Travis County Commssioners Court
April 29, 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 46
46. Consider new job description and authorize posting and advertising coordinator of justice in public safety and take any appropriate action. If I can just kind of lay this out, ms. Broderick's last day is may 30th. I think it's important for us to go ahead and get this on the street. There are some issues outstanding. And I think they want to work around those issues, though. One thing is what salary should this be posted. I think we ought to have a broad enough minimum to maximum range to give us that flexibility. We do have a draft job description that we -- on yesterday as late as yesterday asked ms. Smith of health and human services to look at for us, maybe get with katy, refine this. Was this circulated to the court? Looks pretty good to me.
>> seemed very broad.
>> broad enough to cover anything that we want to. The other thing is I do think the title ought to be that if the criminal justice coordinator -- the wording of the agenda item is a whole lot broader, the criminal justice coordinator, the legal description, if you work with katy over the next couple of days, kind of refine this, post the job where -- where we give maximum 24, minimum 22?
>> 22. At midpoint is what we were proposing.
>> but the whole range.
>> the whole range. The decision is --
>> that's correct, that gives you maximum flexibility.
>> now, can we post this for like two weeks or until filled?
>> it's really the preference of the court. We can do either. If you want the two-week time frame to see what applicants we have, it gives you the maximum flexibility to close it and then open it again if you need to.
>> I would be real surprised if we didn't get a hundred if we post it for two weeks.
>> 10 the -- to the 10th or the 20th power.
>> we put it on the internet immediately after the posting it done, right?
>> yes.
>> this is one I think we want to advertise.
>> we would use all of our routine advertising sources, the internet as well as the newspaper. Plus we have a number of sources identified through a recent recruitment initiative in this area.
>> okay.
>> we could also use. So I believe that we can saturate it very well.
>> okay.
>> so the motion is criminal justice coordinator be the title. Job description this is the core that we have in draft form, from ms. Broderick, we would defer to your discretion, the third part of that is that the salary be broad enough for us to -- to be given maximum flexibility and as you work to try to figure out exactly what should end up somewhere between those.
>> okay.
>> the amounts would be really between 65 and 90 based on the maximum of 25, right if.
>> yes, in fact we -- the maximum of 24 is the 90,417. The minimum, which was picked up in the proposal, that we offered, is a -- to post a minimum at a pay grade of 22 midpoint which would be 65811. The range would be between the 65 and the 90, which would give that flexibility.
>> what we have done is taken ms. Broderick's position and added additional disiewts and responsibility. If we end up in the middle of there it will be I think about 18% more than she gets right now. I think if we add on the additional duties and responsibilities it will be worth that. Coordination/management stuff outside what she had performed since she's been with us. I think we need to pay a little bit more.
>> second.
>> and with the new title, we are expediting all of this, will bring the completed job description back to the court for full approval. We will take the central elements out of what you were considering now, and create the official job description for your consideration.
>> okay.
>> and approval.
>> but we are not going to have to wait a week for this to appear on the web.
>> no we are posting this [multiple voices]
>> before then, yes.
>> we have to formally approve [multiple voices]
>> should I have it back on next week?
>> yes.
>> any more discussion of the motion seconded by Commissioner Gomez? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, are you working on something for katy related to a resolution from the court?
>> that was certainly in the back of my mind. Now it is moved toward the front.
>> great.
>> I will do something maybe worthy.
>> right.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:52 PM