Travis County Commissioners Court
August 24, 2004
Item 5
Number 5 consider and take appropriate action on proposal to increase the
salaries of the justices of the peace and place the justices of the peace
adjacent to other members of the judiciary in the newspaper ad.
>> judge, this is also what we discussed last week. Hand
out of courtesy, we allowed an additional week for folks to be able to ask
the questions. Christian does have a brand new memo that is dated August 20th,
that would do what was discussed last week, which was the option 3 of placing
the -- the salaries at 85844 and that in the newspaper ad they are right below
the probate judge, so that all of our judicial elected officials are all grouped
together and this does seem to be an appropriate place, not only where to
place them on our ad, but also in terms of the salary that I think they are
still -- you will see the difference. They are still -- about $40,000, $45,000
behind the next level on the judiciary. Which I think we have still got some
room to go, but this is a good way to start. I move approval of the 85,844
and with the change in the newspaper ad that places them in the jiewsh shall
area.
>> let me say this -- in the judicial area.
>> let me say this.
>> is this open for discussion judge.
>> yes.
>> let me say this, that we look at a lot of these compensation
issues, it's try to bring some type of pairty, this statement that Commissioner
Sonleitner just mentioned, if you don't do it, then the person gets farther
behind. I guess this holds true with some other situations that we are going
to discuss here today that have been postponed a week. I want everybody to
understand we are trying to come to a parity type of situation. You look at
the [indiscernible] and look at the j.p.'s here in Travis County who have
really -- look at the workload of the j.p.'s here in Travis County, I think
they are really overwhelmed with a lot of work and the things that we are
trying to do to -- to offset that. Not only by paying them, but also doing
some other innovative things, visiting judges, for an example. Possibilities.
So there's a lot of -- of room I think we need to work on and it's just a
matter of bringing equity, parity I think into -- into our elected officials'
salaries, but again I don't want questions to be so narrow minded that the
elected officials are the only ones that we need to address parity issues
with here in Travis County. There are other persons just as worthy or just
as deserving, I feel, of getting parity acknowledgment from this Commissioners
court. So when those things come up on the other issues, I just hope my colleagues
are just as vigorous and energetic and vote just as positive for those persons
who are also seeking parity in Travis County. Thank you.
>> and I support that. Because -- because I think all elected
officials can -- can say that -- that their job description changes. Every
time that the legislature meets. We get additional duties and responsibilities
and that's fine. I mean, that's great. But I think that people -- it means
that people will also spend more time doing their job. Especially the j.p.
Level, they address the people who cannot afford attorneys. It's the first
level of -- of government that's the first level that they will encounterture,
I want to know that by paying people well they will do a competent job. And
try to address all of the needs of people, respect everyone who comes before
the court. And -- and just wants them treated as human beings. So -- so I
think that -- that -- that I just want to make sure that everybody understands
that the job description that we first encounter when we run for office is
not the same job description that remains in place because, again, every time
the legislature meets, they make changes, they add on to the duties that elected
officials have at all levels. And then what that means is that it filters
down to employees as well. And I think we have done a fairly good job of addressing
the needs of employees as we have gone along since 1998. And I just think
that is one more of those steps where we need to be fair to elected officials
as well and the job that they have to do.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... The judicial pipeline awards you an additional $10,000
-- will award you an additional $10,000?
>> no. This does nothing in terms of any kind of a lirjage,
there is no percentage. This is a flat-out movement of the jp's to a set salary
and they do not get anything extra with the $10,000. If you want to talk about
the 10,000, knock 10,000 off the 16,000 and they're really getting a little
bit above what the district and county court at law judges are getting.
>> if we're putting them in this pipeline and the district
judges participate in that fee that's fenced or whatever the world you call
it that is set aside specifically for the -- the judicial system or pipeline,
what is going to keep the jp's from saying, okay, well, I want an additional
$10,000? I mean if that's what we're basically doing. I mean, because the
district judges get an additional -- I suppose -- an additional $10,000 because
there's that fund set aside for them to get that, is that right?
>> the funding set aside is simply the source of monies.
It is not what determines whether they get a raise or do not. Because quite
frankly, it doesn't cover everybody. The county court at law judges are 100%
on the tab of the Travis County taxpayers out of the general fund. This is
a source of money that gets thrown into the pot that can be utilized but it's
not because the fund exists they get the raise. They get the raise because
Travis County is stepping in where the state legislature has failed district
and county court at law judges around the state of Texas. They refuse to give
the supreme court a raise and therefore the appeals court do not get raises
and district judges do not get raises and we thought that was patently unfair
and got a special bill passed which other large urban counties around the
state of Texas jumped on to say we ought not freeze these people out on raises
because the state of Texas will not gut it up and give everybody in their
judicial ladder a raise. So this is -- this now $20,000 for the district and
county court at law judges. This is supplemental that Travis County is putting
up for this and it's helped out by that judicial fee but it's not the fee
creates the salary. The salary comes and it's helped by the fee.
>> two reasons for me. One is that over the last three or
four years we've had substantially -- we've kept substantially increase of
salaries of the county court at law judges and the district judges and even
after this passes, assuming it passes, the jp's will make more than $40,000
annually less than the county judges and district judges. And that is a big
gap. Anymore discussion of this motion? All in favor? Voting in favor are
Commissioner Gomez, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Sonleitner, a and yours
truly. Voting against consistently, Commissioner Daugherty. Number 3 is to
discuss and take appropriate action on officials salaries.
>> I would move approval of the draft ad that appears attached
to christian smith's August 20th memo which appropriately does reflect the
actions that we just took related to the county clerk's salary and related
to the jp salaries and where the jp's appear inside the ad.
>> second.
>> motion and second to approve the ad prepared by the budget
office. Any discussion?
>> appear as far as the media is concerned for the public
to review it?
>> it will be in the chronicle, this week's chronicle dated
Thursday, August 26th.
>> okay.
>> okay. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? Tell
Commissioners, Sonleitner, Davis and yours truly voting in favor. And Commissioner
Daugherty voting against. That's all we need to do for the ad. Right, mr.
Smith?
>> that's correct.
>> thank you.
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 8:25 AM