Travis County Commissioners Court
October 12, 2004
Item 22
[Change in captioners]
... We can look at the affected employees and you're probably talking about
40% of the Travis County payroll, I would guess. So you're talking about upwards
of, I guess, 70, $80 million. When you look at all of the sheriff's people,
corrections, law enforcement, constable, park rangers, the investigators for
the county and the da, so not only a whole lot of people, but a lot of different
compensation issues. And I don't know that my frustration was unique. I think
all of us really it had become sort of agonizing experience for us. I had
a list of questions and I chatted with lisa and linda, and in my view, although
I do think we do need some outside expertise ultimately, we ought to get as
much done in-house as possible. The good thing about the various groups is
that they have done a good job of generating information, so there's an information
gathering on one hand, and there's analysis and comparison. And then I think
there's getting some expertise. I think we need to know what information you
need in order to help us before going out and getting the information, therefore
we can be a lot more knowledgeable when we ask the various employee groups
for information. What I did yesterday was to also circulate a memo that mr.
Smith gave me a few minutes ago. And it says what hr thinks and we'll run
through this and see what you say. At one point I thought we should be prepared
to spend some of our money, and it looks like that amount should be about
$50,000, which I say we would use -- we would earmark against the allocated
reserve. It looks like some of that in-house also because there is a need
for issuing an r.f.p., Getting this consultant/professional on board, had.
Rmd using an intern or temporary employee, one person to help with the information
gathering or two depending on exactly what's done. And I thought that you
notified another county and you got their market salary survey. I understand
we have to pay a little money to get them.
>> really?
>> and I also understand that --
>> [ inaudible ]. From the county, yes.
>> so we can get them from private sources?
>> yes, we do.
>> so whatever amount we earmarked, we in addition that hrmd
will need to use some of that up front to get it going, but whatever is left
we need to contract out for expert assistance. The other thing is I do know
that the affected employees are kind of on standby waiting for the opportunity
to provide input. I have the information that's been made available to me
I made it available to hhrmd, but I think we need to give all affected employee
groups our data. And I think two or three of them have assistance from organizations
that probably have people pretty much working full time on compensation issues.
So we were giving them an opportunity to get that to us. The other question,
I guess, is we chatted yesterday, it may be important not only to facilitate
the delivery of information to, us be probably ought to afford some opportunity
for them to articulate various other information. And if we do that, we may
as well go ahead and do it up front so we would have plenty of time. So whatever
we hand the hired gun, if I can use that expression, it would be pretty much
the information that we would want that person to consider. And hopefully
that person won't have to contact the affected employees after that delivery
or any contact, if necessary, it will be insignificant or modest.
>> I think as much as we can model as to what we did successfully
on the jail study out at del valle with the facility, and that is you use
the hired expertise for the stuff that is really beyond our scope or because
of time constraints we need to get them to do it or to have the independents
look at it. But as much that we can do in-house in terms of gathering information
and being able to kind of help formulate it. And I知 kind of seeing, judge,
you came up with a very comprehensive list of questions. I know that I added
my 42 cents' worth as well. It seems like those are the kinds of things as
well that can help formulate whatever the scope of work actually is going
to be for what piece of it that we ask the outside folks to do and what piece
will be the expectations of everybody in-house. And I know that we got a memo
e-mailed yesterday or -- sometime it came in the last two days, from the fraternal
order of police making sure that they are one of the interest groups and that
they have a seat at the table. And I know we've got a list here of interested
parties, and I know i've certainly said many times that even though constable
2 is not on the scale, they absolutely need to be part of this process because
their frawstation with the pops scale and why they got off of it. So just
want to make sure that they're in. They went to a -- [ inaudible ].
>> did I cover everything?
>> I think you have pretty much. We have looked at all the
questions and we agreed that that would be part of any r.f.p. What we would
like to do is have about -- not to exceed between 8 and $10,000 so that we
can use that to hire an intern to do some in-house to use that as in-house
resources, develop the r.f.p. -- develop a game plan in terms of specific
dates and actions, then the r.f.p. -- bring that r.f.p. Back to the court
and also distribute it to all the interested parties before that would go
out. And the question that the judge submitted along with any other questions
that y'all may have would be part of that r.f.p. So that we could work with
it.
>> alicia, tied in with the intern, that seems to be a wonderful
opportunity in terms of a paid internship with the university of Texas. I
know that dr. Bill kelly is over there. He works especially with the downtown
Austin alliance for the creation of the community court. He does exactly this.
He's over at the l.b.j. School. He is one of many excellent people over there,
but it seems like that would be an opportunity for a student to get credit
and be paid for an internship.
>> and in terms of just that, the l.b.j. Or someplace that's
local so that we would have the student with immediate access to the project
itself.
>> exactly.
>> we are as a department very much prepared to go forward
with this particular project with the information and questions that have
been raised, we understand the scope and what it is that the court is looking
for. As alicia indicated, we would like to with the direction provided today
to help away -- to step away, get an r.f.p., Whichever is appropriate, drafted
and back to the court for your review. We expected that that could happen
in the next couple of weeks that we could come back to you with that. The
proposal that's laid out here in terms of the resources available, the court
had talked about the overall 50,000. At this point obviously we don't really
know exactly what that would be, but for the in kind project, I would certainly
think it would not exceed an amount including the minimal amount that hr would
be acceptable resources. So with that we have had a good relationship with
the peace officers in the past and working with them and would look forward
to working with them through this project on the outcomes that the court is
looking for.
>> can we set as a goal to get as much assistance as possible
and as low pay a person as possible. [ laughter ] and we pay what we absolutely
must pay in order to get the level of expertise that's necessary for us to
get good, solid recommendations. Now, I am hoping that we get recommendations
that we think we can use for at least three to five years. Some of the recommendations
may be to start at a certain point next year and then the year after go to
another place. So in addition, looking at a particular category, you almost
have to also see their interrelationships also. I mean, that in my view has
been the tricky part for us because I知 chatting with six groups, and every
time each one leaves my office, I知 firmly convinced that that one made the
best case possible. Then I chat with another group and all of a sudden --
to be honest, whether they like it or not, when they come in and make the
pitch for compensation for their groups, they almost always have to sort of
speak against the other four or five groups. And what I知 hoping is that we
get an independent analysis to give recommendations where we think that they
can make the call a little bit in advance of the budget process where we can
say based on this study, here's what we will be. Here's what we will be next
August or September for '06 and what it will likely be in '07 and '08 also.
>> this is straight compensation analysis, not unlike what
you do with the classified structure. And I know that there are uniqueness
to the pay officers' pay scale and all their particular functions and duties.
But with that I believe that we can yield the kind of consults that we're
looking for that objectivity. We do have the capacity internally to collect
the data with the intern support as well as to do the market -- pulling that
information in. Our interest, as alicia mentioned, is to get a consultant
identified early in the process so that as we move forward to collect data
to collect the instruments that we have all of the questions out there that
are tied to not only those that you are raised, but those that will come out
of the feedback that we would get from the various entities if affected. So
we're staged to move with it from the definition of duties that you have identified.
Our challenge now would be just to move forward so that we can get the consultant
on board with us.
>> I guess I知 trying to get to a part where I知 at a more
comfortable moment now. I guess if we're going to look at the not to exceed
amount, whatever that is -- I think we mentioned eight to $10,000, my concern
is how much of that will actually be looked at if we have to go to outside
consulting as opposed to how much we can do inside. If we look at how much
of this effort we're trying to get resolved, do we feel right now that we
can resolve internally, as opposed to this much is left out for us to go out
and see if we can get the consulting help for this amount of money? Do you
see that? What can we do internally? And then what that we can't do internally,
how much of that should we consult to get done because we can't do it internally?
And that's basically what I知 trying to get to that level.
>> much of the labor intensive work to any kind of analysis
like this comes with collecting the data and also identifying the markets
that we would actually move into. That level of work would be done internally.
And if it is that I put a percentage to it, I would probably say 75% of the
work would be done internally, and the 25% would be us transitioning the data
we collected over to the consultant. The consultant cost really comes from
when they do the day-to-day, find the data, enter the data, profiling it and
doing the kind of work that we would be doing internally. So survive/25 --
75/25, I would suggest to you the whole process of doing this would not only
mirror the methodology essentially that you've laid out in the classification
-- on the classified scale that we do, but it would also include within that
just every element that we've talked about before, the hr (indiscernible)
that we brought before you with the consultant's involved in that. The steps
involved in that, the objectivity, the department's giving input. We would
do no less with a structure under this particular study as we did with the
other. What's important here is getting the input from the affected parties.
That is extremely critical a hl's opinion to ensure that we have not only
your questions as the court, but also the questions and the issues that have
been raised by these groups that cause them to come to you. And it's that
kind of information -- that information that enriches the data to out to the
marketplace and the comparables and to pass it to the consultants. What the
actual cost is there's no way to project that at this point. I would suggest
that perhaps 50,000 max, and certainly with the discussion you're speaking
us with us doing the approximately 75% internally, I知 not expecting that
it should go anywhere near that, quite frankly. But it's hard to know that
without the r.f.p. Or -- sue is going to get me straight on this, the r.f.p.
Or the rfs proposals. It's hard to know that at this moment because we've
not gone out with that.
>> have there ever been any -- I hate to appear to be ignorant
on this, but I just don't know the answer. Any situation within the scale
categories there have been situations that we have had to deal with, but --
(indiscernible).
>> no.
>> as far as rank and file?
>> yes.
>> so rank and file would be under that category and pops
is -- the pops scale wouldn't be applicable at all?
>> yes, because according to the automatic step adjustments
that are built into the scale until the last couple of years that happens.
>> okay. I've pulled this for a certain reason. I didn't
want that atmosphere to occur as we see it occurring in rank and file and
then what we can do. I知 looking for a remedy here and didn't know what your
answer was.
>> one of the things that would greatly benefit us if we
move with the proposal, I know that the applicants have submitted information
to the court. If it is through the action of the court that we move forward
with this to get a very succinct, one-page document that would summarize for
us as we create the draft rfs proposals that really identify the issues as
the entities see them. Now I have a stack that's probably three inches thick
in terms of the various paperwork styles, the paperwork and the documents
that were submitted to you earlier. And to get something that's just real
succinct, not to try to find the answers, but at this point for them to identify
what the answers are from their perspective or what the issues are that they
would like to see studied, that would be extremely helpful to us. In the absence
of that, we will move forward with that that you've designed for us as well
as that that we're able to glean from the three-inch stack of paper that we
have to put that draft r.f.p. Together.
>> second question, and it's my last one. What about red
line employees on the pops list?
>> on the pops?
>> yes.
>> the green circle in the red line concept has been more
appropriately applied to your classified, your rank and file employees. The
pops pay structure is built with a built-in step adjustment and allow for
that kind of movement until it was frozen a year or so ago. If there are issues
associated with the red line, those kind of issues based on comparables in
other counties, it would be part of what this study would examine.
>> actually, what's real typical on this scale is that they
do top out at a certain point. And that's very difficult with this. In fact,
the Austin police department scale ends at 15 years of service. Ours goes
to 20. Ours actually is five steps longer than a.p.d., But that's a pretty
typical because the thought is once you're an officer and you've been there
15 years, the difference in value added being there another year is just really
not a value added. So you would have movement if there's an entire movement
of the whole scale over to a higher level.
>> and we would show that. We have raised that question as
we have done other studies similar to this.
>> which is not consistent with the rank and file because
the movement of the -- the whole scale moved lateral. And -- (indiscernible).
I wanted to make sure that we --
>> that you top out.
>> yeah, exactly.
>> so you would be comparable to your rank and file. You
top out on both. You actually have more -- [overlapping speakers].
>> it's not the answer you were thinking about.
>> but the point is the whole scale moves, and that's the
difference. If we move -- if it does not move because the red line, of course,
we get into something else and I don't want to go there because woo we're
not posted for the rank and file. We're talking about the pops scale.
>> and we will address that.
>> I want to make sure that what's appropriate for one set
of employees in the county is also appropriate for the other employees in
the county. I want to make sure that we have some kind of equality movement
as we look at this.
>> two things. Who is on the selection committee?
>> representatives from the planning and budget office.
>> bill thorn berry?
>> yes. And christie (indiscernible). Our purchasing office
for the proposal that we would be preparing. With that -- on the total taskforce
or on the development of the r.f.p.?
>> the rfs.
>> the evaluation.
>> the committee.
>> yes. I would say at least a representative from the affected
entities as well as the county attorney's office. So pbo, purchasing, hr,
a rep from the affected entities, and the county attorney's office.
>> county attorney, da and sheriff.
>> okay. That was my question. When you say affected entities,
are we talking about interest groups within the entities or are we talking
about the constables, of which there are five, the da's office and the county
attorney's office and park rangers are out of tnr.
>> let us bring back to you the evaluation team. I think
that's something we probably need to go ahead and do. Because you could end
up with 13 -- [overlapping speakers] i'll go ahead and bring that for you.
>> we'll have it back on next week. Do you need from the
Commissioner's court anything in writing what our expectations are?
>> yes.
>> we'll give you that next week. Do you need from us any
guidance or protocols that we will follow to help you keep politics out of
this work?
>> yes.
>> we will give you that. I can tell you one reason we agonize
is that the five of us end up in different places during the budget process
on this, so I知 hoping that collectively we can get this work done, look at
it early on and land on it. I have been here long enough to firmly believe
that everybody -- not everybody will be happy. But we want everybody convinced
that the process was fair and that we made the best judgment that we could
and got expertise to help us make the judgment. And we would live with whatever
we put in place for a few years. Otherwise this will be wasted money.
>> and we would also bring back a budget transfer, judge,
so we could get moving on it.
>> if the motion I have in mind passes, the transfer will
be routine. We'll have an agenda item next week. We had an idea a few minutes
ago?
>> well, I just wanted to -- I just want to make sure that
if we're going to spend dollars, and it looks like that we're going to, I知
always amaze that had we've got to go out and find expertise for these kind
of things, but if that's the case, so be it. But I don't want to spend $50,000
only to come back and find out that people feel like that they were not part
of the process. I mean, it is real important for me to have everybody who
has anything to do with any kind of law enforcement in the county, because
that was my initial question when I squawked about the most during budget
because I had so many different people coming at me with so many different
ideas as to why they ought to get paid the same amount as the president of
the united states. I just didn't know how to differentiate who was supposed
to get what. So that is really my real interest in this. And I think that
we'll end up finding a lot more out in this process. Kind of like designing
that courtroom for somebody, and all of a sudden somebody says, well, I don't
think that's enough room. It's telling us a little late now. So let's make
sure that we don't leave anybody out with regards to putting together this
-- whatever we're calling it, rfs or response or whatever we need. And now
is the time to get the word to those folks that this is really your time to
step up to the line and be part of this? Because I知 not going to be very
thrilled about budget time coming up next year and us having the same kind
of issues hopefully. I mean, especially if we're going to spend some dough
on this, i'd like to be able to lay this thing out and say weren't you part
of this process? And this is where we got to. So I think that that's been
said, but I wanted to reiterate that. Thank you.
>> so we need to bring this back next week, judge, or do
we give direction today and then we have a final item next week?
>> I think we need to bring it back next week because we
need to approve an rfs committee. We need to indicate to the committee and
hrmd and alicia in writing what the Commissioner's court wants. And we need
to strategy to keep politics out of this public policy determination. And
I guess we need to ask hrmd to take the September 27th e-mail that was given
to the court yesterday and take into account all other comments given by the
Commissioner's court today and come up with a strategy that sets forth a schedule,
different steps to incorporate input from others and get us from, I guess,
next week to a place in may or June when we are handed a consultant's report.
>> do you have a motion, judge?
>> and all of this is supported by a 50,000-dollar earmark
against allocated reserve, which is a maximum at this time and should not
be exceeded without authorization from the Commissioners court. That is the
motion.
>> I second that. And the persons that they identified as
far as working with and the different department heads, those persons within
various departments, is that part of your motion also?
>> we're bringing that back. They'll give that some thought.
I知 looking at it as a two part agenda item next week that will allow us to
adopt a written strategy that can be shared with affected employees. So those
with questions will know who to contact to get a copy.
>> okay. I'd like to just address Commissioner Daugherty's
concern about participation. In a process like this you will have numerous
windows of opportunity for preaption. We wouldn't -- we would have the written
process where people would indeed submit what their concerns are, what questions.
They would have. Then you would have an interview. We may have a survey, depending
on what the consultant -- the information that he would want from the particular
individuals. So there wouldn't be just one opportunity. I think there would
be numerous opportunities for input from them.
>> this is 13 or 1400 employees, though. I don't expect them
all to be happy with it, but I think they should be happy that we're starting
early and we'll provide historic opportunity for input, and that's not necessarily
to say that we will agree with all that input, but I think we ought to receive
it and seriously consider it. And I don't know that you asked for more than
that other than an internal decision. And I think that historically we have
been pretty much inundated with so much information during the closing days
of the budget process that, you know, responding objectively has been very,
very difficult at times. I am not easily intimidated, but I would think that
intimidation was attempted a time or twovment to if there is intimidation
this time, it will be in the committee -- [ laughter ]
>> would they want to identify themselves? They can begin
to send e-mails to me of those organizations that -- or entities that would
want to be included. And I will certainly pull all of that in as a part of
what we bring in to you next week.
>> I can hardly wait until next week, but I must. This will
be back on. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> that was item number 22. We'll have that back on next
week.
>> we made a motion. Do we need to vote on it? Just direction
then?
>> it was a vote on the money.
>> earmarked $50,000?
>> there was a motion. I seconded it. Are we going to vote
on that or not?
>> I vote on the money just so we do it next week.
>> do we need to put the money in place in a budget line
item since we don't have a contract? Wouldn't we just transfer the amount
of money as necessary? It's reserved.
>> I don't think we have any more -- (indiscernible). It's
earmarked.
>> the motion is for an earmark and that would be appropriate
for us to do.
>> that's the motion on the table. That passes by unanimous
vote.
>> we don't know the exact dollar amount.
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: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:37 PM