Travis County Commssioners Court
November 12, 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 16
16. Approve personnel amendments. There are some non-routine matters.
>> good morning judge, commissioners. A couple of non-routines. The first one is for facilities management department, by the way I'm norman [inaudible] with h.r. The first one is facilities management department. This is an employee performing duties of a building supervisor and had been compensated in '02 for those same duties out of the 5% funding that the department had. As we rolled into fy '03 there was not 5% funding any longer, but they wanted to continue to compensate for these additional duties that this employee is performing. The employee is going to be retiring in '03, so this additional pay would just be through the date of that employee's retirement.
>> will we add it to his basal larry also.
>> it's additional pay. Not added to base pay. The basal larry will stay the same because he's a red lined employee. There is an additional pay on top of that.
>> as far as the retirement policy is concerned you get --
>> come out of the total pay.
>> but this [multiple voices]
>> retirement contributions would come out of that, but this is an additional pay as opposed to a base pay increase.
>> the department has money in its budget to --
>> the department has confirmed --
>> okay.
>> the second one, any questions?
>> [inaudible]
>> we can?
>> move for approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in gave?
>> > I'm going to abstain. Show commissioner Gomez, Moore, Sonleitner and yours truly in favor. Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> the second one is for an employee working as a director for the comirp's partnership program. Children's partnership program since earlier this year, although the county had not approved a grant at that time. Mhmr had been supplementing this employee's salary. Now that the county has approved a grant for this, the department wants to pay the employee at the same rate -- that person had been paid through both county sources and mh -- [technical problems, please stand by]
>> judge, I have one that would like to hold for a week, it's listed as routine, but it doesn't strike me as such. It may be if I get the right backup. That is slot 28 in h.r. I would like that to be pulled for a week. It's an assistant going to an analyst, a six pay grade jump. Appeared I need to see an org chart and to understand what going on here. It may be very routine, but I couldn't tell it from what I got in the backup. If that could be pulled for a week I would appreciate that. Get some more information.
>> what page is that one on in.
>> on page 7 at the top.
>> okay.
>> > [inaudible - no mic]
>> I don't want it today. I would like to see an org chart and to understand what's going on in terms of -- because it just struck me more of a reorganization and six pay grade is pretty big related to what's going on there. That's a total change in job duties.
>> other than that, can we move approval of all of the routine items.
>> second.
>> we will have it on just next week.
>> next week. It thoroughly -- it may be thoroughly appropriate I just need to get more information.
>> okay. I have one -- there's a motion to approve all of the others.
>> routine.
>> and a second. My question is on page 4, career ladders involving corrections officers, these officers receive their certified peace officer -- received their certification?
>> yeah. These -- on page 4 at the bottom there?
>> yes, sir. Guess there's six of them in all?
>> yes. That's where they are going to -- first one is going to a senior level, all of these are going to a senior level. And generally that's already in the category of -- of certified peace officer, it's just they have met the requirements to go from the regular position to the senior position. Which there's testing and years of service involved in that. That is not the same issue as -- as having additional certified officers. This is more of a -- of an issue of just going from the regular position to the senior position after a certain for years and meeting requirements.
>> move --
>> [inaudible] career ladder and years of service --
>> right, exactly. We do have a moratorium on any more certified peace officers that --
>> [multiple voices]
>> school program or a class program in September.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> slot 28. Next week, thanks.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM