Travis County Commissioners Court
August 30, 2005
Item 37
37 is to consider and take appropriate action to set elected officials' salaries for fy '06.
>> judge, Commissioners, last week pbo gave you an update on hb 11 at that time, and which was confirmedly multiple sources, we believe that we would have a resolution and if that became law or not yesterday. Unfortunately, it's going to be owe we won't officially know until September eighth. What happened was the information we received from the judicial section of the comptroller's office based on that information on when the bill passed and actually the ruling is going to be when the special 20 days from when the special session ended. I spoke with our lobbyist and he's been in contact with the governor's office. There's no indication that the bill is going to be vetoed; however, there's no guarantee -- we won't have a guarantee until September eighth. And that could be possibly at midnight and that's going to be Thursday, so that's pending. You have before you a memo from pbo that was distributed yesterday along with the memo from the county auditor's office that has a motion to make some changes to elected officials' salaries. In addition, diana would like to give you an update on another pending issue.
>> on the district attorney's salary, pbo really recommends that you take action on that item today because of the deadlines for the grievance process. If the district attorney were to avail himself of the grievance process, if you don't take action today, you would really be cutting it close to the end of the fiscal year. And as you know, if you don't set elected officials' salary before the end of the fiscal year, the tax rate reverts back to the effective tax rate, is what I致e understood, what I致e always been told. Barbara, you're nodding your head, shaking your head.
>> the tax rate isn't tied to elected officials' salaries.
>> it's a budget then?
>> it's a budget. The budget where we can spend then is rolled back. So that means that there would be a lot of budgeted items that are included in the preliminary budget that then you wouldn't be able to access in fy '06. So that's why pbo thinks that it's very important that you take action and set his salary today.
>> all right. We did discuss setting his salary, so would we set his salary based on what we think the legislature might do or do we just assume that we have just -- omit any consideration of legislative action.
>> I think the county attorney's --
>> I think that that depends on what you want to do. I think that you do cut it close. There is no question about that. If you don't set it today. And you wait until you're certain what the result on the bill is if it goes to the last minute. But it is not an impossible situation with aggressive planning in relation to the grievance process. So I think it becomes -- if you want to set it today, fine, go ahead, and then you just make a management decision about whether you want to set it at the rate that assumes that the bill is going to pass or the rate that it assumes the bill is not going to pass, and then you live with whatever your decision is.
>> one of the things we had talked about was the best case scenario is house bill 11 becomes law and our lives are so much simpler and that's what's on page 1. But what's on page 2, and there's a slight differential related to the da, it basically says, what if we honor the intent of house bill 11 and what would that cost us in terms of the differential in terms of where they are now and what the -- what the house and senate on I think 15 different occasions have passed and sent on to the governor, we're just hopeful that this makes it through. The only slight differential here is that I would give some more thought and I would be open to suggestions related to the da because under the scenario with the da under house bill 11, it gets them to a slightly different number than the calculation on the second page because there was some maneuvering going around with what the county's piece, what the state's piece, and I知 open to suggestions because it isn't quite as much as what would have been the combined impact of the state and the county piece in terms of who picked up what segments of it. But in terms of in generality, I知 basically looking at house bill 11 was good enough for me and we ought to honor that. I didn't want to go beyond house bill 11, although those people deserve more money than that, because the worst thing we could do is to give them a salary that then two years from now has to be taken away from them because house bill 11 gets passed with caps that make it mandatory, you can't pay district judges more than a certain amount of money and they would get money taken away and the county court at law judges would get money taken away and the associate judges would get money taken away. So house bill 11 kind of was my wish, and I知 open on the da as to whether he should get the house bill 11 money or a lesser amount.
>> so why wouldn't it make sense for us to set the salaries at the same amount? We have to go through budget markup anyway, so by the September eighth we'll know if the state money is available, it's funded. If the state money is not available, we know we have to fund it.
>> I would really like for you -- I didn't realize pbo had a memo out and travis and I were exchanging memos in that this morning. And one of the things in the analysis that I did and sent to you is really just exactly what you all had suggested and that is to set the district judges ats 132,500 a year. And in in fact house bill 11 does not pass, it would cost the county $27,711. I had given you a number of 36,000 laws because I added the associate judges in there. Travis tells me he already put the money in the two percent compensation, so they had already put that in there. So really if you said -- and my motion was real careful with the district judges because we get into what they can get paid and that type of thing, but what I would ask is if you would set their salary at 132,500, then our current supplement, and I知 a dollar off here, it's really 2,441, not 42, per month, change that to 2,566 a month plus benefits. If hb 11 becomes a law and the state increases its compensation to 125,000 annually, Travis County would reduce its supplement to 625 per month to again retain that total of a salary of 32,500 and the associate judges would give 75% of that. So instead of them getting the two percent that other county employees would get, they would get 1.15, a little less because of the fact that we benched them against district judges. But that would allow the district judges to know what they're getting. And as we said, the cost of that is $27,711 if hb 11 does not pass. We have heard everyone's guess is as good as another person's. If I had that money, I expect -- if I had to guess, I would suspect that it would become law, but it won't be until September eighth. And it won't be vetoed, won't be signed, just become law. But the worst risk you would take with district judges is 27,000 -- $2,711.
>> over what we spend today.
>> yes.
>> so we start markup on September seventh. Why don't we just do that. Two days into markup we'll know exactly what the situation is with the state, I guess the morning of the third, because either the governor takes action or by operation of law it becomes law, right? And as to the da, can we do the same thing?
>> you can do the same thing. We need to make sure that everything happens perfectly from then on if he choses to avail himself of the grievance process. That's unknown, but we would have to make sure and have the grievance committee meet and make sure that we have a quorum of them there. And you are cutting your time short, very, very close.
>> Commissioner Daugherty is a good friend of the da's. I think he'll work with us. But we get you. So we've got a week, two weeks at most, three to act if there is a grievance filed. And that means getting a committee together, have a hearing --
>> you have 10 days from the grievance being filed to get the committee together. They would compress that. You would have three or four days to get them together.
>> my guess is if the da had an issue, he would let us know immediately after it becomes one, so that would be the ninth or 10th of September, right?
>> yeah, the ninth probably.
>> I know he's not obligated too, but what would stop us from making a phone call? Attorney wilson calling and expecting him to make a quick decision?
>> I am wondering, I cannot remember and john has gone to go get the statute to be sure, but I was thinking that elected officials' salaries may have to be set on a regular meeting date, which means the 13th would be the day that that would have to be done.
>> I知 talking about setting the salaries today.
>> oh, just set them today?
>> yeah. Just set them today and it really becomes a source of funding issue after today.
>> it's a budgeting issue. Then if you set them today, that starts the grievance clock and I壇 be very happy. [ laughter ] irks judge, I would make that as a motion, that the salaries for the district judges for the county court at law judges, the probate judge by the 75% rule, the associate judges and for the district attorney be set at the house bill 11 numbers with the same date of house bill 11, which it goes into effect December first.
>> second.
>> and we leave it to the budget people to make it happen. Hopefully the state picks up more, but I知 prepared to pick up the small differential in case they don't.
>> any more discussion? That was seconded by the county judge.
>> we've got the exact numbers.
>> and those are the numbers that would be on the first page of the --
>> August 29, 2005.
>> barbara, I need to make sure that the total there -- the county portion is lower than that advertised, but the total is greater than that advertised. That's okay, right. > not for the district attorney.
>> for district attorney, that's what I want a clarification on.
>> do you have the ad there? Because what we have always said in the past on the add is not more than.
>> okay.
>> yeah. The notice of maximum proposed -- proposed maximum salaries and allowances, so the da has to -- the da -- if house bill 11 goes into effect and the da is in fact paid 125,000 by the state, what we're really advertising here is the county portion. And so we have $30,000 that we could pay him, but if it doesn't go into effect, you can't bring him up to 132 because he's not quite at that level. He's at 131,754.
>> with that amount, and the add becomes effective October 1 or December one?
>> it would have been October 1.
>> and that was -- I知 confused. Are you meaning like for the district judge, which are 132,500 which is effective October 1?
>> that's my understanding.
>> well, I thought the house bill thing was December one, wasn't it?
>> yeah, it won't. And what my suggestion was is that you set it, district judges, that the district judges' salary starting October 1 would be 132,500. For the two months that we don't know, the county supplement would go up a little bit. If it didn't become law, you keep paying that all year and it would cost $2,702,700 for district judges. If it did become law, then obviously the supplement would drop right back to 625, but the salary it's 12 would be 132,500 starting October 1. Is that what you meant?
>> yes, that's exactly what I meant. Make it clear that it's the house bill 11 schedule -- salary effective October 1 and it's left to everybody to figure out when. Now, we do need to take a pause here in terms of what barbara just said about what if the da gets messed around with in this proposal because of what we advertised, how do we get there? Is this a maximum salary we're setting today and it can go lower?
>> you're saying we advertise a certain amount, that should be the maximum. Right?
>> I知 saying that for the district attorney, the add says that the maximum proposed county contribution is for -- for the year is $30,027.
>> all right.
>> and 14 cents.
>> and if the salary that is given by the state does not increase from what it is this month, then he will be creting in salary $131,726.86, I think. I forget where the 86 goes. 14 cents, I guess. And so he would be below the 132 that you're talking about --
>> how much?
>> about a thousand dollars.
>> why don't we just tell him we'll give you that thousand next year? I don't see him getting upset over that thousand dollars because he sees how it happens. Next year we post his salary at two thousand more to make up for next year.
>> those are all offers we'll pass on to him. [ laughter ]
>> I mean, it's not just in control of this, it's the state. But our ad has already been posted, right?
>> we can repost, but it would require all of -- it's a schedule, I imagine.
>> so is the cleanest way to describe this is we still describe it in terms of the county's part of the da's salary is what in the ad to begin with, which is 3,271,174.
>> that's the the motion. Hopefully the state will do the right thing and we won't have to worry about it. If it doesn't, we've got a thousand dollar issue with the da.
>> do you understand what you just said you were going to do with the da's salary? If senate bill -- if house bill 11 passes, if house bill 11 passes, the state portion would be 128,000.
>> so are you saying that we're required to then give him 188,000-dollar salary?
>> no, no. I am saying that's what -- it wouldn't be 88, it would be 55.
>> I thought we needed to get the salary up to 132,000. So the state gives 125 and we're seven thousand and some change short. So our intention would be to get him to 132.
>> another way to put this is that when you add the state salary and the county salary, it is your intention that the district judges and the district attorney have a combined salary between those two sources of $132,500 and that it will be sorted out affair the fact in terms of -- as soon as you find out what the state is going to contribute, what your portion will be and what their portion will be.
>> exactly.
>> maybe we just need to on that motion -- barbara, I think I wrote that that way for the district judges. Would you just add, and district attorney, would that take care of it?
>> no.
>> you're saying set the annual salary at 132, and the fact is that setting the salary at 132, the only power that the Commissioners court has to set salary is for its contribution. And this kind of sounds like their contribution is going to be the 132 and that clearly is not the intent of anybody in this room.
>> no. And it doesn't say that there.
>> all it says is set the annual salary of 132,500.
>> but what you said in we really need to be determining is what your contribution to it is. You don't set the salary. We're talking semantics, but trying to keep you in the same space.
>> we've got the ad already. Our motion is to do that for the da. And if the state on September 8th if the law passes where the state's contribution is $125,000, then the Travis County supplement is 7500.
>> uh-huh.
>> is that a good motion for the da?
>> if that's what your intent is, yes.
>> that's our intent, isn't it?
>> it's not 7500.
>> it's not 12,000. That would make it 137.
>> but if we're trying to get the da to 132,500 and the state gives 125,000 --
>> that's 7500.
>> we do the difference with the 7500.
>> well, susan, then help me out here or pbo, somebody has plugged in on practically every item here something called benefit pay of 1026. So do I count that or do I not count that?
>> historically the last few years we have always counted that as part of the salary of the district judges, and then that's what would -- and for the da also. And then what we would do is when you would set then the county court at law judges at a thousand dollars less, that 1,026 was in there. And when you would set the probate judges' salary equal to the district judge's salary, it includes the 1,026. So that has really muddied the waters over the last several years, but that's what we've been doing.
>> and that's been the advertised --
>> and it's been in the advertisements and been in the ordz.
>> it's confusing. Not all district judges receive that amount. I think if they were a state employee sinc August 31st, 1995 --
>> so we have district judges who are making less than county court at law judges, and it's never been what we intended to have happen.
>> exactly. And that's all we've been back there in the background.
>> okay. It's clear what we're trying to do, though, right?
>>
>> [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, August 31, 2005 12:10 PM