Travis County Commissioners Court
November 8, 2005
Item 9
9 is consider and take appropriate action on request to clarify the court's intention regarding the remaining fy '02 2% compensation allocation. This makes reference to the 5% that we approved, of which 3% was supposed to be a cola effective October 1, right? That left 3% and the question is what was the court's intention as to the 2%.
>> yes, that's correct, judge. Members of the court.
>> performance pay.
>> par don me?
>> performance pay.
>> the question is we are here for those who have other compensation issues, whether they could have the flexibility in addition to performance based pay to be able to do those. That's with where I would like to go.
>> we had confirmed the minutes, the action of the court, because we have had inquiries of course in from the departments on the 2% and felt that the vote of course was made in a budget session and not in a regular session. A vote all the same, but we have gotten inquiries on what was the intent of the court, if it was the basic pvp as the minutes would reflect or the flexibility that the court has in prior years approved. That flexibility in fy '05, there was a 1.75 comp allocation, 4% was a cola, with the 1.75 left forcal cellular adjustments or to take care of green circle issues, compression issues, also recruitment and retention issues, including performance.
>> I would move approval of option 2 which is all of the good stuff related to performance based pay, but also gives the departments much more flexibility with the use of their dollars related to other comp issues that may be special to their office and we empower people to solve their own problems. Is that the second bullet.
>> > option two to page 2.
>> what I’m trying to understand, there was misunderstanding on that when we went through the budget process, we actually pulled this particular 5% aside and of course with the 3% cola, then the it was a mix up from the departments or -- what because I thought that during that time that was the actual will of the court. I’m not knocking what's happening this morning with regard to the flexibility. Are we doing it for clarity purposes or -- [multiple voices] clarify so those folks will know exactly what we did --
>> yes, that's correct.
>> that's basically what I did. Because I know that was the intent of what -- of the motion that I made, of that was the intent of that motion is to do just what we are doing in option two here.
>> yes. The reason that we are here is to get that clarification because the minutes from the point that the vote was taken actually reflected that you approved a 3% cola and 2% specifically to pvp, the clarification that we are asking for are input or direction from the court is department haves contacted us and asked to have it as flexible so that they can address the other issues related to compensation as they have done in the last two fiscal years.
>> right. That was the intent. Okay.
>> option 2 is fine.
>> option 2 is the intention that the actions described in each bullet be addressed in the order listed, in option 2? As to my own view, my intention was that performance pay be considered first. We never see what actions are taken, it doesn't bother me to defer to the department to deal with other comp issues. My thinking was that you would first look to performance pay. Then you could look at all of the other things that you could use compensation for. All of those things that are listed in option 2 in the five bullets. These in a certain order are or they just --
>> no, they're not. The five bullets really represent the option of the department to do one or all or a combination thereof. So it's not in any particular order. Pardon me?
>> no, those are actually the options that have been exercised in the past.
>> the question is whether we would expect the departments to use a 2% to address performance pay first, having done that, whatever is left, it would -- comp issues, I don't know that we ever got any of that money back anyway, right? When we sent it to the departments, they figure out a way to use it. Historically we have said try to deal with your comp issues as much as you can, within this amount. That was good policy. But I do think that if we say 2% performance based pay, my thinking is that employees who are deserving of performance pay would receive it. There's a little difference there. You may have 15 employees with issues and you may have five whose performance is beyond expectation. And my interpretation of it would be that those five would get performance based pay. And if there's money left over, you deal with the other 10. We kind of defer to the department head.
>> uh-huh.
>> because we -- so I guess is that -- are we saying that or something different?
>> judge, I’m very happy to say that this -- you know that the first issue that needs to be addressed by the departments is performance based pay issues and whatever is left over after those appropriate decisions have been made, then can be used in terms of the flexibility related to salary adjustments, promotions, career ladders, et cetera, et cetera.
>> who seconded that motion? Is that friendly?
>> I think we are trying to get to the same place.
>> right.
>> so you understand that -- there's a little distinction there.
>> yes.
>> and we picked it up in the motion? That makes sense to me.
>> it's basically asking the departments to make an assessment related to performance based pay. The department does not demand that you give performance based pay to anybody, but that you need to go through your performance issues first and then if -- whatever is -- after that is done, you've got flexibility.
>> we used to do the whole amount for performance based pay.
>> that's correct.
>> then it made sense to us to try to assist everybody with a cola. Because of inflation, cost of living, et cetera. So we started taking part of whatever compensation money that we had, saying cola for this, take the rest and do performance pay and if there's money left deal with the other issues, I think that's consistent with my understanding of what we have intended historically. That's the motion at this time. Ms. Perez.
>> yes, sir. There's only one issue that I would like to -- to bring up, alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations, is that in terms of practice, in terms of implementation of the policy that you have suggested, is it for example in my departments, if there are any green line employees, I like to always take care of those first because to me that's just equity to pay people what it is that they are working for. And then I take the -- would take the balance for a performance based pay or if it's green -- fix being green line, fixing green line, then there's compression, sometimes there's structural problems that departments like to have the flexibility to take care of first and then do the pvp. But that's in terms of practice because usually the performance based pay doesn't come until the end of the year. Pbp. So it's sequential.
>> [inaudible - no mic] quite frankly, sometime the green liners were hired knowing exactly that they were being underfill and I think it is important to do the performance first and we actually in shifting the scale and in doing the 3%, we actually did a lot of stuff related to getting rid of green lines, getting rid of red lines in terms of issues. So I really want the motion to be what it was, that is you need to deal with your performance issues because it is not fair to other people who have performed well that some or all of the money goes away dealing with green circle issues, which many of the departments entered into of free will. We understand the option. Option 2 but your first bullet would be first. If there's money left, any of the others, pick up the other four, including the green line. Is that in the second through fifth bullet.
>> that's correct. Just a point of clarification, please. If pbp is coming first, last year you did express that pbp would be awarded to those exceeding performance standards.
>> that's picked up [multiple voices] in option 1, linda?
>> yes. That would pull from option 1 into option 2 to clarify if that's the will of the court that it would be for exceeding performance standards.
>> but don't we have a performance based pay? Performance policy that deals with that.
>> we do, but you have typically made these type of decisions annually when you have approved the actual compensation.
>> the way that option 2 is laid out, it picks up everything within option 1 which says exceeds performance standards, talks about the dates, it talks about.
>> how long.
>> that's correct.
>> how long you have to be here, lump sums on red lines, there should be very few of these in terms of comp decisions that we have made.
>> crystal clear to me.
>> effective implementation date of 12 cash 1. Auditor's office to get the ht system program to receive the expenses against this 2%.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor. Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, daughter, yours truly voting in favor, voting against abstaining Commissioner Davis. Thank you all.
>> hold on judge, before you go forward? Is -- it's my whole understanding there was supposed to have been in flexibility allowed in this. It was basically contingent just on performance based pay. I can understand what she ms. Perez takes talking about, was to try to talk about -- when we looked at widening the scale, that was something else, we also looked at this situation, also looking at ways to catch it with green circle employees and other -- other aspects we have given to the discretion of the supervisors. I do know that performance based pay was a part of all of this. But it wasn't the -- the other -- it wasn't the scaled down as far as getting the first thing. It wasn't number one thing, but it was a lot of activity -- meaning that the supervisors would have the discretion of what we have done in the past to dole out the money the way they fit within their -- within their -- from that supervisory capacity. So -- so based on what I thought it was, I will have to abstain because it wasn't the way that I was envisioning as far as looking at all of the shortcomings within the departments as they had expressed during the time of the budget process. So --
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
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, November 8, 2005 6:21 PM