Travis County Commissioners Court
September 28, 2004
Item 20
Number 20, is to consider and take appropriate action on the following proposed
personnel amendments: (a), routine personnel actions, emergency services classification
changes, job titles, pay grades, flsa designations for fire marshal, assistant
fire marshal and fire marshal assistant deputy. Move approval.
>> second.
>> all in favor, that passes by unanimous vote. Number b
nonroutine personnel actions, promotion, information and tele-communications
systems. Any discussion of that.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and 20 (c) nonroutine personnel actions, temporary pay
increases, health an human services. What is the justification for this?
>> the justification has to do with the market adjustment
for these positions. You'll recognize them as deaf interpreter positions.
These were some that did not receive permanent positions that did not receive
any salary adjustments based on those that you gave a few months ago which
were temporary positions a few months ago.
>> okay. Two questions. I mean is that (t) consistent with
the policy to respond to a market conditions with a temporary lump sum?
>> yes, it is. That is one of the criteria stated in the
policy.
>> question 2 is why won't the 5.75% allocated to the department
cover this?
>> fleming, executive manager for hell and human services.
Is your question related to the lump sum, judge, for the pay increase? If
these employees are deserving and I assume they are.
>> absolutely.
>> why sit that the 5.75 which can be rolled interest their
base pay adequate to compensate them?
>> I believe the recommendation came from did division to
compensate the staff in this way because the funding was available and their
fy '04 budget.
>> consistent with my previous votes I'm against it. However...
>> one of the things, though, in this case it would be lump
sum where if you went 5.75 it would be permanent.
>> it would be permanent. Absolutely right.
>> seems to me that would be a better deal for the employees.
>> I think so. And I think that we have our analysis of this
compensation would address the -- what we feel like the market issues driving
them, but give us greater flexibility because of the 5.75 and the 4% that
the staff will be entitled to in the fy '05 cycle.
>> there is a late train and there's a train that arrives
just before the gate closes. In just a minute we'll find out which train it
is.
>> [multiple voices]
>> we would like to note that the department worked to increase
the deaf services contract amount and the auditor certified $17,000 in additional
revenue in fiscal year over fiscal year '04, so that amount will cover the
on going because you're also doing two things, asking for a temporary lump
sum and also asking for an on going inyes, sir for these employees and that
$17,000 will cover the on going increase for the -- for the interpreters.
>> y'all can go back one page on your paf sheet, these four
employees who are being up for lump sum are getting the on going pay increases
in this same week of action, and one of them is going 7.4% above mid point.
Another is going 9.8% above mid point, another is 3.5% above mid point and
another is 6.8% above mid point, that when their pay grade stayed the same,
they are getting salary adjustments in fiscal year '04 because the department
was able to find the permanent money to be able to do this, so to me they're
already getting permanent money in '04. They're going to be potentially accessing
permanent money in '05 in 3 days. To me it's like piling on to say you get
a permanent increase in this set of actions. Next week people will be pushing
buttons to say you're at least getting 4%, and to get yet a third time, I'm
just -- I'm -- the judge got me on this one, so I'm like I can't vote --
>> let's see if judge got some others. My motion is to approve
the permanent -- approve the permanent pay but to deny the temporary pay.
We've already approved the temporary pay.
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>>
>> ... From our department that have even brought forward,
and I appreciate the timing sensitivity and that's not gone unnoticed at our
department, too, but this has been something that we have felt very critical
in being able to respond to some very significant changes in the market with
regard to central Texas being the hub where there are some new startup deaf
services video interpreting services and they are coming into town setting
up shop and they are recruiting our folks because we've done such a good job
of training them and getting them to the skill level that they have. There's
another important difference with these four individuals and that is this
legal court certification that they have all received over the last year.
There's a new law that went into effect in January of '03 that put into play
requirements for the amount of compensation that people were to be receiving
when they were interpreting in a court setting. And so part of this is trying
to be responsive to that, which has been something that has been brought to
our attention that we've been working on for many, many, many months. It's
just been real recently that we've been able to secure the funding through
this interlocal and have it be cost recovery. It's not something that is sort
of a last-minute deal we found some money.
>> I understand. But it is double dipping in '04 and you
have a chance to dip again -- well, we have dipped for you October 1 because
[inaudible]. For these employees, we see, as Commissioner Sonleitner noted,
permanent pay adjustments of fairly sizable percentages. 9.8, 7.4, 6.8, 3.5.
Those would be permanent. And even if we turn down the temporary pay, and
if we do these today, the 4% effective October 1 applies to the new total.
And then you have access to if your performance has been good and the performance
gets performance pay for the other 1.75%, then you still got three opportunities.
So I guess I'm -- will a fourth one be fair?
>> and I can appreciate that, judge. I think that we have
had -- we've seen such a tremendous change in the market for these employees.
And so we were trying to -- to come forward with a strategy, and we appreciate
the amount of the change in their base pay in addition to the lump sum. I
think the lump sum request is with respect to the fact that we think it might
not be a good idea to add all of this to the base for the employees in light
of the new increase, but we are in a position where our staff can actually
leave Travis County employment and earn more money contracting with us. And
so we are trying to address that as best we can with resources that are currently
in the department.
>> so the market adjustments that are recommended are intended
for us to become competitive.
>> they get us closer to the mark. I don't know that they
get us all the way there.
>> in addition to 4% -- will an additional 4% help on top
of this?
>> certainly.
>> and if their performance has been real good, the opportunity
to access the 1.75. I guess what I'm saying, there are historic compensation
opportunities that we have not seen before.
>> that's correct.
>> and for these employees, a good chance at three hits,
three positive hits real soon. So I'm -- in my view, it is not good for us
to provide a fourth one. Just because of the timing.
>> okay.
>> and we're talking about within seven days. If we approve
the permanent pay, they will get another hit October 1 just because we have
already voted to do that for all employees.
>> and it will be permanent.
>> and it will be permanent, right.
>> yes, sir.
>> my only --
>> was there a second to that motion? Motion was to approve
the permanent pay, make the salary adjustments, but to deny the temporary.
Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Sonleitner and
yours truly voting in favor. Voting against show Commissioner Davis and Daugherty.
Thank you very much. By the way, these are four of my favorite employees at
Travis County.
>> I know that they know that, judge.
>> all right.
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 9:24 AM