Travis County Commissioners Court
April 12, 2005
Item 35
35. Consider and take appropriate action on request for the human -- we need alicia here, I guess, though? [multiple voices] 35 is to consider and take appropriate action on request for the human resources management department to conduct classification review of the executive assistant and administrative associate titles in the offices of the Commissioners court. What's this request about?
>> good afternoon, linda Moore smith, director of human resources. H.r. Received from Commissioner Davis a request that we take a look at two titles in his office.
>> one executive assistant and the other is the administrative associate title. We bring this request, I think he posted it actually, so it's your dialogue, I guess, in terms of direction to h.r. In terms of how you would want us to handle this. I will mention that these particular titles were reviewed as a part of our market study that we did in '98 the titles were changed. [indiscernible] action on that since 1998. They are this particular family if we were still under a strategic cycle taking a look at titles that the administrative support titles would be up for review once we start another strategic initiative to examine all of those titles within the family. So -- so, uh-huh?
>> yeah. I’m glad that you brought that point up. Because when I -- when I came on board, I guess, well, in November of '98, I think, yeah, when I took the oath, that's been what almost going on seven years now. Of course, these questions have not been reviewed as far as class indication and I just think that it's time for them to be included in the -- in the survey, per se, as other job families have been in Travis County. And of course in order to operate and do this, of course, it has to -- as an independent elected official, I can't say I like to da-da-da, have my staff to be reviewed as far as classification review is concerned, conducted by h.r. It has to be a collective effort from the Travis County Commissioners court. So this is basically the request that I’m making to ensure that we have a chance to look at the staff person and the Commissioners court positions of -- of executive assistants and also administrative associates to be looked at to have them have an opportunity to have the market survey included in the class of that particular family from the court's perspective. So then again it would take the -- take the whole of this court to do that. Otherwise I could not word it as an independent elected official. So this is basically where the bottom line falls and it's been a long time since these folks have been looked at and reviewed. This is basically the request that I am looking for forward to today, allow that particular classification or review to be done by h.r.
>> cycle now --
>> yes. In 2000 the court approved a three-year strategic plan, compensation plan, for '05 the year that you are in, you take a leave from dealing with the strategic effort towards looking at all of the titles. And said that by the end of this year, that you would consider another strategic plan and approach for doing that. My point that I made was that the first year of that three-year strategic initiative the administrative support family, part here. [indiscernible] if the court in '06 would direct us to move back into the regular cycle, for looking at job families, the administrative support title would be among the titles to be looked at in '06.
>> so now are these part administrative court titles?
>> yes, yes they are.
>> okay.
>> seems like that's what we ought to do. We outing not to treat ourselves differently than anybody else in the administrative support family. That would be a discussion that we would have at budget time about whether to start, whether they would be part of round 1, 2 or 3. But seems like we ought not to disconnect from discussions on everybody else related to review.
>> I guess my point, though, is that since i've been here, I can't recall my staff being involved market study survey study, period. Now, I would, you know, I think that I would recall that, if that were the case, like I said again i've been here since '98, of course that's seven years. It would be seven years in November, so it doesn't appear -- appear to me that -- it appears to me that it's been more than five years. That's going on seven years. So now I have I staff that recalls that. So I don't know what -- what you are suggesting. By saying what you said, I really don't understand that. I just know that as a collective body, it's hard -- I can't do it as an independent elected official. I need the court to initiate a study of folks that haven't been looked at in almost seven years.
>> it hasn't been --
>> in my opinion --
>> we are on a three-year cycle. I do remember at one time as a matter of policy saying that we would review each and every job every third year. But now we have not stuck to that, I take it.
>> these titles were looked at in year 2000. There were no changes made.
>> no changes meaning what, though? What does that mean.
>> they were a part of the market study that we completed and brought results in to you in 2000.
>> the market was correct.
>> why didn't we do it again in 2003.
>> why would we.
>> if we are on a three-year cycle, if we did it in 2000 --
>> no, it would have come around in '05 because the implementation date is after the actual approval of the actions.
>> so it's time now to do it again.
>> it would have been time in '05 to do it if you were back on your cycle, but you chose not to pick the cycle up again and to pick it up later, which would be '06.
>> well, really what happened in '05, you asked us to look at pops, which is a big task. And i.t. As opposed to going back on the cycle, we said we need to look at pops which is not included in the original three years, so you almost went to four years.
>> through this today -- today it would get done when?
>> we would begin that work in '06 to bring it in under the -- within '06 --
>> '07 market considerations are --
>> are you talking about the entire job family or are you speaking of --
>> it would have to be the entire family.
>> if you were speaking of the entire job family, we bring pops and i.t. In at the end of this fiscal year for assuming '06, so we would work this project for the entire family in '06 and bring it in for the budget cycle in that period. It was the entire family it would be '06, one would be to do an ad hoc review only for your offices so we could do it this year.
>> right.
>> and the point is that -- that the entire family is something that -- that we looked at -- in other words, I’m finding a difference in what was saying, are we talked about the whole family or talking about the Commissioners court, as an elected body, there is a difference --
>> that is a choice for the court.
>> that's not what I have heard.
>> well, remember every time that we do something, there's a domino effect. So how many executive assistants are we talking about and how many administrative associates are we talking about?
>> again, it really would be up to the court. If you wanted to take -- take a smaller group.
>> Margaret's question. Can we just answer Margaret's question.
>> I don't have a specific -- [multiple voices]
>> for the court 16 people.
>> these title are shared by others throughout the county.
>> the court has 16 people, there are others throughout the county.
>> exactly. I just don't want us to forget the domino effect. When we change something here, it then changes everywhere else.
>> we do have a policy of -- when you review, that is not to say that people are entitled to more.
>> that's correct.
>> [multiple voices] that was the decision that the court made in 2000.
>> I guess what I’m hearing Commissioner Davis is it won't look like we are being fair if we pull out our -- our 16 from the family. Looks like it would be fair for us to just try to consider the entire family, which would include all of our people at the first opportunity.
>> okay. I guess what I’m hearing different sthings from different people. Not disregarding or different people, I’m hearing that the elected bodies, the elected official, the families in the elected officials are different and separate, I’m not going to tell you my sources but I’m going to tell you it's different than the other job families. Now, I can't recall now, I just cannot recall me supporting, if anybody can show me that, I would like to see it in writing, supporting that I did not support the -- the classification review for my staff. Or the staff of this Commissioner Daugherty. Now, I just -- of this Commissioners court. I don't recall that. Somebody needs to show me where I supported that. Because if it came up at the time I’m quite sure that the way we were doing these things in all of these job families, we were getting them lined up, getting them done before the market survey could be done on those particular job families. If it was it wasn't explained to me that this is also the Commissioners court's staff, that was not explained to me. Again I’m hearingñi that the Commissioners court's staff is treated different than the other job families, I’m hearing that. I’m not going to reveal my source at this time. But that's what I’m hearing. In we are going to be treated than other job families, of course as far as a review, time of review, then then so be if it. If not, if we are going to be included in that, you need to show me the difference of why we ended up doing before and I wasn't informed on it. That's where we are on this thing. Somebody is going to have to explain to me, I mean in writing, where I voted and supported, excluding the job families for this Travis County Commissioners court to not be included in my -- in the market survey. Somebody needs to show me and present that evidence to me. Otherwise I’m going based on memory of course my memory and my staff's memory said they were not included in any market service survey. That's something that I know what we are saying here, but there's no evidence to suggest that. Not being disrespectful to anybody, differences of opinion, that kind of stuff, I’m stating it like it is, somebody has to present that to me in writing.
>> what we did we didn't vote to exclude our assistants from the market analysis. They were included and when it came back the last time we did it, because I actually can remember going through this not once but twice, but there were no changes that were warranted related to the job titles that involved our own staff. Which basically said that where they were at in terms of a beginning salary and the full range to the end point was appropriate. And quite frankly we've not had turnover issues nor have we had retention issues in terms that we have all been able to easily hire within that range and quite frankly I think our red line issues are very few amongst that, so the range is even adequate as well.
>> I disagree with you. But I do it respectfully. There are some red line situations with staff within the Commissioners court staffing.
>> well, i've got one and I don't have any issues in mind. Zero issues in mind. Linda can you tell us, please, what is the range for an executive assistants, please, sorry, anne, you are going to have to listen to this.
>> um the range for the executive assistant is -- minimum 32,780. Maximum 47,528.
>> 47,528. Seems like that's a pretty broad range from 232 to $47,000 a year -- from 32 to $47,000 in order to be our executive assistants. For an administrative associate, please, what's the range on that.
>> > it is 28,642 max 40,102.
>> thank you very much.
>> now. It does seems to me appropriate for us to -- to vote to consider the entire family. At the first opportunity. You are suggesting the first opportunity is --
>> at the beginning of '06.
>> at the beginning of '06. I think this language is broad enough, you have the right to make any motion --
>> judge, I will make it, but I doubt if I even get a second. But to -- to also look at this as far as what the city of Austin executive assistants or getting an executive secretary, it far outweighs what's happening right here. The same executive assistants, what I’m calling the executive secretary of the city of Austin, they far exceed what the executive assistants here in Travis County and also the executive associates -- administrative associates, what they call executive secretary with the city of Austin are making. So that in itself is a comparison as far as market, what's happening in the market, there is other places in marketing, for example the city of Austin that make a lot more as far as range is concerned. So that is something that can be considered, that can be taken consideration and I think that we need to do it.
>> I would like to make the motion to go ahead and move forward with it. Not saying that we can't come back and -- the way the language is written it says Commissioners court. The language is really not appropriate for that. But I would like to hold the job family included in that, also let us also look at the comparative of those positions that the city of Austin has for the market as far as what they are paying their staff. Which again far exceeds what Travis County is getting as far as the range is concerned for these employees. So again --
>> the motion.
>> the motion was -- I move that we -- that we go ahead with the market -- with the -- with the classification review of the executive assistants and also the administrative associates for Travis County staff and also come back later with revised language to include this in the whole job family. Is there a second?
>> that motion dies for lack of a second.
>> can I ask a question, when the market survey was [indiscernible] back in 2000, was the city of Austin used as a comp based.
>> one of the things that we always said is we don't take title to title. It has much to do with the duties and responsibilities as opposed to matching titles to titles. So it would have been a part of one of the market local area market surveys that we would have used, the city would have been.
>> to your knowledge, does the city use this sort of basis as well to -- to compensate their folks? I mean, do they go out and do market surveys, do the same thing that we do.
>> yes.
>> could they have -- might theirs be different now than what we would have found in 2000?
>> it could very well be.
>> so that could be, if somebody knows that now so and so at the city makes x amount of dollars, that could be the case now, but might not have been the case in 2000.
>> that's correct. But again, title to title, just because the titles are the same, would not necessarily mean that they --
>> right.
>> it also works that the state legislature is also one of our matches. Believe me the sal layers over there for -- for our counterparts who work for the senators and for the state representatives are far below what our folks are making. Believe me, they would love the opportunity to be making $47,500 in terms of their executive assistants. Match is not simply just what the city of Austin is. There are others in this game as well and we compare very nicely with what's going on in state government.
>> well, that's just one example. To give you an example of that as far as the city of Austin is concerned, for an executive assistant, which is basically from what I understand similar work that's done here now, I don't really know, but that's what your job is out there to determine that. But just to give you an example, range of 35,000 to 58,000. As far as an executive assistant with the city council. In other words the city council member, that's what those folks make, the ones --ments in that same regard, they call them administrative, executive secretaries, we call ours administrative associates, that range is from 29,000 up to 42,000. So a -- a variance there which is greater than what Travis County is dealing with as far as our aids and our support as city council has theirs. I’m trying to make a comparison to comparison. I think it's due time for those folks to get recognition here. Not excluding anybody in the other family now, I’m not saying that. I think it's something that needs to be done because we have not done it, not since i've been here, not since 1998, that's what I’m going on is '98 as far as what's happened in my office.
>> what I’m hearing is that, the way we really need to do this is starting in October, allow you all to go out and to do this, to start, do it all as a family. I don't have a problem with that, I mean, obviously that -- because that is a budget, that really is driven by budget. As much as it is anything else. I mean I don't have a problem with us having that on a screen to do come first of October.
>> the same methodology that we use for all of the other job analysis projects can be applied here. So --
>> I think as part of my motion Commissioner is just that statement that you made included the whole job family.
>> we have no posting for that, though.
>> it's not posted correctly for that motion.
>> no. This is narrowed to the Commissioners court.
>> all right. Well, I would like to bring it back then, if that's the case. Let me figure out what's what, though, maybe in a different language.
>> include the whole family, looks like there's support.
>> yeah, yeah, well let me go ahead and maybe bring that back.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
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, April 13, 2005 10:09 AM