Travis County Commssioners Court
February 11, 2003
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 35
Let's call back to order this voting session of the Travis County commissioners court. One item this afternoon, number 35, posted for 1:00, interview finalists for scoot you have manager, justice and public safety. The committee that we appointed members four individuals for interview. And I have posted in response to recommendations at various times from other members of the court another person, that is sherri dowd, that is that she worked for Travis County in a previous position about ten years. I didn't look at it, but I know she worked in the same position joe geiselman is in now and joe is executive manager of transportation and natural resources. So if we do that, that will be five this afternoon and starting at 1:00, that would take us through 6:00, if the interviews take about an hour apiece. Commissioner Davis did raise an issue.
>> the issue that you have just brought up and mentioned having an additional person added to the list of -- to be interviewed, of course the selection committee through h.r. Did recommend four persons to be interviewed as far as meeting the final search. With that, I know there has not really been an action even though it may have been a will of certain members of the court to add additional -- I'm quite sure we all could have thought of somebody out there that could do the job, can do the job, however, there has not been an affordablal action taken by this court to do just that. To I was basically wondering and requesting that an action be taken in this fifth person officially from the court needs to be added to that interview. And I have some follow-up questions on whatever action the court deemed necessary. I guess it would be in the form of a motion. Eye do moor that we formally -- I do move that we formally move to add sherri dowd and the reason is she did indicate an interest. I personally have worked with her several years and she has numerous years of experience with the county. Of course, she would be expected to meet whatever standards we apply to the other applicants, the evaluation process would be applied across the board, and that will unfold as we conduct the interviews this afternoon. But that was seconded by commissioner Gomez. Now, discussion?
>> yes. I would like to basically at this time I did receive the memo, I guess, judge, that was basically directed from barbara wilson through legal, and of course there were some things that were discussed in here from this particular memo with respect to adding an additional person to be interviewed. Must have better qualifications -- must have better qualifications than these people that we are actual interviewin today and must meet the minimum requirements. That's another thing that the person must do. And also within that -- for the position that's been posted, in fact. And also in that particular criteria, they must also have the educational and experience background. And with that, of course the fifth person is selected and they do not -- well, if this person is selected and they have the better than criteria that's been established here, then it may suggest that we will have a better chance of [inaudible] lawsuit. So I'm kind of concerned about discrimination practice here, and I'm also concerned in looking at what i've been presented and what I have, I need h.r. To explain to me what this means. H.r., If you will explain to me what this means. Can you basically tell me what in the first posting of this position when folks applied for it, can you basically tell me what does it mean as far as no degree, as far as stuff like this is concerned, and those words on the breakdown of the -- of this particular situation? As far as minimum and then also preferred.
>> I guess my question to staff would be whether or not that is an item that is an executive session item or if the court --
>> just tell him what the minimum requirements are in the posting.
>> well, the minimum requirement indicated that education and experience equivalent to a bachelor's degree in business administration, finance, accounting, public administration, justice and public safety or related field. In addition to that, the minimum requirements requested eight years of progressively responsible senior-level administrative level experience in management with leadership experience at the executive level or corporate level. Corporate sector management including five years of senior assistive and supervisory managerial professional personnel work activities and responsibility for developing, implementing and managing goals and objectives with significant organizational impact. In addition to the minimum qualifications, we recruited, as you remember, at that level first round, and at the court's direction, the committee created the preferred qualifications. Those preferred qualifications we use in recruiting the second round of applicants. And in general, those relate to the request of the committee that a person have a master's degree, that also the eight years of progressively responsible administrative experience was still very much required within it, but they will focus more on the master's degree as well as demonstrated knowledge specifically in the field of local government, criminal justice, and public administration.
>> now, we have a job description.
>> yes.
>> and can you tell me as far as the job description for this executive manager's position, this particular job description with all its components, skills, education, the whole nine yards, this job description, was that approved by the commissioners court, adopt and approved by this commissioners court?
>> yes, it was among the job descriptions with the input -- it was recently revised with the resignation of the former e.m. With input, but approved by the court effective June 11, '02. So it is slightly modified, but yes.
>> June of '02?
>> June of '02.
>> okay. That's basically all the questions. I want to look at this for what it is. Of course, there's been a motion that's been made and seconded so I guess we'll have to act on that motion, but I basically wand to get a layout on what we did here.
>> I have two questions. One is the different -- what is the difference between interviewing and hiring?
>> well, interviewing is one that -- where the individuals have met the requirements established to reach the interview stage.
>> interviewing is, in webster's, simply cumenting an interview.
>> exactly. The first round of applicants here generated total how many?
>> gosh, there must have been 300.
>> 301.
>> 301.
>> and how many new people applied the second time we posted the job?
>> I'm not sure that I have that breakdown with me. Do you? Come on up.
>> when the position was posted in, I believe it was June, we had 198 applicants. The position was reposted in October, we received 301 applicants.
>> and how many of the 301 were not included in the first total?
>> the first total meaning -- I'm not sure what you mean.
>> when we posted the first time. Did we have new applicants?
>> oh, yes, yes.
>> so unduplicated count, how many?
>> I don't have that information.
>> a number of people is what I'm getting to. This has been vacant since July 1st.
I don't know the four. I've seen resumes, applications of the four we're interviewing today. I don't know how they will shake out. It just occurred to me since there was interest on the court to interview them, it certainly would not hurt us. This court has not been involved in the selection process up to today. We do appreciate the fine work of the committee. It was not easy. This is not one of those simple positions, but it is critical to county government, which is why it made sense to me to go ahead and add shara. And to be honest, as I worked with her must have been eight or nine years and I thought she did an outstanding job while here, that probable colored my thinking some too. The other thing is that at the end of the interviews, then, you know, we will know what a majority of us wants to do on the fine folk that we check with today. So I'm not presuming that we're foregoing the first four for the fifth. I'm just suggesting that we throw her hat in the ring and interview her and see how that shakes out. Any more discussion?
>> yes. I think I need to ask this question. I guess it's maybe more of a comment than anything, and I guess if we open the door to do this with one, then what -- what -- what -- what are guaranteed that we don't have those other folks that didn't make the cut either would like to be interviewed. So it may be a precedent deal here setting of -- in the making here and a precedent like that, I may not want to be a part of that kind of precedent. I'll depend on h.r. For guidance. I think we have hired them for guidance to go through a very stringent process, and I think they have. And come up with a final four for interviewing. That's what i've had prepared for. However, I'm not prepared, I guess basically to look at other persons to be interviewed and the final [inaudible] had been established. I think that's very important when you come up with a final [inaudible] and make the recommendations to the court. There may be those other applicants that would like to say I would like to also be interviewed, why can't I be interviewed. So it kind of puts a flaw in my mind in what we're doing here. So again -- but of course we vote on what we see, the things that we see, but it's hard for me to support anything like this especially when we have other applicants out there that maybe can do as good a job as the final four that -- and I guess the five we're going to be looking at. It's hard for me to anticipate a process that may end up coming with a discrimination lawsuit if this person is selected, according to what I'm looking at here. That's my only comments at this time.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against commissioner Davis. Any more discussion before we convene in executive session to interview the five applicants?
>> I will not participate in the interview of the other applicant because I feel that they didn't make the -- according to what I'm looking at here from personnel from our h.r. Department, they did not make the final search and this is what I'm going by and lord knows I don't want a discrimination suit filed begins us if this person is selected.
>> if you will let us know when you are leaving, we will indicate that on the record. We will interview in this order, they are listed in the booklet in the order we've told them to appear. Thomas gould. Mary choate will be second. Julie mclean. Melinda carlton. Sherri dowd. Mr. Goulg, if you give us five minutes if you give us five minutes, we'll get set newspaper the conference room.
>> we're going to executive session to conduct these interviews. Under the personnel exception to the open meetings act.
>>
>> Captioners were not available for the resumption of this
item. The court returned from executive session and voted to take this item
back up on Tuesday, February 18, 2003.)
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM