Travis County Commssioners Court
April 1, 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 19
Are we ready for 19?
>> yes, sir.
>> 19 a consider classification and compensation strategic plan, year 2 (fy 03), job analysis results, and take appropriate ac class appropriate action.
>> I will refer the court to the latest backup that you have on this item and the second --
>> all right. Hold on. The action item starts with 1, right? I was going to read all of them at one time.
>> that's fine. 1. Approve proposed job titles s and pay grades 2. Approve vertical expansion, current pay structrue, add pay grades 28-32 19 a 3 approve exempt to non-exempt (vice versa) conversion of specific jobs should we take all of a, move down to b.
>> we can do that if you would prefer. If you refer to the page after the agenda posting, we have kind of set out the decisions that we would like for the court to make today. And I’m going to turn it over to linda Moore smith or open it up for any questions that you might have under any the items on a.
>> we did of course provide a rather detailed session during the work session last week. At which time we shared with you the job families as well as the proposed job titles and pay grades that resulted from year 2 of our job analysis work. Just as a reminder, this work is a part of the strategic plan that had been approved by the court year two of that strategic plan. The recommendations that are noted under a 1, 2 and 3 all are associated with the results of our job analysis work. Not sure how detailed you want us to be in this presentation, but -- but we are proposing once again that these actions be taken. Job titles, different pay grades, approving the vertical expansion of the pay scale from grade 28 to 32, as well as your approve we are recommending of changing the exempt to non-exempt vice versa conversion of specific jobs that are identified.
>> linda, is it appropriate to say that in terms of, if we were to take positive actions on a, 1, 2, 3, we are really talking about getting our structure in place. It will not have any kind of an impact other than -- in terms of just changing numbers, changing titles, nobody's salary automatically changes, there's -- the status quo stays the -- the status quo is there related to anything related to anybody's compensation in particular. There's nothing that automatically happens related to compensation.
>> that is exactly correct. And continuing as you put in your compensation philosophy to maintain an up to date classification system. No dallas, these recommendations not related are associated with the allocation of dollars, no dollars.
>> in terms of a new handout, did we get a change related to the judge's concern a couple of weeks ago, when we had this in the work session, since we technically have no jobs below [inaudible], we out to just change out, block out, the pay scale there aren't any of hose jobs out there related to our pay scale.
>> we didn't change the pay structure? That way. One of the items that we discussed, I think you Commissioner Sonleitner very appropriately described why it was at that time that the pay grades are actually not changed, the market value of some of the positions are indeed below the $9 level. One of the recommendations that we would make is that we leave the structure as it is, but any change in the livable wage rate that you would choose to make, based on policy, it would still supersede those pay grades that are market value below the $9 level.
>> so that the -- the levels are there to reflect what the market is.
>> exactly.
>> we may choose to loudly ignore the market, but that doesn't mean that that's not what the market is, that's really a benchmark for us to compare ourselves to.
>> that's correct and to change that would be a disextortion really of the value of -- distortion of the value of your positions and your structure.
>> as far as -- [inaudible] stated eloquently, this doesn't mean folks will be getting any adjustment as far as the pay, but also -- but also the reason, a lot of reasons for that, I think that in the past two years, prior to this year, we have -- two years in a row, we have given back 11% as far as the increases toward our conversation -- toward Travis County employees. 6% one year, are 5% the next. So we kind of caught us up with market by doing those kind of things. Of course, so, I would make sure that folks really understand that -- as far as compensation is concerned. That the reason for a lot of these things falling into the range that they have fallen in is because of the fact that the Commissioners court decided to give those two type of -- of increases, 6% and -- one year and then a 5% the following year. So I want to make sure that's illustrated and indicated as far as who we are doing here.
>> to emphasize that even more, of the thousand positions that we looked at, there were 753 that were at or above the minimum of a proiped pay grade. -- proposed pay grade. That would not have been the case had the 6% comp allocation and the 5 spurs allocation that was made by the court the last couple of years, if that had not been made, you would have had more people falling below our proposed minimum. That within itself speaks to from a compensation standpoint that you have been pretty much keeping pace.
>> linda, is it also fair to say while there is no one dollar being added in here with regard to changing anybody's pay, it would be fair to say that some folks who are red lined, were prevented from getting any further efficient compensation at whatever point the court did look at it, without special dispensation for this -- from this court, they actually will be freed up to at least be in the eligibility pool whereas before they really were not in there. It took a special action for --
>> exactly.
>> lump sum or some other consideration.
>> the number on that, there were 194 that were red lined when we went into this project and that number was reduced to 45.
>> there's always going to be folks that are red lining.
>> yes, exactly.
>> so since this has no monetary effect, presently, I mean, am I reading it right that this is a -- basically predicating the ability -- I mean for an employee, once they hit a certain level, because levels do necessitate pay raises, right? I mean if you are 30 -- 30 versus a 34 or whatever, right?
>> not necessarily, Commissioner.
>> there's a range in --
>> yes. [multiple voices]
>> there's a range, I know that --
>> yes, I didn't.
>> I know it doesn't mean that you automatically go here, but basically what it means is a range. So if you go up and the -- in the scale, you are effectively -- you know that that is going to eventually get you a pay raise.
>> that would be the matter I’m responding not necessarily to. Because if it is that there's a position that originally was a pay grade 18 as an example, and the pay on that based on the 11% increase over the past couple of years might have increased that particular position to -- to at least minimum of -- of our proposed pay grade 20 as an example, that person could very well already be making at a pay grade 18 the old title at a level that's above entry of the pay grade 20. So when you make a move like this, it does not necessarily mean that the dollars are associated with it. We are placing the value on the position and that value ranges from minimum to max. And it doesn't mean that the dollars would necessarily come with that.
>> and there are a lot of departments that have done underfills in terms of understanding. They didn't have the dollars at that particular point, but that person was willing to work for that particular salary. And then other decisions or other dollars -- all of this is totally predicated on there being the available dollars in that particular budget.
>> okay. Anything further on 19 a, 1, 2, or 3?
>> judge, are you ready to take a motion on 19 a, 1, 2, 3.
>> I sure am.
>> I would move approval of 19 a, 1, 2, 3, in their entirety.
>> seconded.
>> arecommended by h.r.
>> seconded. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank y'all.
>> there's a part b.
>> 19 b is to consider revision to classification and compensation strategic plan, year 3 (fy o4), and take appropriate action. 1. Approve completion of year 3 job analysis project by April 1, 2004 2. Authorize review of compensation and benefits policies, including flsa and performance evaluat -- which means fair labor standards act -- and performance evaluation. 3. Authorize hrmd efforts to promote employee productivity, e.g. Training and development, develop performance management system. Justice and public safety -- and others.
>> we have spoken with you and again honoring the -- through your strategic plan as approved by the court, we are recommending that year three that's noted in the plan, that includes a similar project as the one that we have just completed, looking at some 10 job families and bringing forward to you recommend indications this time -- recommendations this time next year on those job families. We have proposed and expect that now that we have some 98% of the paq's already in, because we were moving towards staying on schedule with the plan, that we would be able to complete the analysis and bring the recommendations to you April 1, 2004. Not unlike the kind of package that we are presenting and that you have backed on in item a, 1 through 3 -- that you have acted on. In the second b 2 item, unless you want to take them individually judge and court, we are proposing that in the point that we started with overhauling our compensation system, that there were a number of compensation policies, classification policies, that remained on the table, sort of put on the back burner, that we have and still have very much a need to clean up. Not unlike the action that you took on the pay determination policies a few weeks ago, the opportunity to revisit policies, to refine them, to remove old policies that are no longer in place. Just to overall get back into the policies and clean those policies up in a way that are really more user friendly to our workforce. In addition to that, we are proposing that with the actions taken in a 1 through 3, specifically a 3, that we will need to engage the departments in extensive training related to item a 3. That's the movement of the flsa conversions that you have approved. It's important that we get staff, with managers and supervisors and really arm them, if you will, with the appropriate tools and techniques to administer that particular legislation. Under a 3 we recognize that with the training and fwoment that we have been -- development that we have been doing over the past three years with managers and supervisors, that there continues to be a significant need for training among our workforce, particularly at the management and supervisory level. We see the effects of that. Main of those effects you deal with in executive session related items and what we want to do is expand our training effort so that we can ensure that those kind of violations are just enhancing the awareness of our managers and how better to deal with primarily employee related issues. And, of course, tied to that is the need that very often those issues really rise as a result of performance management systems. How well is such a system defined, how well is it actually executed, how well are employees aware of what's involved with it. And it's for all of those reasons that we want to modify the strategic plan based on items b 1 through 3, and move forward with the type actions that we detailed in work session and are sharing with you today.
>> b 2 and 3, I’m there. I think that's great. And linda and alicia and I have already discussed this, they are not going to be at all surprised about my comments about b 1. I really feel at this point that it is, I will call it premature to get other folks to spend a lot of great, quality time, I know that they will do quality work on this. But to do it at this time because quite frankly year 2's job analysis project we didn't have the dollars to fund the end results. So what we did, just moments ago, we do have some folks that the moneys are not there to bring them fared to minimum. Forward to minimum. I would have a great deal of hesitation to have these folks embark on what is very intensive work related to getting together this job analysis when we don't even have the money to do what happened in job analysis year two and by the time we get to April 1, we have a whole bunch of folks that are already waiting for us to do action on year 2. I’m concerned that if this thing gets slipped back, that the work that they do may not be -- i'll use the word valid, by the time we are ready to talk about the funding issues related to year 3. The market can shift dramatically. I mean, we are in the midst of some rather interesting times related to compensation. And I think the job market is completely cooling off. And the kinds of numbers that we were looking at before in terms of keeping and attracting people, these numbers have changed. I don't want them to go through all of this incredible work. By the time we get to it we say, oh, well, we're going to have to delay that for another year to talk about the funding pies of it. Then of -- piece of it. All of a sudden their work is a year old, we would have to have them go again and revalidate are these numbers still accurate. Because they are looking at what other people are paying, that is something rather volatile right now. It's really, really cooled off. I would personally like to see us move ahead on b 2 and 3 in terms of there's a whole bunch of work there for those folks to do. Related to intern and benefits policies and to really get some good performance evaluation tools for folks in terms of laying out the expectations of an employee, performance improvement plan. There's tons of work for them to do. But I just have a real hesitation for them to embark on another job analysis project looking at a whole bunch of jobs that quite frankly we don't know what our funding situation is going to be. I don't want to lay out expectations that people again are going to be in a situation where we don't have the money to even bring them up to minimum. That would be my comment on that.
>> so the year two is -- are those positions listed on page 7. I think that's --
>> it's the middle column. Year two folk.
>> we still haven't taken care of the attorneys' group and some others that are rather high dollar if I cans and for them -- fixes, we haven't even taken care of that column, I don't want to set out expectations that there's another group of folks who will have all of the studies done and then we don't have the money to follow through related to movement.
>> I thought we decided once before to go ahead and get the analyses done and we would fund them when we could. The department, managers, supervisors, et cetera, said they understood. The intention here is that some point we would do the right thing. I don't know that if the work needs to be done, we have people in place, the departments waiting to do it, gone that delaying it would change it. Seems to me that's more like sticking our heads in the sand. I think we can do the work, when we can fund these we will. If we want to say further, we have got year '02 to deal with before we deal with year end '03. What happens if we got way behind when we started doing it, $25 million [inaudible] what I thought was to take on a little bit each year, keep moving in the right direction. And in my view, if you -- you have got the employees waiting to have the analysis done and, two, is you have got managers, as long as they have realistic expectations, I think we are in good shape. The expectation is based on our statement that we will fund this when we can, but the money is not available now. In my view what we ought to do is try to figure out on way to find insurance rather than pay increases. I feel a whole lot better doing it. We do have staff in place to do this, right?
>> yes.
>> oh, yeah.
>> yes, we do.
>> we need to make sure that people understand and get the word so there isn't the -- the unrealistic expectation --
>> some of them work initially, we are not happy with the consultants reports and then decided in-house to do it ourselves but in my view committed to do it piecemeal it annually, every try or four years for the cycle and we think the market may well change in three or four years.
>> we need to just reinform people about wherer. And --
>> that's -- where we are.
>> that's what I would do. In terms of money -- no money being available, I would be more sensitive to the '02 than the '03. I think the way the economy is, the way the other major employers are laying off, keeping -- keeping the workforce as we have it, is a big deal.
>> yeah.
>> and on top of that, I see notices going out, employees in a kind of precarious situation. In the funding goes away, typically we would expect the job to disappear, also.
>> judge, I don't disagree with a single thing that you said, what I add to that is our turnover rates, I don't think would suggest that we are really too far off. I just have a concern that if you do the analysis and you are telling people oh, by the way the '02ers are ahead of you in line, we may have as many as two years before that information that they are going to be spending time on establishing market is utilized and I have to think that in two years, the validity of that information may change. And to me it's just -- I just have a real concern. I mean, if you all want to move ahead on it, that's fine. I will ask for a division on the vote on this. I want to see the good work that they do be utilized. I think in our current economic situation, I just have a hesitation of them saying, here's what the market is saying and by the time we get around to actually funding it, I hope that the economy is not any worse, but it could be. And that could drastically impact their work and they would have to could a makeover. So I mean, if you all want to move ahead on it, that's fine, I have no problem with being on the losing end of a vote, I have a real issue with getting them to do work that is just not going to be utilized at this time.
>> let me ask a question.
>> let me ask a question. When we looked at -- [inaudible] -- we were also looking at folks -- maybe stretching it over to 05 and if that's still the perception of what we are doing here?
>> yes.
>> which would give you enough time, -- I do understand. I think -- I think as we are going through this, I think we are really just trying to fit the right job title, classes, and things like that, fit those persons and those -- -- those jobs in the right category. In '05, it appears to me that we would give ourselves more time to get the right classification, get the right persons, the right titles, jobs and things like that in the right categories as we go through this process. And, again, I think it's very important for folks to understand that -- I think the judge hit the nail on the head, I have been hollering this all along. We have to figure out a way to pay health insurance, I think that's one of the most important things that -- that -- not most important, but one of the important things that we have got to deal with is continuing to make sure that we provide the health benefits of our employees. So we are struggling with that particular concern. But I still feel that work continues -- I think if we stopped worn, then we get further -- stopped work, we get efficient behind. Once you stop going in a direction you get further behind. We have a few more jobs here that we need to get in the right category. I think even if we overlap, at least the jobs will continue to be looked at, evaluated. That's my concern. I would like to see it continue, knowing that -- that no money is going to be -- we need to get folks in the right position as far as the job title description and stuff like that is concerned.
>> I -- I hope that basically is the direction that you all are still intending to go.
>> post a new job and get two or three applications is one thing. When you post one like the judge's executive assistant and get --
>> 300.
>> 60 or 70, more than half of them outstanding applicants, I mean, there's really no pressure to pay a whole lot more. You really have -- have a pool to choose from. And -- and in the end, if managers know, no matter where this job falls in the classification scheme, in the end, either the court has money or not. -- whether it's running short. I guess from an employee perspective, I would want to know when where I fell in the scale, whether I get paid that amount or not. In the end if you have 10 people, you think we are not paying them enough, you come in and say I think I can get this job done with nine, especially if you authorize that 10th person salary, my guess is that we would be agreeable to working out something with you. But in terms of new money --
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:25 PM