Travis County Commissioners Court
November 22, 2005
Item 16
16, consider and take appropriate action on a reorganization plan for the transportation and natural resources department. We discussed this at length last year and put it back on today for joe to touch base with the county attorney and hrmd, ms. Linda Moore smith is here and barbara wilson too and joe.
>> well, I did speak with both departments with regard to the procedures that we took on for reorganization. I believe linda with probably speak to the view of the central hr.
>> our review of that proposal was really within the context of your policy, 10.034, which pretty much provides guidelines on how departments should in fact reorganize. And in our view of that particular policy with what tnr was presenting to us, it was clear that the basic structure, the operational changes are those as presented last week that the court would give consideration to: and the changes in the organization, hr would take a look at the staffing related issues that might have fallen out of that approved structure. So we looked at the fact that the reorganization would have in regard to our roll when it comes to classifying positions, they were 10 titles that were affected by the reorganization, four of those are existing titles. Six are new titles. What we would basically do is what we do under regular job analysis projects is basically classify those positions to determine the appropriate pay grade, titles and other matters associated with the appropriate pay and placement of those positions within the structure.
>> we wanted to work with the department to prioritize these particular actions and the priority there would need to be done because of the work load of hr that we would work these classifications in based on the scheduling and timing worked out with the department. We would want to bring these recommendations in under routine personnel amendments as we complete them, so in addition to that we're recommending that the court actually authorize us to work with the department on the actions, the personnel actions that may result as an impact to individuals who are in existing positions. I had an opportunity to take a look at the tape, the proceeding from last week, and what -- you're looking at your promotion policy that we would be assuming that the recommendations are -- the department's proposal is accepted, that the promotion policy would be impacted by that, perhaps your voluntary job change policy would be affected by that as well as perhaps a lateral transfer type policy would be affected. All of those would be actions brought forward to the court under the weekly personnel amendment. One of the discussions that you had about down grades in a position, what I saw that not being demotions. I saw that as being one that was not necessarily based on a reorganization, an actual demotion as it is in the change in the duties and responsibility of a particular position. So we would treat that assuming that employees would accept that particular change. We would treat that as just a voluntary job change. Or if they choose not to accept it, as an involuntary job change, but driven by the functions and the duties as opposed to treating it as an impact to the individual.
>> is this something that policy dictates as far as what you're saying now? On the one hand, we were talking about the promotional aspects as far as policy is concerned, but on the other hand, there are some positions here that -- I would call them demotion. Some folks would say down grade or whatever else you want to call it, but there has to be an impact either way. And I guess my question is at this point if there is involuntary type of demotion or down grade or whatever you want to say, what portion of the policy would lend itself to the legal ramifications of such activity or have that been basically looked into from that act pekt from what we talked about the other day?
>> the reorganization policy, as it exists today, indicates that when a reorganization is done within the county, it's done based upon the programmatic service needs of the county without consideration of individuals who may or may not -- the first level of consideration, not necessarily around the individuals who may be impacted by that. So assume that the structure is placed -- is approved as a structure that you need or you authorize the department to implement to carry out the services of the county. The structure is there, approved. There are obviously individuals within that who would be impacted. Your reorganization policy states that there are some who may be impacted adversely or even favorably, but when you look at what may be considered the adverse impact and you overlay that with the approved structure, your structure takes priority over the effect that the individuals may have within that. It even goes so far as to say that if there's a need to eliminate a position that the rif policy would take effect. It's my understanding that this proposal does not include a rif. It does go so far as to say, Commissioner Davis, that if an individual's position is -- is lowered in terms of the level of responsibility of things needed to be performed, then that action is one that would place that individual between minimum and midpoint of the new pay grade that is needed for the title to perform the job functions. So it's all driven towards the need of --
>> what does that need an example? Here you have an employee that was at a certain level or pay grade or certain range of money, and if you down grade that, are we saying that they're adjusted to a lower grade with the same amount of money? What are you saying?
>> no, I知 not saying that.
>> what are you saying?
>> an example.
>> the current level may be higher than the department now says they need, okay? The decision gets made on the current position goes away. The new position in terms of what the needs of the department are is the level at which that individual would go into. So it would be between minimum and midpoint of that new pay grade or new position that the person has gone into. So yes, to answer your question specifically, if that pay grade does not include between minimum and midpoint of what the person is currently making, theoretically it could involve a decrease in salary. And the policy clearly states that, so I知 not reciting anything that's not within your current policy that that would happen. Or could happen.
>> joe, are you in step with what linda is saying needs to take place from a procedural standpoint with these positions?
>> that is the county's policies. I知 following the county's policies.
>> what I知 more concerned with -- not more, but what I知 equally as concerned with, if you are the executive manager of tnr and you want to do a restructure and you think that the restructure is what you need to do in order to run tnr, then I don't know why you can't do that. If there are some issues about how you procedurally go about doing this and making sure that we comply with whatever we have in our procedures, well, then, fine, but I知 not going to question you whether or not you've elected to say, do you know what, I don't need that position before, or the position that I had there was no longer what I deem necessary to run the department the way I think it needs to be to be run. So either I知 missing something here --
>> you're not missing anything. We're cognizant of the county's policy when we reorganize, so we're not doing this in a vacuum. What I proposed in terms of reorganization has to go through this process before we finally culminate. I understand that. And what linda is saying is basically I need to provide her with some priorities because there is a certain amount of work load that she has to go through to affect my reorganization. I知 okay with that. So we'll get there and we'll get there on a timetable. I think we'll be fine. It's a matter of dotting the I痴 and crossing the t's and making sure it's done right.
>> barbara? Do you have any comments for us?
>> to the extent that the court would like specific discussions of county attorney questions, I would suggest we go into executive session; however, I can also say to you that the and the litigation staff for the county as well when we met with tnr found no impediment with the court going ahead with such a discussion.
>> I would move approval the reorganization. I mean, working with hr and making sure --
>> it is a little bit of a different spin, but the it was a massive reorganization. We worked them in other departments also. It's just with the timing of this one we can accommodate the reclassification work with the authorization to bring it in on a weekly basis as we complete it.
>> that's the reorg with the hrmd, work being --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> discussion?
>> yes, judge, I just want to make sure that what we're doing here we've already touched base with all of the moving parts in this, and I know that you're doing the reorg, but I want to make sure that all the I痴 are dotted and the t's are crossed. Do you have any comment on that especially during this reorg situation? As far as it is concerned?
>> that's exactly what I値l be doing.
>> and your time frame on this is when?
>> I had originally was shooting for a January first implementation. I think that could be adjusted depending on linda's work load.
>> and there may be pieces of this, as you said, it's a week by week kind of thing, things that can be very quickly moved through and they get in place sooner rather than you can accommodate.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. ... We'll stage it as we complete the work within that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> I知 going to support it.
>> the support is unanimous.
>> let me say this also too. I really am going to focus on these two positions that have been in my opinion down graded. Of course, this is your shop, but I still think that down grades are something -- every once in awhile it happens in any type of reare structural situation, but I知 really concerned about the impact that it's having on the employees that have been down graded. I知 just going to express my point of view. There has to be a negative impact on employees that are making one salary one day and then making a less salary the next day. Now, how that can be adjusted, maybe there will be some opportunities within this reorg for this persons that have been down graded to maybe adjust to back to where they were at some future day, but right now it just appears that these two positions, there are two here that I see that I just don't feel real comfortable about and I知 just going to express my opinion the way I normally do. So I知 supporting this, but I知 also very cognizant of the fact that those persons that have been down graded in this reorg, I知 really cognizant of the fact that they could be made whole again in some shape, form or approximate fashion because that's money they don't have any more. I just want to express my concern. Thank you.
>> okay.
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 22, 2005 2:41 PM