Travis County Commssioners Court
December 17, 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 27
27, discuss constable, precinct 2 proposal to transition all pops scale employees in his office to non-pops status with future salaries tried to performance, not tenure, and take appropriate action. Now, as I understand, this was back to the original request.
>> yes, judge.
>> and that is that your employees currently on pops be transferred to the county's regular employee classification schedule, that they keep their current salaries, and that we simply try to place them as best we can on the salary classification chart.
>> well, that's a little incorrect.
>> all right. Then tell me what we have before us.
>> I proposed to the court and passed it through hrmd and after successful meetings with hrmd and planning and budget and the auditor's office, we've been able to come up with a translation from the job classifications that were originally held for the most part on the pops scale to new job classifications in pay grades and levels depending on their job skills that were based on the classified pay scale.
>> all right. Neatsz what I was trying -- that's what I was trying to say.
>> that didn't necessarily include the same pay. Under the classified pay scale, I am aplowed to work a matrix out on the employees and provided I have the budgetary money and permanent salary savings give credit to the people I'm putting on classified pay scale credit for years of experience, years of education, several items that are not part of pops. This is part of the classified pay scale to compensate them for the job skills that they are bringing to them to look employment at my offices.
>> so bob, you don't agree with 82's becoming 16s, 84s becoming 17s, whatever is going to be the 18. 85 becoming a 19 and 87 becoming a 21. No disagreement there in terms of the translation. But what you are saying is that on our blue sheet that talks about a proposed new salary, the proposed new salary is a number that h.r. Has said, and this is not reflective of where you would place them on the 16 pay grade, the 17 pay grade, 18, 19 and 21.
>> well, commissioner, again, there's been lots of discussion and work gone back before -- back and forth between my office, hrmd staff and p.b.o. I understand that they have also met with you and the judge, and this sheet that they actually supplied you with, it was an oversight. The salaries that were there were not all inclusive of what the deputies are actually getting paid to date. It was not a fair comparison, and I don't know if you still have the old sheets or revised new sheets. But once we pointed that out and hrmd assisted and agreed with the comparison part there to their actual salary, I would say that fairly close those salaries that are on the new sheet, if that's what you have, match or fall within the range during the conversion from the pay grades 84, 85 and 86 to the ones on the classified scale.
>> where I'm confused is the ones at least on the 16 dz, h.r. Has them coming in below with the minimum salary as 16. I didn't think that's where we were.
>> that's where the pay grade for the classified scales starts.
>> corrected.
>> but when you hire, you do a new hire, you do what was called the matrix --
>> matrix is dead, but let's put that aside.
>> the new classifieds, the job skills that those employees are bringing, and based on what they bring to them over and above what was required for those pay grades, you are allowed to bump them up to mid point or past mid point.
>> commissioner, if I may, commissioner and constable, under the proposed column that's on your blue sheet, the new salary listed for the deputy constables is the new salary listed at the 3,488,368. H.r. Noted that is below the minimum that's noted for pay grade 16. However, as we applied the direct match methodology, the minimum was the amount that was closest to the new salary that had been proposed and the current salary -- well, the salary they are currently making. What our recommendation actually is is to bring these individuals in at minimum of the classified pay grade of 16. That's approximately $184 times the four individuals. So on an annualized basis we're talking at right at $800.
>> then you add benefits.
>> so our recommendation on the pay grade 16s would be to bring them in at no less than 35,068. That is consistent with what you -- and what we have recommended when we have many classification changes to bring individuals in to at least minimum of that new pay grade.
>> so is there disagreement with that recommendation?
>> bob, is that where you were going to place these folks?
>> yes, ma'am.
If I understand what hrmd has said in our meetings, we have agreed, I believe, on every single one of these slots. And --
>> any issues?
>> there are no issues. What we're bringing to you today is to establish the min and max to transition the individuals from pops to the classified scale. We, h.r., Is focused on applying the classified pay determination policies that you have approved for people being on the scale. We have yet and we will be receiving and taking a look at the pay guide, how the individuals have been placed on the pay scale, which will be actions that we would need to take after this session and once the pay grade levels have been approved. There is one individual or one position here, the very last slot, slot 2, I think it is, the very bottom, if we apply those to your classified scale, this particular slot would be .26% above mid point. Above 10% of mid point. So with that, we would probably recommend that either the exception be made now that the .26% above be approved, or we would ask that the constable consider making that increase a plus 10% as opposed to 10.26% increase.
>> with my county attorney here, let me ask the more pointed question and that is that if the role of the commissioners court is to appropriately transfer over related to slots and establishing pay grades and descriptions of these jobs, is there not leeway for the independent elected official to place these folks wherever he wants on that established pay scale given that he has budget parameters which cannot be exceeded. And therefore if he chooses to go to the .26 above, that's bob's issue. And if he wants to go .19 below on those other four slots, that's really his business, not ours. But we've established appropriately, according to the law, the minimum pay grade and maximum pay grade and they are allowed to underfill.
>> right. You all have established the slots and you've established the ranges. From what i've seen is you all have allowed them permission to go ahead and work within those ranges. And he's got the money in his budget so what you said sounds great to me.
>> I was going to offer a motion.
>> just a point of clarification. This move will keep 'those employees from receiving that 2% annual increase that the pops people get.
>> every single one of the employees have been sat down, sat through an hour and a half meeting in which they were all explained the pluses, the minuses. They were left alone and they discussed it and came back and said we agree with your decision to manage the office in this manner.
>> okay.
>> judge, based on that I would move approval of the commissioners court doing its ministerial duty of doing a transition of pops slots over to the classified pay scale where the 82 -- let's see where we have it here. The 82s are going to 16s. The 84s are going to 17. There's the establishment of a slot that is a 18. We have a slot that's going to a 19 and one to a 21. And that constable van bring back the appropriate p.a.f. Forms that carries out him placing his employees on this established pay scale based on a budget and not being able to exceed that and that the 2% -- he knows that it's going away and they will deal with that from this point on.
>> I have actually brought the p.a.f. With me. [laughter] we have those done. Part of my request is that this be implemented with the effective date of December the 1st of this year, this month.
>> there may be a little problem with that.
>> we can't do that, can we? But can we do that on elected officials? Think carefully about this because we've had this issue come up.
>> I can't remember it coming up.
>> well, it was in your department, so -- yeah. [laughter]
>> beginning of pay period.
>> yes.
>> with independent elected officials and regular --
>> bill with p.b.o. In addition to this, we're going to have to do a bit of a fruit basket turnover with the line items within that budget. If you don't mind, can wedding and process -- we go ahead and process these through us once you've approved this? If do you.
>> sounds fine to me.
>> okay. Also, one other small issue and that is they will also not be able to get that pay. Those line items will go away.
>> that's the idea that constable van would be rolling in. That is part of their -- as part of their skills as he places people on the pay scale appropriately. Eye just wand to get this -- I just wanted to get this on the record.
>> and if you will let us use your chair there, we'll let susan --.
>> sit your intention -- is it your intention that that is a career ladder? Because the only issue that that raises is that if it is not, he has a specified number of people that can be in each of those. If he has a career ladder, he can move people as long as he's got the money to do that. So in other words, if he had -- the difference is if there were no career ladder and he's got, say, two deputies, then he's got two deputies and it doesn't matter how good they are until the position in front of that is vacated, they can snot move up. If he has a career ladder, if one of those is eligible and meets the requirements for the next position up, he could move them there as long as he had the money to do that. So it's just an implementation issue from payroll. It looks like a career ladder. I didn't know if that's what you intended and he intended or you did not.
>> no.
>> no. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> I was under the impression that the question was directed at h.r. I assume she brought up the career situation [multiple voices] that would be brought up. But I was trying to look at the inconsistencies that continue to crop up when you use h.r. And -- and becoming to be just a rubber ball, otherwise we -- what do we need h.r. For? If we are going to stay consistent and a although -- in a lot of things that we are going to try to do here. We come up with policy and we break policy.
>> but everybody in agreement, right? On the .26%, if it's in your budgets, do it? How is that? What other issues are left.
>> the only issue is whether I think you go to December first or not.
>> I don't think he can do that. There are real issues --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we can ask in executive session, but I don't think -- I don't know -- [multiple voices]
>> is there a motion still outstanding?
>> I have a question for the court on that.
>> you do?
>> I know I have several of my personnel watching this, so I'm going to have to say it and at least it's will be the court saying no, not me. Commission Davis, let me ask you a question. From day 1 I have done everything that I could to work within hrmd and the county's requirement as far as this pay implementation date. If it's not a -- against the law, if it's something that I can't do, then ied in that. But I began this process and my deputies began this process approximately three months ago and I have a whole office that -- that when I left to come down here were under the impression that it would be implemented December 1st because I had been postponing it at the request that it continue the dialogue between h.r., Between p.b.o., Between court and between the auditor's office, if I can do it, I would love permission to do that. If I can't do it legally, i've got to live with that.
>> I don't know if you can -- [multiple voices]
>> I don't know if you can or not.
>> I think it's not, bob.
>> I don't really know the answer to that, constable.
>> it should -- if we could do it in my view, we should not. And the -- if the proposal hadn't been approved until the court approves it, that's today. I know that you all have been working on it, because I have seen e-mails myself.
>> yeah.
>> any more discussion of the motion before us, which is to approve the agreed proposal?
>> that's with --
>> in terms of [inaudible] from melissa, that is with the effective date of the beginning of this pay period that this meeting is currently in, which would basically back it up one day, is that right, the 16th?
>> the 16th, uh-huh.
>> is that --
>> that's consistent --
>> everything I have understood it absolutely do things within this current pay period.
>> that sounds fine to me.
>> okay.
>> that's the motion, that's friendly to the person making the second, who was that?
>> do you want to repeat that? I will be bold enough to do it, because we do keep that, right? We don't?
>> yeah, we do. It's just like, come on.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you, court.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM