Travis County Commissioners Court
September 28, 2004
Item 19
Number 19 is to consider and take appropriate action on policies and recommendations
resulting from the county information technology positions analysis report.
>> I think today we just wanted to recap the recommendations
and hoping to get court approval to implement these recommendations.
>> okay.
>> on August the 19th we brought to the court a report called
information technology and position analysis and recommendations. We had several
recommendations in the report and during our budget hearing we discussed them
with the court. As joe said, this is a follow-up to those particular recommendations.
You have them in a memorandum that was distributed last week and we would
like to go through each of the recommendations and answer any questions you
may have and get your approval on them.
>> there are a, b, c, d, e and f. The first one, a, is the
actual transfer of the individuals that we're recommended in the report to
transfer them out of the other departments into its. These positions are listed
in the -- in the memorandum. We had three coming from health and human services,
one from tnr, two from administrative operations, records management, and
one from emergency services.
>> this transition will take place over the next 90 days.
We'll work with the department to develop a work plan that assures that all
their it functions that they do now will continue and we look forward to enhancing
those particular functions and changing the mode of operation to improve efficiency
and responsiveness to the departments, but it's not like tomorrow everyone
moves over to its, we will develop a transition plan with the department heads.
>> the departments know about these recommendations?
>> yes, sir, we've discussed it with the management in each
one.
>> and they're either in agreement or have agreed to cooperate?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> would you like to take question, judge?
>> I thought we would take one.
>> no problem, I just want to ask.
>> okay.
>> the second recommendations was to modify the purchasing
policy to require that a written recommendation from its being accompanied
with any requests for it-type purchases, software, hardware, prior to it coming
to court. The attachment is the actual policy modification, is attachment
a. The first paragraph there is the way the policy is today, what we're inserting
in there is a change to say that it has to be in writing. And we've discussed
this with purchasing and it's agreed that this verbiage is fine with her as
far as the purchasing policy is concerned.
>> and I think that is consistent with the questions that
have been asked from the court of, hello, have you talked to it about this,
and their position. This formalizes everything that we've been asking for.
>> that's correct.
>> c is that we would like for the departments to utilize
the help desk tracking system, that can either be one of two ways, some departments
today are using it fully by having their it staff, I'm talking about the it
staff, the elected officials, the appointed official departments, that some
of those departments today have their people actually enter into the help
desk without making a phone call that they're using to at tract all the problems
so we can measure what problems are out there and the magnitude of them and
what systems may be having problems that we can address early, and also it
gives us a good record of how much time it takes to service and fix problems
that may occur. So we're asking that that be adopted as a policy for all departments
to utilize the help desk, either call the help desk, or enter it directly
themselves. Okay? The next recommendation is for the hr department and its
to work together to revamp the job descriptions and utilizing the recommendations
that were contained in the it position analysis. The majority of that came
from the gardener research facility, and revamp the job titles and make things
more consistent with the industry. The next one is we would like -- yes, sir?
>> that new analysis to make sure that we are looking at
industry, the market, compared to what we're doing here, looking at analysis
that probably take place. If there is an increase in the amount of revenue
that is necessary to bring those positions up to market, you looking basically
to -- trying to look to eliminate as much greenfield as possible, and it would
be good to bring folks up to market; however, it's just something that you
also looking at in this particular request?
>> well, that would be part of the hr market salary survey
piece of this is they use this information to accomplish that and then whatever
hr would recommend from that.
>> okay. Okay. We'll just look at it as it goes along.
>> all right. Thanks.
>> and we're also recommending that they -- that the gardener...
Gardener research statistics be used to measure the salary for these positions
as well.
>> I said greenfield, I meant to say green circle. Sorry.
>> this has one of the salary survey sources.
>> that's correct.
>> that's correct.
>> not the only one.
>> that's correct. I believe the court's policy on that is
minimum of three, I think, sources.
>> yes.
>> this would just be one of them.
>> okay. To your knowledge regarding this study and recommendations?
>> none that we have not been able to take care of.
>> okay. Questions from the court? These are lifted alphabetically
but you have recommendations a through f.
>> that's correct.
>> move approval.
>> certainly.
>> we have gone over all -- you haven't gone over -- because
I do have a question on f.
>> f is the -- we would like to have our salaries be part
of the salary survey, in other words let -- let our salary information go
flow to gardener so it becomes part of that whole database. That is what that
represents.
>> okay, well, then I -- maybe it's not f. I'm going to page
3 where we're talking about centralization of services will be only by the
recommendation and agreement of elected or appointed officials. I mean at
some point in time I think we need to have at least agreements I mean in Travis
County that even though you're elected and you want to do the things that
you want to do, once you get this fact system up, once we really have the
capability of what, you know, will be complete integration or at least as
close as we can get, I would like to think that the Commissioner's court would
have the ability to weigh in on helping suggest to somebody that you really
ought to come into this thing because, you know, we -- we still sign off on
a lot of things with all different departments doing different things, having
different systems. I mean it's -- and I at one time was really resistance
to that, but I -- but I did get it that those people are elected officials
and they do have a job to do and they feel like that, hey, this is what we
need to get our job done, and so i've kind of backed off of that, so I think
there will come a time, joe, hopefully, when we will really be a lot closer
to fully being integrated and if we do, I would like the Commissioner's court
-- now, maybe only place we have to do it is to start denying, no, we're not
going to sign off on an it person for you. No, we're not going to sign off
on you buying that piece of equipment. So maybe we're not there yet, but I
would like for there to be at least an understanding that, because I mean
that's pretty specific about only the recommendation or agreement of the elected
or appointed officials, so maybe that is enough said, and hopefully everybody
would probably say you know what, I'm happy to be part of the system if it
works and I can do whatever I need to get done for my job.
>> I think what is important here is just a little bit of
perspective. Margaret and I have been around here for ten years, the judge
even longer and Commissioner Davis is right behind us and that is there really
was a time when department elected officials, everybody, intentionally went
around it because it just seemed like that was the only way you could get
something done, you had to take matters into your own control and it was a
shame it got to that point, but we have now gotten like a full circle from
there and that is that I think we have earned and built working partnerships
between it and the different departments and the elected officials and it's
a big deal for us now to talk about, okay, it was very decentralized, now
perhaps it's time for it to become centralized. The best way to get there
is I think in two parts. Show everybody all the other independent elects that
it works because the Commissioner's court positions were the first ones to
say, okay, we will volunteer for this experiment, and the things that work
well, we'll learn from them, the things that don't work well, we'll learn
from them, so that we can prove to the elected officials that the consolidation
and the centralization of the it functions is a good thing. But in the meantime
very slight change in the manual about the its review makes it clear that
it doesn't matter who you are within the family, that you need to get a written
assessment from the department, from purchasing and the Commissioner's court.
You've got a procedure, so we will still retain our budgetary control to be
able to ensure that we've got consistency, compatibility, all those kinds
of things so that in the meantime, at least in terms of the hardware and software
purchases, we are being consistent, and I think we're seeing fewer and fewer
times that we have to say you talk to it about this because they are being
recognized as a partner and there are independent elected officials who would
never say they willingly worked with it ten years ago, that very much consider
themselves partners now. I think we're getting there, Gerald, it's just that
we need to start with ourselves on the people piece and in the meantime we've
got the it review piece so that we do keep the Commissioner's court approval
process and it's a budgetary process, but it's still one of cooperation/collaboration
and not the hammer, and I think we'll get there. But I need to prove it to
everybody that it works and we need to be the ones that say we're going to
step forward and say all the departments are going to be part of the centralization.
>> I'm not asking you to do something if we can't perform
and get the confidence level up of the folks that need to do their jobs, I
understand that, but I do think that we're working toward it being more centralized.
That was the only statement. I think everybody understands that. Thanks.
>> so what if we -- if we complete recommendation, that is
good enough, isn't it? It will be only by the agreement of the elected and
the appointed official. I mean are we going too far if we only by the recommendation
of the... So you may initiate and recommend. I'm saying the same language
jerrod was looking at. Other county departments, it departments considered
for centralization of services will only be -- will be only by the agreement
of the elected or appointed official. We take recommendation. If it's a good
idea, we don't care who recommends it, but for elected and appointed officials
we want to get their agreement because we want to cooperate, collaborate,
all the other good things.
>> exactly. If we don't earn it as Commissioner Sonleitner
pointed out, then it's up to us to do it and do it right.
>> and the results... [multiple voices] ... And that is the
analysis of those particular positions that would be an elected official's
department or really any other department, if you look on one of the recommendations,
even the departments under the auspices of the Commissioner's court, we found
several positions who may have been classified in the its family, but really
their primary functions were outside that particular job family and title.
So that is a sort of analysis that we would need to do in working with elected
or appointed officials is to do much better analysis of the job function and
determine their primary mission, and if it is its or another mission.
>> judge, you know, we've been doing the budget hearings
that we asked previously, one the court was continuously asked when the department
came up before, elected official, whomever, when it came to the its function,
we basically asked the question have you gone through your hollow shop, in
cooperation of working with these folks I think it's right there and I think
they know if we're going to pose the question, whatever phase we're go into
this, phase i, 2 or 3, through the whole process as far as centralization.
I think everybody feels alert to the fact that the Commissioner's court is
really looking at the cooperation across the board when it's coming to taking
care of some of these situations. So I would think that [inaudible] thank
you.
>> who seconded that motion?
>> I did.
>> is that friendly?
>> yes, it is.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> okay.
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: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:25 AM