Travis County Commssioners Court
September 23, 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 28
Number 28 is consider and take priate action from elected officials salary grievance committee. Did you all want to address the court?
>> [inaudible].
>> any comments before we get a motion? We did discuss this in executive session with counsel already. The recommendation of the majority of the panel.
>> [inaudible].
>> okay.
>> judge Biscoe and Commissioners, I'm richard scott, justice of the peace of precinct 1. To my right is judge diaz, and to my left, judge evans of precinct 5. And we are -- we come here today to request that Commissioners court accept and approve the vote of the grievance committee recommending that the judge's salary be equal to other judge necessary Travis County in order of the non-tax revenue bond. If any presentation will be needed, judge diaz will make the presentation.
>> probably a good idea to hit the highlights.
>> yes. The highlights for -- I think we just wanted to hit the highlights that we hit with the grievance committee. Since judge Biscoe as chairman of the committee, you were present and were presented some of this information, and the other Commissioners were not. There I know a tape of the session was available, but I'm sure they are busy and probably have not had a chance to review those. The grievance committee was able to get some comments from you, judge Biscoe, about some of the reasons or why the justice of the peace had been left out of the process of raising the salary of trial judges in Travis County, and one of the main points had been from '96 to 2003 there had been pay increases to the justice of the peace with other elected officials. And the percentage increase sounded rather large in comparison to the county court at law judge and the district judges. But dollar for dollar when you looked at it in its dollar equivalent, and then especially when you look at it in light of the increase that's recommended this year for the trial judges at the higher levels, the dollar equivalent is rather substantial now. So it's true that they hadn't gotten a pay raise in five years, but when they got their pay raise in 1997, which was -- in 1998, which was the last time they received their pay raises, their pay raises were rather substantial at that time. And now are going to be rather substantial at this time. The next -- the main point we were driving with the salary grievance committee is that there has been an in equitable disparity that's been created in the last 15 years between the county court at law judges salary and the jps salary that in 1988 was not quite large. And there is a chart attached. The first chart shows the -- the difference in salary as it's progressed over the years beginning in fiscal year '88. Back then the difference in salaries was only 16,000. It hit a high of a $52,000 pay raise difference in 1998. In the last five years, when the district judges and county court at law judges didn't receive pay raises and we received $16,000 $16,000 worth of pay raise in those five years, we were able to narrow that gap to 41,000. But now that they are going to receive 10,000 again, that we are regressing back to the 51,000 level. We've also become aware that there's an in equitable disparity, and if you don't want to compare to us county court at law skwreupblgs and district judges, and then the chart that's attached to the comparison between jp's and county courts compares the county courts and you know there's only $1,000 difference between their salaries and of course that's statutory in nature. If you don't want to compare us to county or district judges, then it's fair and it's -- I think it's correct to compare us to associate judges, our responsibilities are comparable, and in fact, they have few of the managerial and administrative responsibilities we do, and they already make $20,000 more than we do. At least six of them do. And they don't have half of the responsibility we have in managing an office, being responsible for the collection and disposition of large sums of money. Managing a staff. Proposing a budget. Living within a budget. And being a clerk for our office and all those things. And finally, we do think it's fair and equitable in determining a fair and equitable compensation for ourselves to use the comparison with the five largest counties in Travis County, and we have a chart that shows the comparison with harris, dallas, tarrant and bexar. I know some of you don't think that is a correct thing to do, but when you look at the average case disposition, I know those counties are very different in size than our county and our county is not as big as those counties, but we have various e.t.j.'s. -- jp's. Hair county has 16. They've eliminated two positions, but those j.p.s are still sitting until those terms are over. Tarrant county has eight j.p.s. They have a visiting j.p. That is a relief judge that moves around the court. Bexar county has seven. We've taoeuf. We have not added a j.p. In Travis County since 1963, even though we've added county court at law judges and we've added district judges. And we were promised in '98 that at the census we would look at adding j.p.s and that didn't happen. So we're still here at five 40 years later. I think that's early ' 60s was the last time we added j.p.s I'm familiar with in all the history. So when you average out the number of j.p.s, we're closest in number to dallas county. And the dallas county judges are making 89,000. And coincidentally, that's exactly the salary figure that the associate judges in Travis County are making, the six associate judge necessary Travis County are making now. And they are getting a salary increase. And we are not. Are the associate judges required to be attorneys?
>> well, we are all attorneys in Travis County.
>> that was not my question r. The associate judges -- required --
>> I'm sure they are probably required to be an attorney and I am an attorney. He's an attorney. Judge evans is an attorney. Melissa goodwin is an attorney. And judge bar pwrar bamberg is an attorney. I doubt anyone without a -- would be elected j.p.
>> aside from the j.p. Who was the j.p. 3 for 12 years was not an attorney.
>> he was elected 12 years ago.
>> if you all were to get a $10,000 increase, what is the percentage you are asking in terms of what kind of a percent increase would that be in your salaries?
>> you are essentially at 69,444.
>> you are asking for a 14% pay increase.
>> and the district judges, the county court at law are getting nine.
>> because they didn't get anything. Few do it over five years, it's about 2% a year. You've gotten 33% over those same time period plus you are asking another 14.
>> no, but the percentage that we've gotten has been based on a lower salary [indiscernible].
>> of course, we have put the j.p.s in a salary review of not us, a non-partisan group of folks to take a look and they have always been looked at, and their salaries are pretty close to what that salary committee says they ought to be at. And this does not mean that I don't respect you all and it does not mean that I think you are not hard workers, but I'm not there related to trying to link you all with county court and district judge salaries. The jobs are not the same. They don't have the same requirements. And I would move that since this court has discretion on this item --
>> I'm not -- [inaudible]. Cow tell us what the survey recommends if you have it before you?
>> I don't have it at this moment. But you all have been in the salary review by the salary review committee and you all are right on target as to where -- [multiple voices]
>> the advisory committee.
>> I don't know what that means. We are at that amount, below it, higher?
>> you are right where you are supposed to be by a group that was pulled together, not this Commissioners court, to give advice to this Commissioners court on salaries. And we went by their recommendations.
>> that was two years ago?
>> the last time was last year.
>> I think that report came out two years ago.
>> anyway, they didn't see that there was a problem. Like I said, I would move that we decline to change the salaries.
>> but the funding for [indiscernible] is judiciary fees and if I understand it you've gotten an opinion from the county attorney's office --
>> it doesn't have anything to do -- [multiple voices]
>> I appreciate the fact that you all work hard. But the requirements to be a justice of the peace are not the same to be a county court at law or district judge or an associate judge. It doesn't mean that I don't respect your work, but I'm not linking those salaries together because they are quite different. There are different responsibilities at being a county court at law judge, there are tkeuf requirements of being a district judge. It's different. And it doesn't mean that I don't respect the work you are doing, but I'm not there, and I especially do not want to have a discretionary ax of this court that gives three people a different salary -- and I don't want to get into an argument on this because you are not going to change my mind.
>> I would hope you would let me comment and give me the respect of commenting and responding to your comments, Commissioner Sonleitner eye heard it all last week.
>> hold on one second. There was a motion. Is there a second?
>> second.
>> okay. Discussion.
>> I need to ask a question.
>> judge d.i.a.z. Is trying to finish.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner just commented that she would be opposed to giving three justices of the peace a pay raise when two of joined the grievance and withdrew three days before the hearing. There is a president in this court in the grievance in 1997 for fiscal year 1998 salaries where justice of the peace precinct 5, jay phaoerbg at the time, did not join a grievance, and you all gave her a pay raise anyway even though she was not part of the grievance. So you have the discretion and you have the legal precedent for giving the pay raise to judge bambray.
>> and I asked her to look that up because I remembered that and it's been confirmed. Am I correct?
>> yeah, back in 1997 the court did grant and it was not only judge meeker but it was also judge Davis at the time as well did not grieve so the court gave two different amounts to bring all the j.p.s up to the same level. That was without our advice though.
>> oh, okay.
>> can someone explain, I just now got this. I requested someone to bring the backup by my office. I think judge, I talked with you.
>> I apologize.
>> this is the first time I'm looking at it. And of course -- anyway, what I'm looking at here, can someone explain to me the difference in the salary for the bexar county folks and the Travis County j.p.s? There's a difference. For instance, I'm looking at that bexar county has seven j.p.s and $57,343 salary. And then we are paying $69,444 in Travis County. I know bexar county is probably larger as far as population. I don't really know the dynamics is. But why is there a cost differential just to our adjacent county to the south and Travis County that much of a difference and you have a county population that's greater than Travis County?
>> just as the Commissioners court makes a decision on their j.p.s, theirs -- activities are much greater than theirs. That has something to do with it. If you multiple seven times that salary, they would still be paying more for their j.p. Salaries than you pay for Travis County j.p. Salaries. If you multiple seven times their salaries and five times ours, we know the $5,500 added to ours, we would still be number five in total number of money budgeted for salaries.
>> still I can say this has just been handed to me.
>> I apologize. I promised it to you.
>> you sure did.
>> we tried to get it to you. [multiple voices]
>> but I'm sorry, we didn't get it --
>> that's fine. That's fine. But anyway, there's been a motion made so --.
>> judges, I will tell you that I'm somewhat sympathetic to your cause. I mean I would like to have more time to absorb this. I mean but on the face of it there are some things that are really interesting.
>> you want to take this to this afternoon?
>> if they don't mind coming back.
>> do you need more time?
>> I don't need more time. It's not going to make a difference at this stage with where we will a budget. If I would have known this six weeks ago, I mean I would liked to have looked at this. Here's the thing that drives me the most about making sure that people like you all are happy. You all generate sizable revenues. For this community. And -- but I mean I do think that we need at least another j.p. Office. To take the workload. When I go to precinct 3 office, I mean there is so much work to be done that you just physically can't get it done. And I would like to think that I would be more than happy to take a look at this. I can't do anything about it this year. But I am very sympathetic with where you all are. I think we need to look at this to see if you are being dealt fairly with. I agree with Commissioner Sonleitner. I think there is a large difference between a j.p. And a district judge. And you all aren't going to argue that. I don't think that's what you are asking. But, for example, I would like to have known that this judicial fee really did apply or could have applied to you all. Because I didn't think that it could. I thought it could only apply to that group over there. As a matter of fact, I was willing to give them the 20,000, I mean when it first came to me because it was couched to me that that's why you had that fee and that was what it was for. I would like to sit down with some of the district judges and say what do you think about this -- I mean with the j.p.s, especially with the workload that you have. I'm sorry that it's come about so late, but I do think there is some good points that you all bring up and I'm more than willing to take a look at it.
>> let me try to compromise a substitute motion. We did have nine citizens to look at this situation and [indiscernible] $10,000. My substitute motion is to reduce the award to to $5,000 each in the spirit of compromise.
>> I would second that.
>> seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Any discussion of the substitute motion? I think when you look at the total facts in addition to the fact we have nine citizens to look at this and six of them concluded that 10,000 was appropriate, and the reasons I believe are, one, there is a huge gap disparity between what the county court at law judges make and the district judges and that is borne over time. Two is that the associate judges do make significantly more than the j.p.s and [indiscernible] by the district judges. Third is they do have substantial case loads and in my view good qualifications. And fourth is that I think we ought to indicate that the money is coming from the judiciary support fund and all the other things. There was a whole lot of documentation back and forth. This is not going away. It's kind of sure tpaeugs periodically, so I think midyear we ought to take a look at this and figure out what we out to do. The substitute motion which was seconded is award the j.p.s 5,000 each.
>> judge, I'm going to speak against the motion because a 7% raise for three, not five j.p.s does not give me any less heartache. I think this appropriately ought to be rolled into our non-partisan outside group as they have been. I don't think they have been mistreated. They have gotten raises every single year since fiscal year '97. They are not courts of record when somebody appeals a j.p. Decision, they start from scratch at the county courts at law. And it does not mean that I don't respect the fact that they do a good job, but they are not county court at law judges nor district judges, and I don't see the linkage. That's why i've looked to the salary committee to give us advice and we have followed it. And I think that's the appropriate place to go and a 7% race is inappropriate.
>> is there any way to include the two j.p.s who withdrew their --
>> it wouldn't change my mind.
>> I have a right to ask for a legal opinion. What do you --
>> legally it is an obstacle, but my view would be that you would be resetting those two j.p. Salaries. You would need to advertise it and -- [multiple voices]
>> -- before you set that salary which would put you in the --
>> then we would leave them out. They are on their own withdrew their grievances. I don't know why. They were not required to say it. And what we have done historicry is in the next budget cycle try to make that up. The same thing happened with the peen 4 constable last time. Any more discussion of the substitute motion? All in favor of that motion. Sphoe Commissioner Daugherty and yours truly voting in tpaeufrplt voting against, Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner and Gomez. Now we're up to the original motion which is to reject the recommendation of the panel. All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner and Gomez. Against Commissioner Daugherty and myself.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:52 AM