Travis County Commissioners Court
June 14, 2005
Item 9
This morning we indicated our intention to call up item 9, a and b, early this afternoon, and that is consider and take appropriate action on the following, a, additional work completed by mgt of america including peace officer compensation study and park ranger titles. And 9-, discuss peace officers compensation study methodology related to use of a salary structure or weighted average salary marketing comparison approach. And let's indicate our intention to call number 11 up next.
>> good afternoon, judge and Commissioners. Alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. As part of your backup for this week you received a report on the park rangers and their salaries and recommendations on whether to leave them on the pop scale or not. We have discussed this with t.n.r., and it's my understanding that they are in agreement with the recommendations. We can go through those or we could just answer questions as you would like.
>> the one issue that surfaced during my brief discussion was what are we doing about the law enforcement duties and responsibilities of park rangers. Those seem to surface every budget cycle. What's the recommendation regarding those duties and responsibilities? Any?
>> there is information back from the market study that mgt would probably want to share with you before you have any -- i'll pass them out. Have the department respond to that.
>> hello, my time is todd osborne with m.g.t. Of america. Per the court's instruction, we went back and took a look at some of the duties and responsibility of park rangers particularly in the markets we surveyed. When we went back and did our study per the request of t.n.r., we picked eight jurisdictions specifically. We got information from six. In four of those six, they required full law enforcement certification, in two they did not. Went back and took a look at the types of responsibilities that were taking place in most of the jurisdictions that we surveyed and they were fairly consist it. That dealt with traffic maintenance, anxiousing visitor questions, in jurisdictions where they were certified, making arrests. Dealing with emergency medical situations, those types of tasks. Just park supervision dealing with the public. Like I said, in approximately four of six that they did have law enforcement certification requirements and the other two they did not.
>> but do they do the law enforcement work inside the parks or inside the county?
>> inside the parks, sir.
>> so our discussions have always been what do we expect them to do outside the parks, and in my view, go for it inside the parks. That's what park rangers are supposed to do. Every budget cycle we kind of have discussed what is it you do outside the park, on the way home, on the way to work or just out and about and stuff happens. And i've always questioned the level of training and experience to deal with those real sophisticated law enforcement matters, but I guess when I heard the part of the discussion if we land on that, we have defactor approve whatever they are doing. I think this the past what we have done is back off of it. Now, the question also surfaces with the constables and deputy constables, but the constables are elected officials.
>> yes, sir.
>> and so we can kind of say that deputy constable was told to do that by the constable. The elected official. But for the park rangers, it's the supervisor who works for the Commissioners court.
>> I do remember, judge, we had some real specific discussions related to getting into chases that would leave the park. And it was basically we don't do that anymore. And in fact, I mean they are basically there to hand off to other law enforcement folks to do their business, and their business then is to go back into the park.
>> and I guess -- joe? And I guess the reason when I raised it during my discussion, it was simply to say I’m not sure the court really has landed on that yet, and perhaps we really ought to do it this year between now and adoption of the budget. But I think that will require discussions more than today. As well as maybe other information. Because my question was, okay, did you look at the job description and does the job description pertain to inside the parks or inside Travis County. Which would include parks and other areas. And to be honest, I did recall that the court members seemed to have different opinions about that as well as park rangers and park ranger supervisors.
>> and we understand that the court expects us to be performing law enforcement services inside the park. And that I would have to say that the preponderance of our law enforcement is just that. But these are full-fledged, certified peace officers who can be dispatched by the sheriff under whom they serve, they serve as peace officers. So if they are commanded to respond to an incident outside the park, they are supposed to do that. And it's just a -- part of having the badge.
>> but is that the only circumstance under which park rangers perform law enforcement duties outside the park?
>> I would say in most cases, but again, they are law enforcement. If they come upon a scene where they are authorized and they are duty bound as police officers to respond, they must respond. So it's -- they certainly have some discretion. But if they are passing a violation of some law, they just can't ignore it and say, well, I’m only supposed to respond inside the park. They are certified peace officers. They need to respond. Just like any certified peace officer would. But I don't want to picture this being most of what they do. Most of what they do is inside the park, but it's not to the exclusion of being dispatched by the sheriff's department to an out-of-park incident. If they are the closest officer.
>> so then the question is whether the court's intention is to compensate rangers for work performed inside the park or for the other work. And the other work at times could really get to be a lot more serious, a lot more dangerous. The one example that comes to mind was a speeding bank robber, wasn't it? And there's a big question nationwide of when should you really pursue fleeing vehicles because a lot of innocent people apparently get injured from time to time. I mean --
>> but they would follow the same protocol as the sheriff's deputies would in that case.
>> well, is the parole kol for the Travis County sheriff's department that clear?
>> yes.
>> because there seems to be [inaudible] urban cities, I mean the standard varies and often what the officers do varies also. So if you are out there doing that routinely, you experience it, you know what the standards are, et cetera. And I just wonder if you spend the bulk of your time in the park whether you could do that out there.
>> no, they do. Understand these -- perhaps this is better put for another discussion at another time, but only to say that they have the same training that a sheriff's deputy would have that's doing patrol.
>> [inaudible].
>> absolutely.
>> what about after that?
>> they have the same protocol, they follow the protocols of the sheriff's department when it comes to arrest or any other type of incident whether it's inside the park or outside the park. I’m not sure I understand the inside, outside. These are police officers so matter what.
>> do we need people who are certified law enforcement officers, the answer is boy, howdy, yeah. And I think we've kind of worked through some of those tough ones of -- we had some discussions about that, but I can't even remember the last time that happened, joe. What was that? Four or five years ago? But there was the chase, the incident with the chase.
>> it has been some time ago.
>> but they ought to be compensated for being pops officers because they do that and they wear two other patches. One is medical and one is park management. But are they law officers? Absolutely. Absolutely.
>> well, we have had this discussion, and I don't know the ship where I have landed, but the questions have always been intriguing and the answers have differed. But as to your research, the park range others the peace officer pay scale, they do the same work as other peace officers.
>> yes, they do.
>> and where the park rangers are not on the pay scale, what kind of work do they do?
>> in some cases they do very similar work, but it's on a different scale. It just a matter of where that jurisdiction wants to place those classification, whether it's going to put on the law enforcement scale or the general scale.
>> what determines whether you are on the peace officer scale or not?
>> typically it's the degree which you are certifying people and some cases I couldn't tell you why they make those decisions.
>> okay. I just -- it would help me if the court were to land on that one way or the other between now and the end of the fiscal year so we'll know for sure. It really has come up several times during the budget process. That really is what -- on constables, the issue is arises and we discuss it and we kind of conclude, well, the constable makes this call. Maybe we want to defer to joe and let him make the call.
>> no, this is not my call. What I’m trying to say is they are certified under the authority of the sheriff's department.
>> but I want to make --
>> I don't direct the park rangers when they are performing their law enforcement duties.
>> that's because of the certification.
>> the sheriff holds their --
>> but, does the sheriff ever -- he knows they are stpaeugsed at the parks. Does the sheriff ever have a need to call them back to assign them something else? And leaving the park unpatrolled?
>> their duty stations -- their duty station is the park just like you have perhaps a lake patrol or any other -- these are park rangers. Their realm is the park.
>> right.
>> most of what they do is in the park.
>> so I don't anticipate that the sheriff would call them back and reassign them, leaving the park unpatrolled.
>> there have been instances when they've been dispatched to an out-of-park incident. That's usually because there's not another sheriff's deputy close by that can respond as quickly.
>> and don't you want them to do that? Of course. They are certified police officers.
>> well, it could be like a traffic accident scene and they need to have --
>> [inaudible].
>> we just --
>> certified peace officers.
>> same thing.
>> same thing.
>> they are certified peace officers, clearly. Beyond that I think is another question. But wherever we want to land, I just think we ought to consciously land there so as a matter of policy -- at least when we hire people they know what the standards are and if they [inaudible]. So you are saying that the certification --
>> is a requirement for the job.
>> to proceed to -- and the scooter manager of transportation and natural resources.
>> when it comes to law enforcement.
>> well, we're not questioning, I hope, that somehow that these folks are not people who report to the Travis County Commissioners court when it comes to the ultimate job duties and responsibilities. We had a real unfortunate incident about seven years ago, eight years ago when the sheriff -- no disrespect intended to the sheriff's office, but they dispatched their own officers to serve in a law enforcement capacity during one of our large [inaudible] events and it was a complete total disaster from a public relations standpoint and I wasn't a happy camper and I relayed how unhappy I was to the sheriff and was basically told thank you for your input but it was their deployment. And so if they wanted to have swat people working splash day, they could. That's when I was absolutely convinced that our park rangers would -- are park rangers first and management people and they have customer constituents and there is no way that the top patch and only patch was going to be law enforcement because with an independent elected official, I could not lecture somebody that that's not how we do park ranger jobs in our parks, but that's how they could identity for the sheriff's office. Our rangers were different in every aspect that particular day and that's when I was convinced these folks need to work for Travis County and work for the Commissioners court and not for an independent elected official.
>> but that is different, which is my only point. It would help all of us I think to land on this. Including if I were a park ranger. Rusty, your recommendation?
>> we had four. First was to keep the park rangers and the park ranger supervisor on the pops scale. Our second recommendation was for the park ranger classification that they receive the same 2% increase as the other non-sheriff's office pops employees. Third recommendation is park ranger supervisor should receive an 8% increase and be placed on the same grade as the constable sergeant, and that is also a market driven issue. And finally to better align the park service, we wanted to recommend that you eliminate the district park ranger title and replace it with essentially two different titles. Same number of f.t.e.s, but have two district park managers who would do pre come tphaptly administrative work and one park ranger chief who will do predominantly oversight of law enforcement.
>> so what's wrong with the present system though?
>> well, the present system -- currently you have three positions set up for it. You have two filled, one empty. Two of the positions can be handled well simply through just a non-pops-type person, an administrator, a manager. But that would not allow for a third position which could oversee the actual park ranger supervisor positions. If you want to have a certified law enforcement officer in charge of the park ranger supervisors, which I think you do, you need to basically create a specific title. The other two positions could be held by non-pops or non-certified people.
>> so when you say you think we do, you mean you think we should.
>> I think you should.
>> and we should because the advantages are?
>> the advantages to doing it are in a way it would better fitted sort of how you want to do things now, you are just not able to do it at this point. You don't need to have certified officers doing the administrative duties that they are doing now. You could have non-certified people doing those. You would broaden the potential candidate field. You would be able to recruit easier. But at the same time for the third position, I think you definitely do want somebody who is certified, in charge of certified personnel.
>> so now we have how many people and how many do we have if we follow the recommendation?
>> three. It's a f.t.e. Neutral recommendation. And as we understand it, the recommendation is really one that, as we were speaking with the department, the department said these are our particular needs. Which is not uncommon when we're doing a classification review or looking at a particular title, it's we're functioning pretty much like this. What we need is management oversight for our park ranger system which is growing, the scope of it, the responsibilities and all. So with the three titles, which had been district park ranger titles, the decision functionally and operationally consistent with the market work that was done was to change two of those titles to management positions that would come off of the pop scale on to the classified scale, and one of those three titles would remain on the pop scale to supervise those park people who are certified. I know urn saying law enforcement, but tclo certified and park rangers. Even as we discussed it with the department as well as with sph eld mgt, our question was how consistent is a structure like that within the market, so we were really weighing it against what the department operationally was doing, and they can certainly speak for themselves, but weighing it against what they were indicating is informally this is a part of how we're finding this structure best fits as we function today. Compared to the market it fit, so therefore the recommendation is to support -- to support what currently exists in terms of the structure. And joe will straighten out anything that I misspoke on.
>> it's really very simple. When the park -- a decade ago we had a much different park system. And our park rangers were used as basically management personnel as well as law enforcement. So they managed all the operations, fee collection, including law enforcement. The system has expanded now. I mean we're now into a different scale of operation. There's two pieces to this. One, we really do want to emphasize management more because management now is much more complex. These metropolitan parks that we're operating really require a level of management that go beyond what we had expected these park rangers to do. So we want to emphasize overall we need management positions that look at the broader scope and down play law enforcement in those two positions because they are managing maintenance, personnel, fee collection, a whole gamut of a much larger, more complex park system. But with that said, we also still have a very important component that which is law enforcement. That law enforcement needs its own management person, and that would be another tclo certified because you wouldn't want -- just like -- as a non-engineer to manage engineers, you would want a certified peace officer to manage other certified police officers because of the extent of the training they have to go through and knowing what those protocols are. You almost have to have that one person knowledgeable and he be the supervisor of park rangers in that core of park rangers.
>> and that's a park ranger chief?
>> that's right.
>> and the district park ranger is more administrative.
>> we're going to turn that more -- we're going to tilt that toward management as opposed to law enforcement.
>> and there's supervisory duties have to do also with a whole lot of folks who work for the parks department who work in the parks who are not on the pop scale. They are rank and file employees.
>> is the district park manager over the park chief?
>> I believe we have -- no.
>> they are equal.
>> they are equal, yeah. The three of them will report to the program manager.
>> so except for the small increase as mentioned, we're talking the same number of f.t.e.s, different job titles. Different titles and slightly different job descriptions.
>> yes.
>> and those have been written.
>> no, they have not been written. Because we were waiting on the acceptance by the court before we move into developing the job descriptions.
>> okay.
>> I believe that concludes the a item. We'll go ahead and move on to the other issues. I’m going to let linda go through some of those issues and we also have representatives from the sheriff's association and their consultant. I think there were several questions surrounding the methodology, and then some specific salaries.
>> b, right?
>> pardon me -- yes. Item 9-b. When we were in court the last time, there was a question raised by a person at the consultant for the tcso law enforcement association related to a particular figure that was in a preliminary report presented by m.g.t. And in our one on one briefing with the association. What we concluded -- you directed us to speak with the person to reconcile the numbers, and the short answer to the question is that we have been in dialogue and that we have resolved the issue. And the issue happened to have been one where m.g.t. Had made reference to a figure of $54,000 that was actually the mid-point on a salary range structure. I think the person -- interpretation of that was that that number represented an actual salary of a particular title. Which, bottom line to it is it was a clarification on what methodology that number applied to. And with the discussions we provided them with clarification on that matter, and it's my understanding per discussions on Friday evening and I think follow-up discussions with m.g.t. That is no longer an issue. The person is certainly represented today and they can confirm whether or not that is true.
>> linda, the one other thing when we had our discussion is that at one point we were looking at minimum, mid point, maximum. I think what we've seen in terms of how to redisplay all of this information is that it is very clear that some other jurisdictions have different maximum years and steps. Therefore as we say the mid-point for Travis County because we have 21 steps, that basically saying where are you 10 and a half years in. But if you say mid-point in bexar county, they only have 15 steps. So at this point we're not really comparing the same things because it's basically comparing the experience of a 10-year deputy with a 7.5-year deputy. It's even more marked down in Williamson county. They only have 12 steps, so somebody with 6 years of experience. So to me I thought the idea of the mid-point was something that was probably going to get us into more trouble rather than less trouble because it is comparing people with different levels of experience. It may reflect the true mid-point of that salary range but it's not the same mid-point for everybody else. But what I did get to talking to our law enforcement and corrections officers both is that a legitimate place to be looking at so where are we in between minimum and maximum is five years in. Five years is a decent -- it may not be the only place, but that is a more relevant point, especially since five years in is also one of those -- i'll call it tipping point points for a lot of folks that you are either going to continue on with the organization and become a lifer, or you are out of place -- you are at a place where you are going to make a consideration of going to another law enforcement or corrections place, you probably need to do it at the five-year mark because you are likely going to have to start completely over with your steps. And once you get past five years, you are making some pretty serious decisions about walking away from time. And so that's still not something that I have seen in terms of the five-year mark. The other thing that we've discussed in some pretty sear just discussions is we've got some problems the display of our pop scale that it leads to a lot of confusion. Because it is this way and it ought to be something this way, and to put people in a way that you can see the progressions. And we have a lot of jobs where it makes it look like there is an end point to it and it only has two steps. If you do not promote up as a corrections officer and a law enforcement officer after two years to the senior position, you're out. So for us to continue to show a line that says that at that beginning level for each of those two jobs that there's a mid-point and maximum is not really reflective of what's going on. It's not showing and I think you guys used it shadow steps. There are shadow steps that are occurring in terms of people needing to promote up to a new piece of the scale and that's where you really need to show the ultimate movement on some of these things. And we have c.p.o.s and that's not reflective of people are in a different mid-level because they have the certified peace officer classifications as corrections officers. To display them in the same way that might show somebody is a plain have a nil lake of the ozarks but if you've got that certification, you're on a different set of scales and it's not correctly showing what you are truly making. So there's some work to be done on reassembling the pop scale just to show people's progression and not be one of I’m here, no, I’m there, no, I’m there. I thank chris newspaper p.b.o. For making that -- chris up in p.b.o. For making that clear that the scale needs to be worked on so people can understand how you move through the steps. Yeah, and this is what we got here. But it does not have a five-year point.
>> that's correct.
>> and it very clearly shows that mid-point means different things in different counties. So it's not really something that reflects --
>> how many years does it take to go from an entry salary to a next step?
>> it actually varies.
>> it averages at two years?
>> yes.
>> Commissioner, if you are referring to the other agencies, it varied. Some of them moved to the next step upon completion of a probationary period. Some of them upon completion of the training period. Some of them it's on automatic one year or some of this epl two. That's why we call the category next step because there was some variation among agencies.
>> Travis County is two years next step?
>> and roughly how many years does it take someone to get to a maximum salary?
>> 21.
>> we vent -- 21 years later the officer -- senior officer would make 62,000. He would make more?
>> after 21 years?
>> right. Yeah, the 62 is the senior deputy or is it the other one?
>> no, that's correct.
>> [inaudible].
>> senior.
>> senior deputy.
>> have you to promote up to senior deputy or senior officer. That's the true shadow step.
>> so the [inaudible] means if you are a deputy after two years, not a senior deputy, 21 years later either you're a senior deputy or you're not at Travis County?
>> [inaudible] after two years promote from a deputy to a senior deputy, otherwise you are subject to termination.
>> we don't need this 42357 on there, right?
>> not after the third year.
>> that was the whole idea that you need to show for a certain point, but then it needs to go away and not show a maximum there because there is no maximum under that anymore. Actually the maximum is 42357.
>> here's the other issue -- [multiple voices]
>> come up to the microphone. Give your name and stuff like 245. Kind of hard to hear you.
>> > brook spacer with the stakeholder for the sheriff's law enforcement association. The other issue I think once we start looking at this is a corrections officer, say a five-year corrections officer coming in, currently they -- and I don't have the -- the information I’m dealing with right now just has the sheriff's pop scale. Okay. Thank you. A five-year certified peace officer coming in is making 37,360. As soon as he becomes a deputy sheriff, he immediately jumps down to our five-year pay scale and his pay goes up to 43 -- or he goes into our -- yeah, our entry level sheriff's deputy, 43,945. So witness you take those -- that third step out, you have an issue as to where would a certified peace officer in corrections go on the pop scale. But it's my position that when you pay a certified peace officer in corrections at what a senior deputy would be making after five years, it diminishes the position of the law enforcement deputy because that five-year detention officer certainly doesn't not what a five-year peace officer knows. So it opens up an entire issue and that's why in our proposal to the court that I dropped off to you yesterday we restructure the pop scale just specifically for law enforcement. But when you start looking at this issue, it is very complex.
>> so that would mean then we've got some transition issues related to people who do go from c.p.o. Corrections on to the law enforcement scale. But we also have a whole bunch of c.p.o.s that through attrition those numbers are going to get smaller and smaller and smaller and we don't know if they are going to make the jump to law enforcement or stay within the corrections division and move up through the scale and through the promotional ranks that way. I would be highly interested in knowing what the sheriff would like to do because a lot of these rules are self-imposed by the sheriff how they are going to respect time served within their own organization.
>> I would suggest that you do a time and grade, not time of service when you talk about compensation.
>> like I said, i'd like to see what the sheriff has in terms of -- for me, i've always been one to -- you try and legislate the -- I think what you just described there to me, it's just my perception, that's dealing with an exception how do we place those individuals where you got that kind of specific information.
>> it's really not an exception because right now we recruit primarily in law enforcement from our detention staff. And --
>> but we don't know if it's going to occur at the five year mark, seven, eight. To me the sheriff needs to help decide where that person gets placed as opposed it's just some automatic thing that creates internal equity issues that create a new set of havoc.
>> you talk about the five-year bench mark and we all agree five years is what it takes a person to learn or become proficient in their job. If you are a ten-year certified peace officer in detention, you would certainly be taking a pay cut, in my opinion, if the scale was outlined properly, if the pay scale was readjusted, you would certainly have to take a pay cut to come to law enforcement because you don't know what a ten-year certified -- senior deputy knows. And so I mean I know that it's a touchy situation, but I just -- that's my true feeling and professional feeling on that.
>> we also dealt with that last year in terms of a whole lot of folks that simply because of exactly what you just said had to take pay cuts and we had to respect the fact people epbt up through the ranks in corrections, but we did some serious readjustments for our supervisory personnel so they wouldn't have to make those.
>> I think it's a career decision. That's what i've said all along. They are two separate career paths, a law enforcement and a detention. I’m not trying to dim eufrpb issue the corrections side of the house, but I think it's a career decision that each employee has to makes.
>> the document you referred to yesterday, this is the --
>> yes, sir, judge.
>> this one?
>> yes, sir.
>> so on page 6, if we -- are these actual salaries?
>> on page 6. Yes, sir.
>> good afternoon, Commissioners. Page 6 would refer to the proposal.
>> okay. So do we have in here the actual salaries formatted like page 6?
>> the very last page of the document is the current pop scale.
>> page 17?
>> yes, sir.
>> what am I reading in terms of the under the sheriff's deputy, you are basically saying you top out after -- after seven years?
>> no, you hit your --
>> yes, ma'am. Under the l.e. Deputy sheriff, grade 72, you would top out after seven years.
>> and where is the topout number?
>> that should be under year 7, 48,518.
>> page 17 still?
>> no, sir. I’m sorry, I was addressing Commissioner Sonleitner's proposal. Under page 17, the topout year is 21.
>> I don't have a proposal.
>> I thought we asked you out in the hall.
>> no, I don't have a proposal. I’m just asking questions. I have not asked for any kind of proposal at all. I don't want it being hey you say top out after seven years.
>> I thought I was addressing your question.
>> you're referring to the report.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> let's not call this the Sonleitner proposal. [laughter]
>> by no means was that my intention. One other question, I’m sorry, when we had talked before, I thought I had asked not to have a blending together of the Austin police department with the salaries at Williamson county and Round Rock into the so-called Austin market average. Because as we discussed, their numbers are unique at Austin. And because they are so much of that number they skew what's going on in Williamson county and Round Rock. And it's like can we just see employees for a.p.d. What they get paid, employees at Williamson county, what do they get paid, employees at Round Rock. But to do this blended average, the Austin market average, a.p.d. Is so beyond huge, they are skewing the numbers, and that is not anything other than that's really show being you what a.p.d. Is doing. It really is. The numbers just cannot be blended out because it's like 700 out of the 900 are a.p.d.
>> how do you discount their salary though? You can't say that they are not part of our -- I mean I don't understand how you can say they are not part of our market.
>> I can look at the information and try and make decisions. You've shown a.p.d. Why can't we see a separate category that says here's what Williamson county does and here's what Round Rock does, and we can make our own conclusions. But it's like you blend it, you are hiding what those other two jurisdictions do.
>> no, ma'am, we're not trying to hide our survey. In fact, I think our survey is a much more accurate representation than what's going on in our market than what m.g.t. Has prepared. And I will direct the court to m.g.t.'s survey where they show in a comparison between Travis County and a.p.d. Law enforcement that the difference in pay and the mid tkeuf is 17.04%. That's not accurate and representative of what's going on in our market, Commissioner. We are certainly not 17% behind a.p.d. I think our survey is much more accurate and reflective of the Austin market.
>> but if you've got 700 employees making 54,207 is their number, and you have 200 employees that are working for two other jurisdictions and they've got different numbers, their numbers could be substantially different and we will not see them properly displayed so long as you have 700 a.p.d. Officers making what numbers we see in front of us, it is skewing the numbers. And I don't understand why we just can't see the same way that you respected a.p.d. -frbgs let me see the numbers, why can't we see the Williamson county numbers, why can't we see the how can numbers, and we can blend them in whatever way we want to.
>> we took -- go ahead.
>> Commissioner, we certainly can represent those numbers. That's not an issue.
>> we can do it. The -- and there's nothing to hide. The numbers can all be verified whether they are a.p.d., whether they are Williamson county, whether they are Round Rock or george ton or Pflugerville. We can certainly have all of that information. Available to you.
>> because i'll show you at least on the deputies, Williamson county, we got numbers here, Williamson county tops out at 49,447. That is considerably less than the -- than what's going on at a.p.d. It just is.
>> but it doesn't tell you what the experience level of their workforce is either. And that's the problem with doing a comparison like that. We're taking the true average wage that's being paid in Austin police department, Williamson county and Round Rock and we're using actual average wages. And that's not a true reflection of what's actually being paid in Williamson county.
>> you just said it there, you have to have those afrpbgs to be able to put into a combined average. If you have the numbers for a.p.d., you've got to have the average numbers for Williamson county.
>> you are absolutely correct.
>> you've got to have the average numbers for Round Rock and I just want to see those again, please.
>> you're absolutely correct. We have those and that is not an issue to get those to you.
>> okay.
>> there was mention made of the markets, comparing the market to m.g.t. To remind the court as you define the scope of the compensation study, you did define the market that m.g.t. Went into that was not only local, regional as well as national markets that you asked the survey within that document. So I wanted to at least express that and to remind you of what the m.g.t. Study was to reflect and did.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> …looking at the survey, looking at also the market salary survey that's been put fort before us by our staff hmrmd, I’m wondering if we have all of the moving parts of this since the sheriff has jurisdiction not only of the law enforcement side, but also the corrections side. So this morning if there has been anything that has come from the correctional officers, where all of this will be in the mix as we go forward. Someone asked me that question --
>> can someone answer that question for me.
>> we understand --
>> I guess someone --
>> h.r. Has not received a report from the corrections group and we have just received this proposal today as we are -- we have been sitting here. I guess my point, though, is what I just stated, as we do go through this process and since the sheriff has jurisdiction of both of these groups, and others, it just appears to me that somewhere along the line that if there is some disagreement or agreement or whatever, if -- as far as where we are at this point, would that be coming forth? I guess that's what I need to know so at least we will have everything on the table as we go forward in this process. That was my question.
>> thank you.
>> do I need --
>> I need to get an answer as soon as I can. Can you give me an answer as soon as you can staff.
>> I don't have the power to answer that.
>> first of all I wanted to address two issues. I know that Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned the sheriff several times about what he wants, what the sheriff wants. I haven't had an opportunity to think about that, but I will get back with you. And I will give you my opinion and the direction that we will go. As far as the corrections officer, I have heard from some of the members of the board and they are very interested in this subject matter. One of the things that I plan on doing is calling the board together and seeing what their suggestions are and maybe also have law enforcement sitting at the table to address this issue. I know that as I was running for office, that this was a big concern on both sides. It's time for us to -- to lay our differences on the table and come up with a -- with a workable suggestion to the Commissioners. I will have that to you soon.
>> sheriff, I think that is a good direction to go in see because if we -- in my opinion, if we don't have all of the pieces before us, we will end up piecemealing. Of course I think in my opinion if we have the results from the study, we have the recommendation that's been brought up before hrmd on this particular study, we have seen counter surveys, counter proposals, it just appears to me that everybody, all of the players in my opinion should have whatever their concerns are on the table as soon as possible as we go through this process. That was the only thing that I was suggesting.
>> I agree with you. I know that the members of the corrections knew they had an opportunity to come and speak today. Or to come to had he with any suggestions, I haven't seen anything in writing. I will get with them, try to get something that we can all sit at the table together.
>> thank you, sheriff.
>> > it's a policy question for the court in terms of the distinction of the market. Do you want to define the market as Williamson county, Round Rock and a.p.d.? Or just a.p.d. Or do you want to have a broader definition of that market to include what other Texas counties are doing and other counties with a similar population, that is very key in terms of the numbers that you will be presented and the scales and what the salaries would be and what the minimums and the maximums would be. So that's a mayor mount policy for the court -- paramount policy for the court, what to do to the market.
>> didn't we do that when we asked for the study.
>> what new numbers would we get, the consumer numbers might change, but I thought we wanted to be as broad as possible. And yet have a relationship with that particular market.
>> yes.
>> but the numbers that have been presented to you from the association and the consultant only have the Round Rock a.p.d. And Williamson county. Therefore, if you define the market in a much, much broader way and fashion, it -- I want to say invalid -- I won't say invalidates but is not then a reflection.
>> it doesn't make the survey very reflective of what we are trying to accomplish.
>> but those entities are included as part of the mgt market. Each one of those entities and jurisdictions are identified and included as part of the mgt market.
>> so we don't do anything differently?
>> correct.
>> than the numbers that are being presented today by the sheriff's association and the -- and the -- their consultants would not -- yeah, would not be valid if that was a policy decision. Because their numbers are much more limited to only those three. So if that is indeed the direction of the court, then we move forward with other methodology.
>> can I ask a different kind of question. A different way. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both? I think we have to be aware of what is going on in the global thing we call the state of Texas, because quite frankly we have been recruiting officers successfully from the bexar county area, because they see what bexar county is paying, they choose to come on up the road and work for Travis County. We know it. But what I’m saying is knowing that, we also need to be specifically aware of what's going on in our immediate vicinity. So what I don't want to have is a skew in either direction. I do not want you all to be disrespected and pulled down because of other lower numbers in other places. But in the same way, I also do not want this thing to be skewed out in a totally different direction of what is a.p.d. Because I’m not going with a match to a.p.d. We can't afford it.
>> we are looking for a process that we can say three or four years down the road this was our market and when we go back to look at a survey, we say okay, this is who we survey, this is how our wages were determined.
>> but what I’m saying is it can be both to say how is it that we positioned ourselves knowing what it is in terms of the general role out there, but knowing very specifically what's happening in our own back yard. It doesn't mean I’m going with one, it doesn't mean I’m going with the other. It says here's where I chose to position us, we can compare our salaries in a regional way or in a very local kind of thing. But it's kind of like with the school district. You know, we are all hiring teachers, so you want to know what the other districts are paying, but you don't necessarily match to one, but you want to make sure that we have a competitive set of salaries so you don't have adverse selection to somebody automatically excludes you because your numbers are horrible.
>> too much information is not going to kill us. Don't get me wrong. That's not it. I think really when we are just surveying structures and not getting the actual salaries, is where we are running into the differences of philosophy as far as determining wages.
>> one of the things that we would caution the court, this is the thing where we came up with the apples and oranges comparison. When you take an actual salary, what you are taking into account may be one number, yes. But that number not only includes the salary, it includes any seniority, pay, cost of living, all of those factors that make it somewhat from a -- from an analysis standpoint, it makes it somewhat distorted. That's why we compare structures to -- to structures because the individual salaries are of course driven by those individuals who are in those particular positions.
>> so Commissioner Sonleitner, would you -- are you suggesting that we throw out the highest and throw out the lowest?
>> no, because unfortunately the highest is the city of Austin. That is a relevant piece of information to have.
>> but it skews. I understand that. I’m not saying we ought to use either one as being anything other than knowing where to position ourselves. It doesn't mean that I have to match one or match the other. It's just where do we position ourselves. We need to know it but it's not going to guide me either way. It's where do we position ourselves. I will be real honest with you, now that I see some things here of your average salary, what was that thing? What is it for a.p.d.? Here it is. Okay. A.p.d. Patrol deputies for a.p.d., there at 54207. Well, if I’m looking at the other information we've got, they max out at 68. So it kind of tells me a whole lot of their people are not at the far end of their salary. They have got a rather youthful group of folk. But if I’m seeing, again I wish I had the numbers in front of me, it doesn't matter how long you've been there, 12 years, you max out. The most that you will ever make in Williamson county is 49. I don't agree with that.
>> the average salary from our data is about 41,000.
>> there you go. See, if you have got a 41 being tossed in with 54, it's skewing it. I don't think we ought to be using that 41. That --
>> could I use this to balance you, though. If we are in a neighborhood, most of the houses sell for $180,000, one sells for $155,000, but the other 20 sell for 180, you have a range of 150 to 180, but chances of you finding another 155,000 house in that neighborhood are skewed to the lower side. And that's the way I think we should treat a.p.d. I’m not saying we have to put some sort of weight toward a.p.d. A law enforcement officer in Travis County, the chances of them working for a.p.d. Versus another law enforcement organization are greater here in this market than working for Williamson county or working for Round Rock or working for Pflugerville or any of the others, so we do have to put some weight to it. That is what we tried to do. We are using a weighted average to reflect more of what's going on in the marketplace.
>> I believe that we can come up with a comparison and given what you have have said in our discussions, what we can do and I disagree with you in terms of too much information. I think you have to get information down to where it is comprehensive and you are able to make the relationship as opposed to just providing the information. But I believe that they have a scale that has been proposed. We have one that has -- that we can put together that would be similar. Then we can use a.p.d. In terms of a measure because whether we like it or not, it seems we keep coming around to them. If we keep in mind that they are the highest law enforcement in terms of their pay in all of the state of Texas and doing pretty well even nationally, then we can do a comparison of percentage of some steps, maybe minimum and maximum to a.p.d. And put it into a format that may help you at least look towards the analysis of a lot of information.
>> but again we have got some things that are not in any of these documents. It's called take-home vehicles. There's a value to having a take-home vehicle that's not reflected in anybody's chart. To me there are slots over at a.p.d., people can choose to go work for them. There are x number of slots at Williamson countyment even at the maximum numbers that you just told me, they got people over there who are working happily for Williamson county and there are people over at Round Rock who get their own personal vehicles with their names on the side. That clearly are finding people to fill those slots. We need to have good competitive salaries. But if this thing is all coming back around to somehow we are going to try to shadow match a.p.d., I can't go there. We can't afford it. Nobody can afford it. Austin can't afford it. Every dime of their property taxes, sales taxes, plus 20 million more is what it takes to cover a.p.d., fire department, salaries, they are in deficit spending related to public safety stuff. They have contracts they cannot pay for with their property taxes.
>> I want to re-emphasize we are not looking to match a.p.d. But to come up with a process we can go forward on and say three or four years down the road, this is the way our wages are demed, if we do -- determined, if we do a salary survey, this is how we are doing it, what we can expect.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> I will say this and be brief. This is not what I -- what I thought we were going to get for 25 or $30,000. I don't think we were going to have this onslaught of back into the same thing that we got into last year during budget time. The only reason that corrections aren't at thable right now is because they are waiting to see what happens here. And then they will be -- the lunches will increase, along with everything else that we -- that we get faced with our Marching orders were to make sure that everybody had a spot at the table, to be satisfied with whatever the results were is what the results were. It is clear that what the results were, now we have got somebody not happy. I don't know, bret, when wraul's consultant came into the deal, whether he was with you from the get-go, whether he was part of the committee.
>> he was.
>> and you know, that's even more befuddling to me then that we would come up and have dissatisfaction with whatever parameters that we're using. So i'll get right back to where I always am in budget. Which is come to me, tell me why you are not happy with what you're making, let me try to find a way to say yes I need to weigh in automobiles, yes, I mean, I want to work with you with flex time, yes, I want to work with you with retirement. Those are all of the necessary things because those things aren't even really talked about in all of this stuff which I think are the more important things, I mean, I think to all of the employees and especially, you know, law enforcement. But I am really distressed to think that we are no further along than we were last year thinking we are really going to be able to hone in on this so I don't have every detective investigator, whatever, coming to me and saying I’m not happy because this, because these people are making this, we have these certifications and why aren't we doing this? And maybe the people that need to sit down versus h.r.m.d. Is really all of the people that wear uniforms or that have the opportunity to put a badge on their side, maybe that's the group that needs to go off and say we need to collectively come up with this because you are about to drive the precinct 3 county Commissioner absolutely crazy. And I’m on your side, but this is not the way to go about it with me because I’m just as frustrated with all of this stuff as I was last year at this time whenever I said let's not have this.
>> so we have the consultant's phone number, right?
>> yes.
>> okay. There's more work to be done at a later date.
>> we are willing to work with hrmd to get there.
>> okay. [multiple voices]
>> it need to be clear in terms of the market the methodology.
>> I don't want that we can get anything clearer today. I think we need to mull over this and try to figure out where we are and then put it back on the agenda and try to give clarity to the extent that the court can real soon.
>> I’m not willing to declare that this has not been a good and useful exercise. The reality is this: we wanted to make sure that we have a competitive pay scale I am convinced whether you use whatever definition you do, we have positioned ourselves nicely, not only in the Austin, Williamson Round Rock world. But in the state of Texas world. We are positioned nicely and people are making decent salaries, good salaries. I think the most important thing in here is a recommendation that I look forward to putting into being; that is that we have lost and can lose ground if we do not put the step raises back into being. Because otherwise people will get stuck. And if you get stuck, then the comparison as to where is my brother in blue, brother in whatever color it is doing, they are moving forward on steps, raises, and if we are not then we are losing ground and I think that's very important and I have got everybody signed off on we are going to call them step raises because that's what they are. They are not entitlementments. They are not shadow raises. They are step raises and I think that is part of what we need to recapture so that we will move these folks along. One other question, judge, I do have is has mgt completed its work? Because if they haven't we teed to be very clear about what is left undone but if they have we need to kind of -- kind of get them off the clock, so to speak. And conclude that they have done the deliverables in this contract otherwise that is a -- that is a troubling thing that's still out there. Whether it's all internal now or there's something still lacking that we ask them to do. The last thing I thought it was was the park rangers.
>> that's correct. The park rangers recommendations were resided today with the last item under the contract.
>> Commissioner?
>> I was just asking -- this -- is mgt finished, it's now an internal situation.
>> do we know the answer to that question some.
>> I think we ought to be on stand by. I have no problem with receiving the report today. No outstanding invoices, I take it?
>> there are some. We are wrapping up --
>> [indiscernible] they do now, let them submit them, we pay them basically. If additional work is required, I don't know if we are going to expect it free of charge. But I think we ought to be, we ought to try to be as -- as specific and -- in our request, if we have additional requests, as possible.
>> judge --
>> this is -- it can get to be mind boggling and sort of difficult to sort of throw I mean you've got sort of different set of facts, conflicting positions, I think the court needs to huddle a little bit to try to figure out exactly where we are, where we think we ought to go, then figure out how to get there.
>> would you take that as a friendly motion then judge in terms of related to the new information that we have received today that the court officially receives the mgt report, the supplemental report on the park rangers so that we can officially acknowledge that we have received that?
>> second.
>> questions?
>> judge, in regards to that, I think where I’m coming from on this is trying to have as much -- as I stated earlier, enforce information -- information before us as possible so we can make a decision because of course the conversation and other interested things that we deal with the rest of the county, departments, just as critical and I think as we go through this process, getting to the budget end of all of these things, I really feel that we need to have all of this information before us in a timely manner, even if there are differences, whatever. The bottom line is that we have the adequate information so we can make those kind of decisions that we need to make during the budget cycle. So again all other departments that come before us as we go through this process leading into the budget, cycle, I would appreciate it, a lot of the differences that you have will be basically ironed out before you get here. But again I would like to wait and see. So -- so that's where I’m coming from on this, thank you, judge.
>> any more discussion on the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much, I suspect one or more members of the court will want to chat with you. We may be looking at having this on in three or four weeks. Because we will have some court members gone not next week, but the two after that. So let's plan to have it back on then okay. That will be -- that will be early enough for us to make up our --
>> the 12th.
>> yeah.
>> mid-july.
>> July 12th.
>> the 5th, 12th 19th.
>> I’m still out the 5th.
>> 12th.
>> July 12th. We are looking at about a month then.
>> by then we will be so -- so specific and so clear in our requests that it will be amazing.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you very much
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:
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:42 PM