Travis County Commssioners Court
February 25, 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 9
9. A. Consider changes to pay determination policies, Travis County code, chapter 10, sections 10.03001 through 10.03013, including criteria related to new hire pay; pay greater than 10% above midpoint; voluntary job change; lateral transfer and temporary assignment, and take appropriate action. B. Approve deletions to the pay determination policies, Travis County code, chapter 10, sections 10.030--employee mobility; 10.087--determining pay; 10.0875--criteria for approval of salary above and 10.095-year 2000 project incentive pay program.
>> good afternoon, judge, I'm linda smith, director of humane resources, with me is norman [inaudible], also staff and human resources, we come back to you today after having visited with you September 4th as well as September the 24th regarding the pay determination policies of Travis County. As you will remember, in the September 4th work session, there was discussion and decisions made by the court that you wanted to allow departments greater flexibility in determining the pay of individual between minimum and maximum of the pay range classified pay scale. And that, of course, was pending the availability of funding internal to the department. Another major decision that was made in that September 4th work session was to actually begin to take a look at the pay determination guide, and have the departments use the guide in determining where a person would fall under the page range, but to also have and allow departments to consider skill sets in addition to education, experience and other special skills. We with your direction went back, we looked at the policies, we actually made modifications to personnel policies that were affected by those decisions, we came back to you on September the 24th with policy language that you said yes that's what we intended to have done on actions related to new hires, promotions, voluntary job changes, lateral transfers, career ladders, as well as classification changes. What we bring to you today is the actual policy change. That incorporates those pay determination policies with the renumbered format based on the recommendation of the county attorney's office and are proposing to you that you accept the changes that you actually voted on on September the 24th as presented.
>> linda I had one question, if you could just clear this up, I apologize I would have asked it earlier but we had that weather thing. E under section 10.03 006. Sorry these pages are not numbered. So under 3006, determination of pay for new hires, there is a thing there called c that says the pay determination guide may be used as a guideline to determining pay. That is the one and only place that I see a reference to something called a pay determination guide and there's nothing that -- that defines what is a pay determination guide. If it's a guide it ought to be an attachment. I don't see it here, my biggest question was is that is that drawing there that's that's on the previous page at the top of the page which shows your hiring change or are we talking about the m word which doesn't exist anymore and quite frankly ought not to be given another name. That has some kind of legal status with this court because it doesn't.
>> the diagram is at the top of whatever the previous page, yeah, it's not necessarily meant to be the guide that we are speaking of.
>> so what is this pay determination guide?
>> it's a name that replaces the m word. The matrix.
>> we don't have a matrix, therefore to say somehow that document has any legal standing as a pay determination guide, simply calling it a pay determination guide doesn't make it any more official, relevant or anything. It doesn't exist. Departments were supposed to be left to their devices to use exactly as you very well laid out here about what it is that we are going to consider, relevant education, experience, certification, skill set, extraordinary skills, other things, hire with the budget. That is a departments's pay determination guide. Susan may have a different way of adding up those numbers, compared to commissioner Gomez or myself, but there is no guide --
>> may I request a point of clarification here. As I remember, we did go into executive session and discussed with council what tool would be used to assess where an individual would be pleased on a -- placed on a -- on the scale. As we came out of that meeting there was discussion that there would be a guide that would be permitted for departments to consider where they would want to place them, including the skill set consideration. Now, what the departments have been doing, as we understood the direction from the court, that the m word would continue with the consideration of the skill set, would continue to be a reference point pending the completion of a formal pay determination guide. That's how as we worked through the September 4th session as well as the 24th session, that was staff's understanding of what we were directed by the court to continue to have some tool against which to audit the pay determination decisions that came in. Now, if I am mistaken, clearly this is the time that I can get that clarification and direction, but that's --
>> it seems to me if we are going to do that there ought to be an attachment. I think the biggest issue with the pay determination guide, is not necessarily the elements that are within there, but it is a point system attached to it that somehow there is a value given to years of experience versus the other stuff that somehow numbers drive the hiring decision and that clearly was not what we wanted to do. I don't have any problem with there being, you know, people need to document, that's a better way to say it. In terms of a documentation of all of these things, but to somehow that there would be points assessed, which is what the old m word used to do, that so he somehow those points after to whatever minimums, that is where the serious issues are raised especially when it comes to --
>> I wouldn't want to leave the court nor the committinger any notion that we misunderstood that. We very much understand that as having been the direction of the court. Barbara and norman may have comments related to that.
>> I think the issue that you are raising is really addressed in the deletion, what we are talking out, I'm sorry that you don't have a copy of deletions. But what we are taking out is the form that makes reference to the years of experience and the points and that sort of thing. And the only thing that's left in is what I would call the pay scale with -- I have forgotten, it goes across with one thing and down --
>> the levels.
>> the levels --
>> we do have -- it does refer to the attachment relating to that. But that's -- that is still there. But the rest of the stuff that you are making reference to was all in forms that are included in the sections that are deleted.
>> got it. It just seems to me, inconsistent to have something that we call a pay determination guide that is either not an attachment approved by this commissioners court or there's nothing in here that even gives you a definition of it. I would request that that be deleted at this point until we do some more good work on it and get very clear about what that is and what that isn't. It may be that we are all saying the exact same things, but we need to have that as a document and not a reference to something that doesn't exist in our backup.
>> alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. I do believe this policy is so important that we really do need to have, I'm sorry it's not in the backup, we do need to have the deletions because it does not provide, I think, the full picture of where the court was at one time when they adopted the policy and where they are now. It is quite a shift in the flexibility. If you are to not have any points, then the levels that you have between one and seven, I believe, or midpoint, are no longer attached to any time in terms of what you gave points for education, for experience or for skill set. You leave that flexibility totally to the department. And --
>> can we have everything by Friday.
>> yes, absolutely.
>> why don't we take another week then?
>> if we need to see it. > I think it's important that you see the full picture.
>> what is the clarification, please, on exactly what is being requested by Friday. Is it to include in here the policy that's we have now incorporated into this one document?
>> in legislative format, also the pay determination guide.
>> I would say everything that we need to know fully -- what --
>> > what we are doing.
>> legislative.
>> and just one thing that I think it's important to clarify here, that we had multiple policies, that have been approved at one point or another. And the effort here, whereas we can certainly include those individual policies, that we are recommending be deleted. The effort here was to try to merge and refine and all of that. So we will attach those --
>> I think we need two things. If there is a pay determination guide, we ought to see it.
>> yeah.
>> and approve and incorporate it here. Two on the deletions, if they are important because they really clarify this document, it would help to have all of them before us at the same time.
>> because of the questions that are being raised, I think that they are important. I think that the document in some ways speaks for itself. But to be clear things have disappeared that you want to disappear you have to see the line through them.
>> once we put it in place, we will know you have taken final action on this, until we revisit it it's in place permanently.
>> that's it. If it were not for that one line there, I would be ready to move on this today. I think it would be helpful to actually see the deletes, if there is this thing called a pay determination guide, that it is something that this court is fully aware of what it looks like, it can be referred to as an attachment.
>> just on the pay determination guide, there's not a form that we have sent to departments. We have instructed them to go ahead and in order to document how they have arrived add, but to add any other information to that until we came out with another form to replace the matrix itself, which we were going to call a pay determination guide.
>> if it doesn't have to be a guide, I would replace c with something to the effect of departments and elected foirjs need to document -- officials need to document the things listed and the things right up above it in terms of how they determine somebody's pay.
>> do we think that the list of factors under b are all to be considered or just some of them.
>> that's what the court approved as being considered, yes.
>> are those listed as examples or --
>> because the wording leaves you with instruction here are the five things to consider. If we mean relevant factors may be considered by the manager including the following --
>> basically those are the relevant factors really in determining what someone's pay would be. Either their education, experience, skill sets, other relevant extraordinary skills, those kinds of things, what we want to do is point people in the direction, these are the types of things that you need to look at in order to determine somebody's pay, not some, you know --
>> close the door to others --
>> I think we are willing to point to those --
>> actually --
>> interested [multiple voices]
>> number 5 kind of lead the gate wide open. It says other specific measurable job related standards beyond the new requirements. So that kind of says anything else that you can do a good persuasive presentation that this is relevant, you can throw it in there. About tom thing we couldn't throw in there is somebody could scuba dive --
>> unless our the dive team.
>> specific measurable job related standards.
>> yes, sir, that's the only way I think legally we were advised that would be the best way to make sure that we are less vulnerable --
>> you are saying if we don't cover you in 1 through 5, you are using 5 -- 1 through 4, you are using 5.
>> I need a copy. Whatever you adopt I need to [multiple voices]
>> I guess I would appreciate it if we had enough, like if you did adopt this today, then --
>> we have until next week [multiple voices]
>> we are not going to take action today, though.
>> that's fine.
>> but these are action, susan, I want to clarify these are actions that have been aadopted thus far by the court [multiple voices]
>> I want to make it very clear, other than one line you all have done a great job put all of this together and creating this new institutional [inaudible] this is like 99.9% there.
>> thank you.
>> are we able to put together a pay determination guide by next week?
>> sure. We can put something together.
>> we have a model for it.
>> we have to make sure it's not the m, matrix for our lovely audience that's watching.
>> we will have it back on.
>> okay, thank you.
>> would you mind sending someone to my office maybe to give me a 30 minute whirlwind deal about what we have just gone over. Thank goodness somebody said the word matrix, I'm writing down m words. What in the world would that be.
>> masochism.
>> I would love to have someone come to the office, thank you for inviting us in. [laughter] considered, yes.
>> are those listed as examples or --
>> because the wording leaves you with instruction here are the five things to consider. If we mean relevant factors may be considered by the manager including the following --
>> basically those are the relevant factors really in determining what someone's pay would be. Either their education, experience, skill sets, other relevant extraordinary skills, those kinds of things, what we want to do is point people in the direction, these are the types of things that you need to look at in order to determine somebody's pay, not some, you know --
>> close the door to others --
>> I think we are willing to point to those --
>> actually --
>> interested [multiple voices]
>> number 5 kind of lead the gate wide open. It says other specific measurable job related standards beyond the new requirements. So that kind of says anything else that you can do a good persuasive presentation that this is relevant, you can throw it in there. You can throw it in there. About tom thing we couldn't throw in there is somebody could scuba dive --
>> unless our the dive team.
>> specific measurable job related standards.
>> yes, sir, that's the only way I think legally we were advised that would be the best way to make sure that we are less vulnerable --
>> you are saying if we don't cover you in 1 through 5, you are using 5 -- 1 through 4, you are using 5.
>> I need a copy. Whatever you adopt I need to [multiple voices]
>> I guess I would appreciate it if we had enough, like if you did adopt this today, then --
>> we have until next week [multiple voices]
>> we are not going to take action today, though.
>> that's fine.
>> but these are action, susan, I want to clarify these are actions that have been aadopted thus far by the court [multiple voices]
>> I want to make it very clear, other than one line you all have done a great job put all of this together and creating this new institutional [inaudible] this is like 99.9% there.
>> thank you.
>> are we able to put together a pay determination guide by next week?
>> sure. We can put something together.
>> we have a model for it.
>> we have to make sure it's not the m, matrix for our lovely audience that's watching.
>> we will have it back on.
>> okay, thank you.
>> would you mind sending someone to my office maybe to give me a 30 minute whirlwind deal about what we have just gone over. Thank goodness somebody said the word matrix, I'm writing down m words. What in the world would that be.
>> masochism.
>> I would love to have someone come to the office, thank you for inviting us in. [laughter]
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM