Travis County Commissioners Court
August 3, 2004
Item 5
5. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed personnel amendments. My two questions on that will be the same as last week, one would be basically the number of -- the number of persons recommended compared to the total number in the department and the second question would be basically whether documentation was submitted and if there's just a -- like a brief summary of it, i've -- I would appreciate it.
>> documentation on -- if we can go to, let's see, page 6. Beginning on page 6. Human resources department did submit documentation that's represented here as 15 positions out of -- out of a total I think of 24 f.t.e.'s within the department. The documentation that was submitted does -- does outline specific criteria and justification for each employee that's listed on this particular page. If you would like more detail than that, I would be happy to -- to just share my copy that I have here.
>> linda, I guess I don't have the justification.
>> the justification for --
>> yes, I have the list of employees, but I don't have the justification for --
>> we can certainly provide that. With the policy, we were not providing all of the justification for it because it wasn't required, but certainly we are happy to share this justification with you. By the copy that we have as backup.
>> well, I guess you can just tell me what is the basis for the -- for the recommendation?
>> the basis for the recommendation in human resources?
>> uh-huh.
>> in the -- in the positions that are represented here, it's basically tied to additional duties to be performed that expands joined the existing -- beyond the existing scope of their regular duties. The areas without being specific in terms of numbers, the compensation division is noted here, just in general the work that's being done, will continue to be done on the compensation. Tragic initiative that the court had directed the health and wellness initiative. There are individuals included here who have been very involved with that initiative and will continue to be. As well as the risk area and the work that's going on with the pad program as well as activities within that. The staff and training employee relations division, staff are also included primarily based on the performance management initiative that we are continuing to do the planning work on and more work, of course, as we move into fy '05 to launch that program. So in general those are the additional duties that are represented by the individuals who are on this page and i'll be happy to provide the documentation to support that.
>> and remind me again, this is -- this represents how many positions out of --
>> 15. Out of 24 from that. It's either 23 or 24. Total.
>> okay.
>> do you have a dollar amount of what this is?
>> the dollar amount on the positions, which happened to be noted first among the other departments that are in this list, but the dollar amount on these particular positions represent 27,000.
>> and you got that from -- is this salary savings -- in excess of your budget --
>> exactly. We have met the salary savings. All of the actions on this page have been verified by ppo as meeting the required salary savings -- [multiple voices]
>> okay. That's the explanation that I wanted to have additional. This is -- this is salary savings over and above what is already --
>> yes, required.
>> -- in the ending fund balance by p.b.o.
>> yes. All of these, Commissioners, I might add, anything that we put on the agenda as temporary pay increases it's been verified by p.b.o. That is beyond the department's required salary savings.
>> that's okay. My need is simply to understand that this does not affect the ending fund balance that -- that I expect to be there because that's been the holy grail for county governments since i've been here, to not affect the ending fund balance, I wanted to make sure I was still changes the same holy grail.
>> regarding records management, the same would apply there. The department did submit documentation to justify the actions on the 8 employees that are noted here. I don't have the exact number of f.t.e.'s in that department, but I do know that it's much greater than the eight represented here. The justification --
>> that would be 11 -- 11 instead of 8.
>> 11. Don't want to intentionally reduce the number.
>> not on purpose. But the total that I知 showing here in the backup is slightly over $12,000. For the actions that are noted. As indicated these are justified based on additional duties and responsibilities beyond the current scope.
>> the difference for me here is the additional duties. That makes a lot of sense to me. Not -- not a promise that people will perform in the future. But let me understand, again, for my -- for my own -- my own satisfaction, the action that we took last week, was that also -- was that also -- did that come from savings beyond ordinary salary savings. Did that also --
>> yes.
>> that's what we were told.
>> so that, too, did not -- did not affect the ending fund balance. And the other thing, though, is on last week's action, did that -- did that cover all employees in t.n.r. Or just that list that we had.
>> it was a list that you had that included -- I know that the park rangers, of course, were not included.
>> okay.
>> because they are pops. Then there might have been some temporary positions that were also not included.
>> okay. Because the information that I知 getting back is that people believe that everyone in t.n.r. Is getting it.
>> also, nobody Margaret that had been hired since January 1st. So there was another group. If you are a part-time worker and you had only been here, I believe it was a year or less, you got half the amount that anybody else had gotten. So there was a -- there was a proportionate share there, too. So it was based on -- a a -- six months or less you got nothing.
>> okay.
>> because you did not have a track record. That needs to be clarified with the employees. Not everybody is getting that -- it's not a pay raise. That needs to be clarified as well. So that they will understand the vote that I took, that I made on that issue. Because they are also being told that the judge and I were the ones that voted against that. I think we made it a practice in this county to not take that kind of stance that a policy that is approved by this court by three votes is a policy that everyone follows, whether we voted for it or not. So I just would rather we not be divisive in that manner when we explain to employees about who voted for it and who did not. That's fine. I will be glad to give explanations to employees as they call me.
>> how many -- how many potential positions would there be in records management. This showed 11. That's 11 out of how many?
>> I知 sorry, I just don't have that data. 44.
>> 11 out of 44. Okay. Thank you.
>> pretrial services?
>> pretrial services. Quickly adding correctly, there are 29 positions that are noted here and I don't have the data on how large that department is in terms of f.t.e.'s, but certainly I mean it's well beyond -- this is a select group of -- of that number. And I can certainly get the total f.t.e.'s to you. P.b.o. Confirmed the funding on that and I don't have the total on the cost of that. If p.b.o. Is -- oh, bill has that information to share. Do you have the total --
>> I知 doing this off the top of my head, about 50 f.t.e.'s. The dollar amount for the increase is $35,160. Can you clarify, is this coming out of state funds, county funds, help me understand --
>> pretrial services, is totally funded by the --
>> I知 sorry, I知 thinking cscd, never mind, take that back.
>> county funds.
>> county.
>> it's county funds.
>> I was thinking cscd. All right.
>> it's also for additional duties?
>> actually, that particular one was justified based on -- on market. As well as the -- the expectation of exceptional performance in the future. There were three criteria. They -- it was market that they documented and exceptional performance expected in the future. That was one memorandum for the 29 that are --
>> it's also -- also to be covered by savings over and above --
>> yes.
>> to the -- should the associate judge position be in this same category?
>> that is -- yes it should be. This particular one is a temporary increase that they are requesting.
>> additional duties.
>> additional duties. Yes.
>> but there is a separate judge slot, not the same person, [multiple voices] which is an ongoing.
>> yes.
>> which I thought we got an e-mail on from judge muir.
>> there are two judge slots as you indicated. One is routine, based on the temporary pay increase policy and the other that's on the front that's a non-routine item.
>> right.
>> also, on the non-routine, slot 502, on -- it says appears to be several funding mechanisms other than Travis County participating in funding. Aspect of this. And are we -- we are not funding the whole amount that's being looked at, if you really break the funding down into the categories where -- where you receive funds such as Travis County being one, but also the city of Austin, and also the aisd, so it's not just all on the shoulders of Travis County as far as funding of this position. I just think that may need to be noted because it is an increase. However, it's not all -- not all Travis County board as far as funding is concerned. That was a good point to bring up.
>> once p.b.o. Confirms the funding for these particular actions, the detail on where the funds are actually coming from are not as much a focus within the h.r. Site as p.b.o. I think that's an excellent point to make as far as the discussion we are having on ending balance.
>> we can confirm that funding is available. We have worked with people in probation, they have identified resources in fy '04 and fy twoif 2005 to cover the cost increases. What Commissioner Davis is referring to is that the truancy court judge is actually paid for through an interlocal with aisd and the city of Austin for the current $71,000 portion. The proposed additional portion would be funded from the general fund. Internal reallocation of juvenile probation.
>> because they are general fund duties.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> right.
>> but that -- I didn't understand that. So the additional basically $20,000, comes out of the county's coffers.
>> because they are general fund --
>> I understand that [multiple voices] I知 just saying that there's a $20,000 increase in that salary that does come that is not shared by all of the other entities that Commissioner Davis was talking about.
>> uh-huh.
>> that's correct.
>> it's our piece.
>> yeah, it's ours.
>> all of the ones on this list, though, except for the last one, are routine?
>> yes.
>> so the question is let's see if we can just -- do we want to set the motion on temporary pay ones or -- [multiple voices]
>> move approval of that.
>> but yeah --
>> do you need a division -- [multiple voices]
>> hold on. Let me try to preside. I move approval of all of the routine items.
>> second.
>> thank you. Discussion? This will be all of the items except for the one non-routine one. Any discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. One item left is the non-routine for the -- for the associate judge, in slot 502. That's what we were discussing just then. Judge muir?
>> thank you, Commissioners. Judge muir here. I would appreciate the opportunity to come before you. This is non-routine, yet in some ways it's more equitable than anything in the world. We do have a position, a slot that we are currently funding out of non--- non-county funds. It is a slot for the truancy court. That was created about 3 years ago now. Is that -- I believe and we have shown and the court has supported this philosophy of the -- of that truancy court over the time, I know that we have tried to -- we have evolved it, increased the responsibilities. Even as such, truancy court being what it is, how we have gone about this, we started that position thinking that it may or may not stay. So it has been totally kind of sitting out there. That position that been underutilized. And what we have done and the person in that slot has done is voluntarily assumed responsibilities with no pay. He has sat in for the -- for the judges who are out and sick. He sat in for judges who are no longer with us because they have resigned. That position has evolved into a full-time associate judge position. Without the pay of that position. And that's really what we are talking about in this. It's not giving a raise to any person. It really is an equity issue on the job. What it also does is give an opportunity for the court systems. This position, overall, would not only be allowed to stay in truancy, but then can float for -- you might understand like you all have paid visiting judge time for our associate judges downtown when they are ill. And that comes out of the county coffers. This person now will be able to assume some of those responsibilities so that we will have coverage instead of bringing in outside people to cover when somebody is ill or on vacation or things like that. So -- so in my own mind, what we are talking about is equalizing what we should have done, but we just didn't know that this was going to evolve this way. And, secondly, we are getting a -- a position at a less cost to the county, initially at least, than we would have if we were just trying to pay for a part-time associate judge to cover people when they are out. So we are trying to do kind of a combination and it really never hit my mind until the middle of the night that I was thinking about that when we were trying to fill the position for an empty spot on the -- on the associate judge's benches right now. It came to my realization that a slot that is lower than that is doing that job and getting paid less than that job and what had happened. So -- so I bring it to the court now asking for the equities and feel like this would be the most fiscally responsible way to do it.
>> is this the truancy judge, judge?
>> it is correct. That is a truancy position.
>> the truancy position. Is this the court that i've heard a number of people talk about that doesn't have a large caseload? I mean --
>> yes.
>> I mean, I probably know just enough to be completely dangerous here. But -- I mean, isn't that-- isn't this the spot where people have said, why do we have that spot, they do so much less than what the j.p.'s and all of this load is, but what you are telling me is that now we are sliding them into spots or this person into spots where they effectively are -- probably earning their keep, so to speak.
>> yes, sir. The truth of the matter is that what you say is accurate. Their case loads are not commensurate with the time available. Now, that may change. It may change if we evolve into a better or a different practice with regard to the truancy court, absorb more of the responsibility, you know -- we were trying to, as you well for, work together to evolve that process. But what no one has understood is that that position has done work without pay because that person and -- has been willing to do that and step in and substitute without the -- without the salary. And so now we are just saying, well, let's go ahead and make it real what it's been doing. As well as if we do evolve and we expand the responsibilities, it also equalizes the work. So -- so it allows for me to take any of the associate judges, and assign them wherever they are needed instead of taking one person who is limited in the role they can play in the need for the court system.
>> so actually, I mean, the 71,105 they presently get paid, that is the part of the salary writs shared around with -- where it's shared around with everybody from aisd all of that.
>> we have actually, I think, please correct me, I think that entire amount comes out of aisd's --
>> with the exception of one thousand dollars added last year for the elected official's salary increases.
>> the rope for that, by the way, is that the truancy court is funded by 4-e funds. They cannot pay judicial salaries, that's one of the reasons -- we would have used the 4-e funds but we can't.
>> okay.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>>
>> what's the base pay for the position.
>> $90,000, approximately. It's the new salary of the -- proposed for the juvenile court, on the last page here, 90,750.
>> so this judge's qualifications are comparable to the persons that we hire into the associate judge's position.
>> yes, sir. As a matter of fact when we appointed him, he knew he was going to get lower salary. But we actually signed an order, exactly the same as all other associate judges. And that's why he's been authorized to do the work because under the statute the judges have to do that. And the juvenile board actually did that as well. He is actually appointed already as a truancy court, family court, tax master and juvenile court referee. He is already in that position, he is just not paid as if he's in that position.
>> comparable to the other --
>> yes, sir.
>> any other discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much,
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.
Last Modified:
Friday, October 28, 2005 9:19 AM