Travis County Commissioners Court
September 6, 2005
Item 22
On 22, consider and take appropriate action on recommendations from outside tult apbtsd's administrative review including staffing, reorganizational structure, the little one page we are the list of stuff with danny's name on it. And number 22, we probably need to discuss in executive session under personnel exceptions. That's the consultation with attorney. This one that -- let's take it into executive session. Yesterday though, we did talk about the need for chief operating officer job posting, and we have that provided. Should we just take it up first? Questions, comments? And who put this together?
>> the job description is actually luanne is the one that did that. Let me have her sit down there.
>> p.b.o. Hasn't received any of this information.
>> judge, I put the information together and provided it to alicia. We conducted the analysis after we had met with internal staff as well as the outside consulting firm. And were able to analyze the job based on a set of skill sets and responsibilities that were outlined from the information from the department as well as the outside consulting official who had done the study. We were able to identify key functional areas that were identified in the study that were key components. So they were able to analyze that information and match it to the market and identify a pay grade. So the job description we had represented two job description to you that were represented. One reported to the Commissioners court and a second job description that would report to the Commissioners court as well takes emergency services coordinator. So there was two options of reporting relationships.
>> okay. So the department believe this kind of person is what is needed?
>> and the pay grade that we analyzed and are recommending is a pay grade 29.
>> that's based on market?
>> that's based on the market as well as our third party and county data, bexar county, dallas, tarrant, if there was sufficient matches, those counties were considered as well. But primary data come from the third property. The private data, the public sector data, from the chief operating officers, the higher assistive levels and the executive level. That's what the primary data was used.
>> I think I asked before whether any of the other urban medical examiner offices, whether any of them have a chief operating officer. I forget what the answer was.
>> the information that was provided by the department, we use that and then we also considered that the information that was provided were pre merrill business manager, financial manager level. Duties and skill sets that we identified and worked on and received information from the consultant, that information really is at a higher level looking at, you know, using the word "chief operating officer," but it's that higher technical and administrative level in the individual from the communities, individual report to go the Commissioners court level. We found tarrant county was the only match that really had that higher assistive level. The other counties are, again, that financial manager, business manager level, but the duties that were outlined from the consultant are at a much higher level in what we're matching to.
>> the person in tarrant county is working out well? [inaudible].
>> the harris county, we found that position to be, again, at that business manager level. So we had indicated that not to be a direct match. But the parent company was the direct match.
>> but we incorporated from harris county the good things that person does.
>> yes, absolutely.
>> any other questions, comments? Move approval of the posting.
>> second.
>> and authorize that it be posted immediately. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Sonleitner still temporarily away. Now, are there special publications that we ought to be -- yes, sir.
>> are you all recommending funding for the position of [inaudible] 29 to be even porated during the department budget?
>> I think we ought to discuss this during markup tomorrow as well as who threw the other staffing issues. Can we do that, christian. This item did receive sufficient text, I taeu it, for early markup discussion.
>> the medical examiner's office did get special marks. But I think there will be plenty of room for discussion of medical examiners or [inaudible].
>> as an aside, are there, like, medical kpaer publications that we would want to publish something like this in?
>> the public hraeugs is for he knows I have and following from the publisher.
>> you would think it would be a good idea to -- on the name, the name society has a website where we can also post it.
>> let's pursue all three option, and if it costs like in the medical examiner's publication I think they would sell.
>> just go directly to the website, the name will be enough.
>> you think that will be enough?
>> bus the publication comes only every three months.
>> let's do that then. Let's do that and see how much progress we make. Then we'll do, of course, do the local stuff. But the name website, okay. Some of that immediate staffing stuff we need to discuss in executive session. What else do we have for open court? The positions. > yes.
>> you requested some information that I have for you.
>> okay. When we say markup, that's actually where we vote on budget decisions and we start that at 9:00 tomorrow morning so we'll make sure we get this on.
>> the department has a different [inaudible]. The primary difference was that their positions aren't budgeted at entry while p.b.o. Calculate salaries [inaudible].
>> how much difference is there?
>> for example, for an investigating, an entry of 48,000 at the level proposed by the medical examiner's office is 65,000.
>> [inaudible].
>> we got that from the report.
>> okay.
>> the very first package that you have, it discusses the physical '06 budget request and the recommendation for the f.t.e.s, the cover page, you had requested to know basically the gap between the budget request and what the administrative review findings were. And the second page of that shows those differences. The numbers that I’ve come up with were straight out of our fiscal year '06 budget request and the administrative review figures are out of the administrative review. They do differ slightly from what -- that is the reason I pulled them out of the area. The back pages are just a reminder of what we asked for, why we asked for those positions. The other two packets are just supporting education. You also previously asked for what our jurisdiction and responsibilities were so that was the packet I was going to give you last Tuesday and that outlines the purpose of our office and what we do.
>> so in addition to the chief operating officer we're looking at two investigators?
>> correct, judge.
>> [inaudible].
>> correct.
>> we're asking for two plus two.
>> we're asking for one nurse investigator, one pathology technician in the budgeted. The reviews recommendations that we are also asking for are the two investigators and the c.o.o. For a total of five positions. I do want to point out in the comment section next to the nurse investigator, h.r. Right now there are similar positions that exist within the county, nurse positions that are under review. In our discussion with them last week, they expect that the submitted level claims will not be sufficient. And H.R. has more information on that.
>> some have other for he knows I have nurse positions, do we? We have regular nurse positions.
>> did you have an estimated pay grade? [inaudible].
>> I would go for 22.
>> thank you.
>> well, but the other nurses were in the jail systems.
>> correct.
>> I guess a similar setting may offer the same challenges?
>> yes. The technical and the [inaudible] and there would be the same skill set. If,.
>> when we conducted the review, we compared it to what the county already had existing. And that is a supervisory position. And we kind of just the best we could come up with was the kweuf hrepb to other positions within the counties which is why it was set at a level 20, but since they are currently under review, that is recommending it might be higher.
>> okay. I don't have my calculator with me, thank god, but I see the five. Anything further? Let's make sure we take this early tomorrow, christian. I think we're going to run out of money sometime during markup.
>> I have one item.
>> that's a little medical examiner Commissioners court humor.
>> on the job posting, we presented two job descriptions, as I indicated, one report to go the Commissioners court and a second that would report to court and emergency services coordinator. We need for you to approve either a or b. So a is just reporting to the Commissioners court. B is reporting to Commissioners court and to the emergency services coordinator.
>> [inaudible] will be pre-executive [inaudible].
>> is that enough answer for you?
>> thank you.
>> okay. Will that take care of it today? Posting. We'll deal with those five positions tomorrow and hopefully be able to let you all know tomorrow maybe about this time. The outcome. Thank you.
>> judge, would you mind showing me voting yes on item number 14.
>> let's grant that request. We will call up item 22 for further discussion in executive session.
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, September 7, 2005 10:24 AM