Travis County Commissioners Court
August 2, 2005
Item 4
4 c was the consider and take appropriate action on the following request under the tuition reimbursement policy. A and b were on consent. C is authorization for policy exception to the leability rule specifically -- eligibility rule specifically out of country institutions.
>> I just had a couple of questions. On this. Because I think this is something new. I don't recall this ever coming before the Commissioners court on this type of situation. I’m trying to determine the ramifications and what will be the impact of what we are doing. Because this is a new type of situation, specially out of the country, reimbursement type, higher education, I guess a university -- can you kind of give me a feeling of what we are doing. A precedent. I don't think we have done this before, but I want to make sure what we are doing, do we have to adjust, make a change in the policy itself? Because the way I’m understanding it, is that the reimbursement applies to -- to the way the policy -- applies to -- to institutions as far as the reimbursement is concerned, institutions that's within the united states. Is that correct?
>> you are correct. I’m -- [multiple voices]
>> can you enlighten me a little bit.
>> yes, I will. The -- the current county policy in the reimbursement criteria, cost of domestic, u.s. Accredited news institutions, this item come to us from juvenile probation. They have an employee that -- that is actually a british citizen. That employee completed her undergraduate course work at oxford. In england. The employee had begun her master's program in england before transitioning to the united states. We looked at this item as far as what impact would it have to existing county policy as far as any adverse impact. It has no impact in regards to the reimbursible amount. This person would be entitled to the 300 per semester allocated to any and all employees participating in the tuition reimbursement program. We looked at the component for act accredited addition and the institution manchester university had been looked at by the -- by an agency that it is juvenile probation department contracted with so that they could make a determination whether or not this employee could be qualified as a certified probation officer. It passed that litmus test. From an h.r. Perspective in looking at policy, we looked at one accreditation, so we will know whether or not we will get a return on investment as far as recognizable course work. We found that the course work would be recognizable as coming from an accredited institution. Then we looked at would it have any financial impact, has no financial impact because it doesn't inflate or increase or modify the -- the eligible reimbursible amount for this employee.
>> I can see $300 per semester is still applicable.
>> yes, sir.
>> as far as this particular case is concerned, also.
>> yes, sir.
>> well, I just wanted to know, just wanted it laid out because like I said this is the first time that I have seen this come across as far as -- out of country, educational institution. I just want to make sure that everything that we are doing here is -- is inside the policy, I guess now by doing this we will make an exception to the policy at this time or do we have to modify the policy, because let's say in other words it could come up again. Do we have to modify the policy of what do we do in a case-by-case basis, what do we do in the future in a situation like this?
>> in regards to this, this request is that a policy exception for the existing policy, so it does not require a change of the policy. However we are in the process of a comprehensive review of the existing policy because of the -- because of the discussion that took place in the employee hearing. So we are reviewing that policy and we can take this particular item into consideration when we are reviewing the existing policy so that if we need to include language to where we -- where we extend approval -- for non-domestic institutions we can do that. In the policy, if we modify it or if there's no modification to existing policy, then we -- then we will bring any exceptions forward to you for approval as we are bringing this one forward to you.
>> what are your recommendations?
>> we are recommending authorization or approval for reimbursement for this employee.
>> okay. I have no problem with that. I just wanted to get a clarification on that.
>> I’m comfortable, too, especially since it's -- it is an accredited institution.
>> second.
>> it's an exception, we are not changing the policy.
>> it meets the test [laughter]
>> okay. [multiple voices]
>> anything else?
>> thank you for --
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you will all very much. Thank you for your patience, too.
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:
Monday, October 24, 2005 3:54 PM