Travis County Commissioners Court
October 19, 2004
Item 21
21 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following requests related
to a comprehensive study on compensation for various categories of peace officers,
a, the composition of a working group to formulate a request or proposal/services
for professional services on peace officer compensation. 21-b is a statement
of Commissioner's court expectations from the comprehensive study. C is guidelines
to promote an objective, fair and ininclusive process. D is a written overview
of the process, including in-house initiatives, contracted services, appropriate
milestones and schedule. And I guess sid is headed this way?
>> ms. Graimz did designate holder on this project. Frank?
>> should we take the items in the order listed on the agenda?
>> we're both from human resources. I provided to the court
late afternoon yesterday information that pretty much summarized the activities
that -- and actions that had already been taken by the court. The document
that you have before you defines the purpose of the study, which of course
we're looking for more clarification as you anticipate it, you would be given
today. In terms of focusing on the purpose, I did attach the initial memorandum
that was distributed and discussed by the court on Tuesday, September the
21st. At this point it's the questions within that memorandum that we are
accepting as your direction to us in terms of the items and issue that you
would want this comprehensive study to address. If there are others, we would
be, as we've included in the time line, soliciting that information not only
from other members of the court, but also from the various interest groups
and departments as we would move forward with the implementation plan that
we have attached. Those -- in addition to that, the team would be expected
to follow with some modifications as appropriate the job analysis methodology
that we have used to apply to all of the classification work that we have
done. We do anticipate that based on the uniqueness of this study that there
would be slight changes in the way that we've done other studies versus how
this one would be done. As an example, we typically use three market matches
within a study like this the scope would be much broader and of course we
would be including the counties, city government as well as municipal areas
in the region as well as locally. So the scope in terms of the market would
be very different. A second example of how we might have differences here
is that we typically get position analysis questionaires from each person
affected within a study. As we are moving forward with the direction of the
court, we would be getting that kind of input from the groups that are represented,
departments as well as the interest groups, and information that has already
been provided to you, but that that we would also solicit as updates to that
as we move forward. The implementation strategy, the court last week determined
that there would be a two-prong approach to this strategy. That an internal
team comprised of some to be determined, but those already determined are
the purchasing office, county attorney's office, planning and budget as well
as hrmd as well as others that you would be designating today. You also, of
course, allocated a 50,000 maximum earmark against allocated reserve. Those
funds are to support the expenses of a consultant who would be analyzing the
data that is the internal team would pull together, and also to offset any
support that hl or the internal team would need through interns to complete
the work itself. What I did last week was a slight query that went out to
all the individuals who exit on the pops scale. In that query I have the summary
of that included on pages 3 and 4 of your backup, so we've listed the departments,
we've also noted if the departments reply to the query that was submitted
to them, we provide for you the number of slots that are represented in each
department as well as the titles that we would be looking at. The results
of that, the results are as represented, the departments are noted that replied
as well as the interest groups. As we move on with the backup, just to get
through this before discussion, on page 5 we have a proposed schedule appeared
timetable that you requested that we bring to you. We do start out with a
very aggressive schedule in getting an r.f.p. Developed and released no later
than mid December. And then having the results of the work together by June
of 2005. So we can certainly dive into the details of this, but this in general
is what we were asked to resubmit to you.
>> so who should be on the -- on a there, the r.f.p. Or rfs?
Internal working group?
>> in talking with the purchasing agent, it was determined
that a team of maximum five should be on that group. They should be the purchase
and office, of course. I don't have them identified specifically. Those that
have been mentioned. Pbo. The county attorney's office. I would certainly
think that representation from the department with the largest number of flats
on the pop scale should be represented, and of course that's the sheriff's
office. In addition to that, we have groups that are represented here. The
constables perhaps could have a representative on that particular team.
>> we have a maximum of five. Who suggested that.
>> the purchasing agent from five to seven individuals.
>> I think the biggest question that's continuing to come
up is who is doing what? I watch the e-mails go back and forth this last week
with the sheriff and others on this, and there seems to be one school of thought
that it is whoever is on any kind of team that's going to redesign the entire
system and make a recommendation so the vested interest would be designing
the cops scale. And then there are others that say, that's not what's going
on, they're just there to provide input. It's really going to be getting independent
thought, independent analysis, and then those other folks will be at the table.
But they are not the ones who will be designing a program for themselves.
And so can you please be helpful as to in this point in time this team that
we're talking about for the r.f.p., What are the expectations of this team?
And if you're not on this team, does that mean, well, I知 not at the table
any more?
>> I think it definitely does not mean that. It could be
-- the internal team that's referenced here is -- I知 thinking of two teams.
One team that would be the -- what we call the evaluation team of the r.f.p.,
To develop it, to actually put the solicitation out, to receive that, and
then to incorporate all of the inputs that have been provided by the court
and others to ensure that that r.f.p. Scope includes all of that. That's five
to seven individuals. There's a larger team, which I would call more of the
subject matter expert team. That team would be a much larger team that would
really serve to provide the project with input based upon their particular
positions, the duties -- sort of like a paq team. We would go to them and
say are we really matching to the duties and responsibilities that you are
actually delivering for Travis County? So we're working with two teams to
have the larger team involved to evaluate the wrch would be really cumbersome.
There's nothing to say, however, that once the scope of services has been
developed under that r.f.p. That we would not send that out to that larger
body to say have we not included everything that you would want to have addressed
within that. So we're talking about two teams. Does that answer your question?
And it's not my impression -- it's my impression that the court has charged
us with allowing my groups to determine the compensation structure or their
salaries any more than you would have allowed us to do that under the other
classification work that we've brought forward to you. The work is objective.
We receive the input. We go into the market. And from that dat we then come
with objectives, input, our report for you to make that policy decision based
on the objective data that's been collected, analyzed and recommended by the
consultant.
>> i've got five already. We're talking purchasing, pbo,
the county attorney, (indiscernible) and of course hr to be part of this as
well. Who else do we need to be on?
>> I think that's enough, myself.
>> that's five.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> well -- we won't get through this. It's not posted for
today, right? I think after we make these four decisions, whatever it takes
to get the job done, get it done. Yes, sir?
>> well, my only concern would be I do think that if you
don't have a spot at the table with regards to weighing in on the r.f.p.,
Then I知 going to have the same thing that I had last year. And what I知 trying
to keep from happening during budget is an investigator from the county attorney
telling me why he's different from the investigator from the district attorney,
telling me why he's different from an investigator from the public defenders
office. Stop it.
>> I think under c we also have an opportunity for the various
affected groups of employees to provide input. And they provided input to
the Commissioners court forever. And I don't know that it's helped us. That's
why I think we should put this process in place, contract with some outside
expertise and make the call. If we're not planning to do that, we're wasting
money and time.
>> what I hope to tell them this year is we hope to make
this decision, you need to pull a report and look at page whatever it is.
>> and not making any kind of conclusions about anything
you just said there. I agree with you in terms of somebody saying I知 different.
This is simply saying what is the scope of the services and the questions
and the formulating of the question to be asked of an outside consultant.
It doesn't say, and what are the answer to those questions.
>> I知 fine with it, I mean, if that's -- if I don't get
it next budget cycle where I made some suggestions, but they really didn't
get put in the r.f.p. I知 willing to go forward with this if you think we
can get what we want. That's great. If we're going to go through this, let's
make sure we don't have somebody that says, you really should have stood your
ground, Commissioner Daugherty, and cedric benson we all should have had a
spot at the table. I realize you can't have 20 people on the committee or
then you won't get anywhere, but I知 fine with it, if you think that's where
they need to go and the court says, then I want to really just make sure that
--
>> there will be two opportunities, real significant opportunities.
One will be when the smaller team or group creates the scope of services,
based on your input and what we're hoping to get from thus knows groups you're
speaking of, one to two page statement of their issues, you'll see in the
timetable we have that feedback scheduled to come before the scope of services
is developed or released. So that's an opportunity for that level of input.
And once we complete the scope of services, they give the input and then we
send it back out to them to say does it represent what you wanted, want us
to search in the marketplace? Then we move forward, we get the consultant
in place, we collect the data, and then the team is still sitting there as
a resource to access the data to come in and say -- not only give them information,
but also get information from them that will shape the content of the report
and the analysis of it.
>> in a I move that we have representative from the planning
and budget office, county attorney, purchasing, hrmd and a person appointed
by the county sheriff.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
B is a statement of Commissioners courts' expectations. Last week I put together
what's dated October 15, 2004. A memo that in my view summarizes the heartache,
headaches that I had gone through during the last year's budget processes.
And I think that ultimately these are the issues that we are confronted with
and what we ought to get recommendations and information about. First is a
sort of comparative analysis of what we do here in Travis County for peace
officers, two other urban counties in Texas. And I try to break it down into
different categories that will pick up all of the affected employees from
the shif's office, law enforcement, corrections, then the deputy constables,
park rangers, investigators, etcetera. And three, we want a recommendation
as for compensation in each category from the expert at some point, right?
And four and five, I think we want this expert to also take a look at benefits
and compare those, not only the automobile, the premium pay that we provide
similar to what's provided by a.p.d., But also any other benefits that ought
to be taken into account. So I try to be specific enough to give real guidance,
but at the same time open enough for the expert pretty much to go at it. And
that's what those two pages are about. If you answer all the questions that
Commissioner Sonleitner and I put in the documents that we provided probably
a month or so ago, then you get a real good feel for the issues that we've
been dealing with and the kind of assistance that we're looking for, I think.
>> judge, you've got a great list. I want to make sure that
the other questions I put -- because this seems to be focusing on it's really
a market study, how do we compare? And I think the things that I tried to
build into the questions to be asked, really went beyond that of simply let's
just compare the numbers. Talking about building cowkt, building stability
and predictability into the system to talk about parity, whether that is a
goal or not. And the whole idea of flexibility versus inflexibility that is
built into whatever system we stein. I want to make sure it's not simply a
-- we're just checking the numbers because, as we've all found, as soon as
we match to somebody, somebody else says, well, we can't have Travis County
be that close to us, and it just becomes an arms race of efb trying to jack
it up above everybody else. And it's not really reflecting -- well, it reflects
that.
>> did you get recommendations from -- (indiscernible) at
some point we have to have the reasons for this rengs. If we get that, I think
that's all we can hope for. That's what b is intended to do. The other thing
is that if you reach an impasse, at some point during the process, we would
simply agendaize this and let the court provide further guidance. Anything
else on b?
>> no.
>> c, in terms of an objective, fair and inclusive process,
I think up pront front we contact all affected employees and their groups
and also their officials and ask them for guidance on compensation for them.
And I think the beauty of it now is we're asking them to advise the information
that they have provided to court recently. I know I provided everything that
I could receive and find a few days ago, and that's not to say, though, that
the affected groups should not produce a different document if they had one.
And so I think they ought to know you've got additional ideas, then you need
to give them to this group right now.
>> do you know what the judge said, it's really almost asking
not necessarily on the front end because I don't mind if it's on the front
end. They will need to prioritize what really are the things that if we could
fix everything in this system, what would it be? I知 sure each could come
up with a list of 100 each, but we really need to focus it down to are there
some things that really matter more that while we try and design this as opposed
to in a perfect world you would want to have that on the table because at
some point we will need to focus is it strictly the money issue? Sts a supervision
issue? Is it the topping out a 20 year issue of this? I don't know the answers.
And I don't have any problem with them saying, do you know what, upon reflection
later into the process to say if they change their mind about what their priorities
are, I知 fine with that too. But I think at some point we are going to need
to have them focus on what do you see as the priorities and let's see if there
is any further discussion kind of meeting of the finds as to where to focus
effort, otherwise this thing could take forever and we don't have forever.
>> we have included in your schedule and timetable the date
of October 29th. I know that a great deal of thought has gone already into
what the issues are, and what we would want is to get from all of those individuals
or organizations a one to two-page max statement that does exactly what you're
describing. What are your issues in order of priority? Once that statement
is received, the data from that statement that we will ensure go into the
scope of services as I mentioned earlier as we make the solicitation, as we
pull together the survey instrument to start collecting the data against what
they know or have stated as the priorities. So we would want to reinforce
the need to get that information in by October the 29th, which is a very critical
juncture for us if we're going to be able to move this before we move into
the holiday season. That's an appeal to the public that's listening, October
the 29th. And we'll get something out, of course, from the groups.
>> did we need to issue a timetable?
>> I think it's a very good one.
>> to be honest, I was hoping we could get the recommendations
to the Commissioners court before June 30.
>> that's the no later than date. Whenever you see a date
posted, we're really working against an internal date that's at least 30 days
earlier. So I知 hoping also, judge, that it would come in well before then.
In fact, possibly sometime in may, mid to late may. But that would be the
absolute latest.
>> I知 saying I think we need it in April or may.
>> in April or may?
>> I would say -- I would say at the latest -- I think we
ought to aim for like may 15th.
>> okay.
>> if we go to June 30th, we hit the preliminary budget deadline.
>> yeah.
>> I hope that we can land on our response to the recommendations
months, six weeks before the preliminary budget is given to us, pbo needs
it I think to do its work.
>> may 15th it is.
>> that's what I would do. Any objection to that?
>> I agree.
>> that's the new no later than.
>> I知 assuming that it will take us some time to -- i'd
rather spend that time in may than August through September.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> thank you all very much.
>> and 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: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:33 PM