28
28 is to discuss constable precinct two proposals comps -- transition all
pops scale employees in his office to non-pops status with future salaries
tied to performance, tied to performance, not tenure, and take appropriate
action.
>> do you want to lie out what it is that you have as an
proposal? This is an idea that he bounced off commissioner Moore and I and
we took it in a whole different direction to try to resolve some management
goals that bob has in his office related to more of a performance-based idea
of how to evaluate folks working within his office. And if you'll go ahead
and lay it out and let us know the reaction that you got from the persons
who would be directly involved?
>> well, I appreciate it, commissioner Sonleitner. That's
about half of my discussion this morning.
>> sorry. [ laughter ]
>> this has been -- having my employees non-pops with all
the inherent pluses and minuses have in the last year come -- it's become
a reality that minuses are far out weighing what I need to efficiently run
my office. I've explained to hr before that about a year and a half ago I
met the requirements for a sergeant that had been preliminary set in the county
for having a sergeant position assigned once you have a deputy supervise.
It had been a year and a half before they were able to grant me the argument
position a few weeks ago or whatever. For a year and a half i've had a deputy
in a position doing the supervisory requirements that was asked of that deputy,
and not being able to pay him because I can't get through -- I can't get through
all the requirements that are built into pops and applied across the board.
They're basically general. I mean, it's not that there's something inherently
wrong or exactly right about them, but in my office we have been able to turn
that office around since I took office from the amount of return that we put
back into the general line item and completing civil process, completing warrant
and performance of law enforcement duties that we're required to do to the
point that after five years, this past year we turned in more money than the
court budgeted us. But at that point I still have no method built in within
pops to reward the employees that I have that are producing and doing far
more than what their job description requires them to do as a deputy constable
or senior deputy, and finally the sergeant position. And at the same time,
with these highly train, highly experienced employees, they get no credit
that they've had 20 years in at d.p.s. Or 10 years in with another law enforcement
agency. In pops I'm not allowed to credit any of their experience, training,
education, certificates that they hold. I believe at least half of my department
hold instructors certificates and about half my department hold the highest
tcleose license in the state of Texas, which is master peace officer. And
i've got a city to the north that touches my precinct that I am actually in
competition with. And during this past year it became apparent after I lost
three employees, which about 20% of my workforce, that I was in the process
of losing four more that had applications in to that unnamed city to the north
of Travis County who has -- that's right, Round Rock. Who has an ability to
pay and has a card with their officer's names on it and things like that.
And I'm in competition with them. And if I lose these other four employees,
I will have lost 50% of my work staff in one year. And that's the year that
they have done way more than the county ever expected them to do, but they
did what I expected them to do, and they turned around and we returned money
above and beyond what the court budgeted our office. And I have no capability
of retaining those employees in -- retaining those employees.
>> when we talked, it became very clear that pops is very
strict in terms of its structure. And not only his office, but all the other
con strabl office, but those who are on the pops scale as well. But he has
moved into a place where the rejid di doesn't work any more and because of
the goals he's related in his office because of customer service, which that's
not ridge jid, he needs something more flexible and pops does not seem to
be the thing that will take him to the next level. What I liked about the
idea of flexibility to be allow odd this is constable van will still be able
to stay within the same budget that he has, so there will not be any fiscal
impact on Travis County. So if they go to non-pops status, the employees know
there is no guarantee in terms of pay raises that are locked in with the adoption
of a pops scale, and they're willing to be in there with all the other rank
and file folk like they used to be in terms of if there are pay raises or
there are not pay raises in the flexibility that's grant to a department to
go ahead and make merit, performance-based pay increases and not a locked
in amount that the same person gets the same amount no matter what your output
was. So what I like is he stays within his same budget and he gets more flexibility.
But to get the flexibility you have to give up the rigidity and the assurance
of pop. I think for constable van, the time has come for his office and he
makes no judgment about whether anyone else ought to or should do this, but
it's what he needs to most effectively run his office and keep people with
incentives and motivated, but also to respond to the market conditions related
to --
>> commissioner and judge, I apologize for getting down here
and getting a little late. Y'all are doing a very good job of moving along
this morning. The two deputies that were scheduled to come down here and represent
all of my commissioned peace officers to inform the court that it was a unanimous
vote after we sat and discussed this with them, have not been able to make
it because we weren't thinking that y'all would get to us that quick. I do
have my chief deputy here who will confirm that they sat without me in the
room and discussed this matter. And as it was laid out, they said it's time
to move off the pops and, you know, they're ready to work hard and come back
to y'all next year and show you what we've done and see if y'all are correct.
>> commissioner, the way we explained it -- and constable.
Is this because of the competition which is right next to you. If you don't
have that competition right next to your precinct, then this wouldn't apply?
>> no, that just hurried the process up this year. The real
guiding force behind it is the fact that i've assembled a group of employees
that are doing their duties far better than the county expected them to, and
they're happy with their jobs and they're out there performing. And that's
what it's about. I had not figured out the percentage exactly, but to go from
what we were doing when I look office to where we are now is way more than
a 1500% increase in efficiently operating, serving the warrants that are issued
by the judges, serving the civil process. Even after redistricting, it was
expected that our civil process would go down, but our civil process went
down temporarily for two months, and we're at a level now that we're getting
more civil process directed to our office than we were last year before redistricting.
The money and the services out there -- the services are out there and we're
performing.
>> so to get you back to the compensation standards that
the commissioners court normally adopts and propose rates money for increases.
What we've really been doing is this expectation of a certain amount and perform
this pay on top of that.
>> that's what I was under the impression that's what I was
proposing. If the court does not think that we performed as well as they were
expecting, then I expect next year when I come up to you for the budget, you're
going to take that into consideration.
>> constable -- [ inaudible ]
>> judge, we have no issue and support the constable in coming
off the pops scale, if indeed that's what he wishes to do. We would recommend,
though, in the transition that there be a transition to your adopted pay rate
structure. That we base the transition and the pay grades on data that has
been gathered -- consolidated and been gathered through the market, that we
take into consideration the city of Round Rock and other counties that have
similar positions that are not in pops, so that you have some basis, some
data, some tangible data in which to place the individuals. There is also
some -- I think some suggestions. We met this morning at 9:30 with constable
van. I thought, frankly, that all this was going to be done today until yesterday
when I had talked to commissioner Sonleitner. We hadn't had an opportunity
to talk. And by that time I had already set the meeting this morning. So we
had been through some of the recommendations that we would make in terms of
the appropriate pay grade. Constable van had some ideas that he discussed
with us that we probably need to have more discussion. The issues for you
will be do you want the grades to be indeed market based. How will the impact,
if they are not market based, what impact will they have about the other constables
and their -- the pay ranges and them being on pops? So, for example, if we
come up with a grade 18 for a particular position, constable vanments to put
it -- van wants to put it at a 23 or a 20, okay? We would bring those disagreements
to you and discuss why we recommend 18 and he recommends 20. We do that all
the time. It would be up to the court to decide. Then we would look at the
other constable's office also and kind of make that comparison so that you
have the big picture in front of he have everyone in those offices to compare
to. So I think what we have is he wants to come off of pops. We support that
if he thinks that would make his office run smoother. We still have to work
out where what we believe are the appropriate grades and pay ranges for the
positions that he has in comparison so a broader market.
>> how long do you think it will take to make that aknoll
sis? What -- analysis? I think it's a great idea. I really do. As far as what
he's wanting to do, as far as what he sees -- constable van sees in his shop;
however, not knowing what the other constables may want to do, they may want
to do the same thing all across the board here if it's favorable to them.
And I guess it's to each -- the discretion of each elected official. I'm having
a problem with it. But what i'd like to maybe see is a comparison of what
impact it will make. Now, right now, from what I understand, constable van
if you can help me out a little bit, what I'm understanding is the way your
budget is structured now, it will not be an impact. This is to the county;
however, not knowing what the comparative analysis that will take place as
far as your competition in Round Rock, for example. In looking at that and
looking at the grades and restructuring and things like that, would that be
a situation where it may boost up the impact of future budget request. And
that's what I don't know. I'm still kind of lost at that end on looking at
future expenditures that we have not yet had a chance to digest and analyze
as we go through the course of fiscal year '03. And again -- and officer van,
first, how long would it take you to analyze this particular --
>> commissioner, it's my understanding that next week you
want to have just a consent agenda.
>> could you speak up louder?
>> my understanding is next week you want to have a consent
agenda, so I believe in two weeks, is that --
>> if you wish agreement, there's no reason why we couldn't
go ahead and budget it. Exactly. If there is disagreement, yeah, for discussion,
two weeks from today would be better.
>> I guess my whole -- officer van, if you can help me, please,
how many employees do you have in your shop on the pops scale now?
>> 11, if I'm correct.
>> 11, sir? Okay. And if -- so what -- what you're suggesting
is the money that's been assigned in the pops scale as it's assigned as far
as the tenure and things like that, will be the pop scale monies in the categories,
and, of course, still in the con signment of the shop. And that money will
be basically used for the performance-based for your employees, but not within
the pops scale arena. Is that correct?
>> I'm going to try to answer this, commissioner Davis. And
I may have misunderstood all of your question.
>> that's all right.
>> the court has already set my budget for this year.
>> exactly.
>> what is budgeted for salaries and stuff, that's set already.
>> right.
>> we're not coming back to the court and asking for more
money. Now, in the future will this have an impact? I sure hope so because
I hope next year I'm coming back and asking y'all for a little bit more money
for salaries. But there will not be -- to the best of my knowledge, there
will no longer be any automatic pay raises, there will -- all the stuff that
was built into the pops is not going to be there.
>> okay. You got to my point, the automatic situation.
>> it's automatic when the court says yes, bob, your office
did good enough. You want four percent for salaries? We can afford it.
>> okay.
>> and if y'all say no, my employees understand, it's based
on performance, it's based on coming back to the court and showing that everybody's
doing their job and we're doing it as fesht efficiently as the court wants
us to.
>> okay. You answered my question. And I guess now I need
to hear from alicia as far as making that analysis. And like I said, I would
like to see what kind of future projections would that make -- an impact it
would have.
>> before we leave that, before she comes to answer that,
I want to reiterate again to the court that getting off of pops means something
very important to these pops employees, and that's all the automatic stuff
is no longer there. And that's something that I hope that the court takes
into consideration when we come back that they're doing this based on trying
to impress the court that they're doing above and beyond their job when we
come around next year for budget.
>> and I'm not questioning that or doubting what you're saying.
I applaud you for even looking at maybe ways of doing things better in the
long run. But I guess it's just the comparative analysis that hr brought up
to let us see what impacts it will have. I'd like to maybe see what that is.
And I have no problem with it.
>> well, there may be -- there may be other issues right
now with hr, but the preliminary -- I came prepared with a pay scale that
was identical, just had different pay grade levels. The pops pay scale, not
being on pops. Hr had explained that no, they didn't really want that, that
we needed to go to what I consider the non-pops pay grade. And I came with
a proposal this morning about where certain positions ought to be on that.
Now, we started at the same place and have no problem with the pay grade level
for a deputy constable, but as we went up the pay grade, we started missing
it by one and then toward the end by two or three grade levels. So there's
discussion left to be made about it.
>> okay.
>> it's -- we're trying to reinvent a whole lot of stuff
here. We have a pay scale. It's not a problem with the pay scale not working,
it's how people are placed on it and move along it. So it seems like we find
the identical start and end points because it's not a question of the start
and the end, it's how you move along it. And it's how constable van can place
people on this that he can then respond to not only internal equity, but dealing
with Round Rock. We do not want to create a situation where constable van
is able to pay people more being in his office than somebody on the pops scale
in terms of his salary is -- let's just make it up -- 30 to 60. And somebody
on the pops scale is 38 to 58. We do not want to create that kind of situation
either. It has to do with how he places people on the pops scale and not inventing
that somehow we have to come up with a new scale for him. We have it. And
it's in four other offices and in the sheriff's office. We're there. It's
just how do you place people on it and move people along.
>> commissioner, the first pay scale I came up to didn't
change one single number on pops, it just changed the pay grade level. And
as the court did on pops when they separated out the sheriff's and law enforcement,
it went from pay grades in the 80's to pay grades in the 70's, and I just
changed up my pay grades to 60.
>> when we approve the transition off of the pops scale,
can we also approve where those employees land? Would it make sense to do
both of them at one time?
>> I think that's just -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to interpret
for the court. I think that's a separate issue with working sth out with h
-- this out with hr and the appropriate people about what pay grades. And
my first proposal was to keep the same pay grades, put different numbers on
it. It's not a pops pay scale that is hurting, it is all the bells and whistles
that go along with it, the hoops that you have to jump through.
>> and a quick answer to your question is yes because we
would have to approve the paf forms of moving somebody from a slot whatever
on the pops scale to a new non-pops slot. We have to clean up the slot list.
So the answer is yes, we would have to approve where these people are.
>> so it's not transitioning off of pops. The question is
where would those employees land? And I really think if you can reach agreement,
you ought to try to do that. In which case it would be easier for us to go
ahead and pry -- and approve it next Tuesday. My thought would be that we
discuss it on the following Tuesday, which would be the 12th. You if you meet
this morning, your follow-up meetings may be able to have you resolve whatever
differences you have.
>> hr may have a different opinion, but I don't believe we're
that far off. They have some conditions that they feel need to be met. But
as I'm telling the court, I think I have some conditions that need to be met.
And by getting off of pops you're losing all those guarantees.
>> judge, I would move that we give tentative approval to
the proposal that constable van has given us to transition off of pops and
that his office work with hr hopefully the next week and it can be brought
to court for final sign off as early as next Tuesday. It not, it would expect
to see it before the court on November 12th. And if any assistance sneed in
terms of an informal subcommittee, that commissioner Moore and I would agree
to do that since we are the ones that encompass the con table's precinct 2
boundaries.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote.
>> thank you.
>> sorry to volunteer you there, Margaret, but I think it
worked out.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM