Travis County Commissioners Court
May 9, 2006
Item 5
Number 5. A, discuss and take appropriate action on fy '06 khr-fbgs and compensation job analysis project recommendations that affect administrative support, general maintenance and skilled trades job families, for example, titles, pay grades, flsa designations, supplemental pay rates and practices. 5-b, approve, set aside in fy '07 preliminary budget to fund slots that are below pay grade minimums, green circled. 5-c, stphror alternatives to address compression issues during the fy '07 budget process. And 5-d, discuss and take appropriate action to have departments submit fy '07 compensation allocation plans to hrmd in accordance with defined parameters for approval by Commissioners court.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners. Alicia perez. We're here to discuss the first year of the three-year strategic plan, which is part of the long-term plan that the court has adopted and we've been working with since 1996. It is to make jobs -- a third of each of the job families in Travis County and compare their compensation and classification to the market. Make sure that they are competitive and also that there is internal equity. This year we look at all the administrative support, general maintenance and skilled trades. The largest being, of course, administrative support, 21 slots. If you add the other two, the general maintenance and skilled trades, we ended up looking at about 871 slots. That's filled and vacant, but that would be the impact of this particular study. I’m going to go ahead and turn it over to the director of hr, linda smith, to go into a, which is just a discussion of the classification and compensation analysis.
>> thank you, alicia. And of course, joining me today is todd and luanne. Both have worked on this project throughout the entire year. I would call your attention to the backup materials that we have submitted to you just to make reference to the fact of the memorandum, and then attachments a, b and c which represents each of the job families that we're reporting to today. And as alicia mentioned, we are reporting on administrative support, and what remains of both the general maintenance and skilled trades job families that were not addressed in the budget process as you remember as we worked on some issues earlier or late in last fiscal year, early in this fiscal year. We have followed as we always do your standard methodology. We always think it's important that we follow a standard procedure. That procedure is one that you have approved for us to follow. Which includes not only looking at the external market, but also making sure that our recommendations are internally equitable. This has been done by contact that we've made with some 45 departments, the job families that we worked with went across the entire county. So this particular report really provided us with an opportunity to collaborate across all departments of the county which we appreciate very much, of course, the cooperation and support, the collaboration that went on with the departments. And I see some are actually here today. And we'll probably offer comments as appropriate. What we will do is kind of go into the detail that you would want, but just briefly to set the framework, there are three job families that have been mentioned that we've looked at. Those job families included some 879 slots. We had 51 departments that we touched, and of the job titles that we looked at, there were a few that we were able to eliminate titles on and we did gain a few totals that were appropriate among all of the job families. We had 811 upgrades that are represented in the administrative support. Job family, one upgrade noted in general maintenance and there were no upgrades in the skilled trade area. We always take a look at the red lined employees, and just to make note of the fact that this particular project has resulted with some 16 slots coming off of the red line status, so the results of all of this yield that there will be no slots that are remaining in red line status. One of the points that we want to make related to this whole family is that there were two job titles that were between the pay grades of four and seven that were actually market valued below your 10-dollar liveable wage rate. As a result of this particular study, there were nine of those titles that based on the market work that was done they moved out of that, below that liveable wage status and actually came in above your 10-dollar liveable wage rate. So with that I’ll turn it over toed to and luanne to give you some general issues that we saw between all of the families that we looked at and to go into any details that you would want to have discussed.
>> so if your minimum wage is $10, how is it that some were below that? Is that a temporary status?
>> they were actually paid at the 10-dollar level based on a liveable wage rate that the court had approved, but the market value of those positions still had those positions below. So out of this report we're saying that nine of those 10 titles came above based on the market work.
>> okay.
>> well, good morning, judge, Commissioners. Todd osborne with human resources. And we're going to go over some of the high level summary details of our project. And beginning with the market movement, it's a critical question on these types of projects. We do find during the course of this project that the market has in fact moved since the last time that we surveyed it. And in general among the administrative support family it typically moved approximately two to three pay grades. In the general maintenance and skilled trades areas, it moved until one to two pay grades. We did find that the greatest movement was really towards the lower end of the pay scale as in pay grades four through seven noticeably and predominantly for those classifications that were below pay grade 10 were the greatest movement with a few exceptions. We know that the administrative support family has not been reviewed since the year 2000-2001, so there has been a certain amount of time for movement in that job family. Also, a lot of these jobs are different jobs than they used to be. They require greater skills, and I think the best example of that is clerical people. What may have been a job one time of moving paper from one place to another has now become more complicated. Now it involves computer entry skills, often times on involves scanning skills and a few of the higher tech things where the incumbents have to train more diligently and acquire better skills. And I think in turn they expect to have higher pay associated with the acquisition of those skills. In addition to market movement, hrmd spent a lot of time on incertainly equity relationships. And the reason for this is that particularly in administrative support there were approximately 43 departments touched by this family, and in addition to that, administrative support has direct internal equity relationships to other job families. For example, other support families like i.t., finance, purchasing, those types of job families. And really if you picture it, administrative support, if you picture the classification and compensation system that's a big block of -- admin support is not one of the blocks you can pull off the top. It's down in the middle. And every time you make a change to that, it's going to affect everything else within the other job families. And that's why we did spend a great deal of time on internal equity. And as we're working on internal equity, we're also dealing with the proper classification shrof slots, and I’ll turn that over to luanne.
>> thank you, todd. We spent a lot of time with resources and meeting with departments, so we could properly classify. Since it had been about five years that we had looked at all of the individual slots, the departments completed the paq's, supplied us with organizational charts and the meetings and also we conducted a series of -- and touched each department by conducting desk audits. So that information was invaluable to us so we could align all of the slots and so some of the positions and individual slots we are recommending some adjustments from two to four or even up to five to six pay grades, but there was some reorganizations in those areas. There was just misalignment in some of those areas, and as todd mentioned different skill sets, so there was a need to make those individual slot changes and then there was some that did not have changes, but again, the exercise of going through so we have a good answer that we've come out with the project that we have properly classified all of the slots. One additional area that we spent a lot of time on is doing that proper classification, the outcome is did we have the opportunity for individuals to have job progression. That the individuals could see throughout the classification system that there is other opportunities either within their department that there could be long-term or short-term opportunity, but there is opportunity for promotion or just a good progression through the classification system. We spent time with that and that's determining how many levels in each classification and making sure that there's alignment and that the department's needs are being met in terms of those deliveries of service with the appropriate levels. So we did spend a lot of time on that. And todd is now going to speak to the recutement and re-- recruitment and retention issues.
>> we found them concentrated in some isolated spots, predominantly in entry level type positions, and a few of the more advanced professional areas. And I think one of the arrests I want --ers I want to talk about is the interpreter classifications. The situation there is the market did show a pretty dramatic movement and part of the reason for that is much like with the nurses that were conducted in the medical family, there's a critical shortage of this particular skill, and we believe that the pay grade increases that we are requesting will be sufficient to help us address those recruiting issues for those classifications. We do feel that there is a pronounced shortage there and we will have to move progressively to deal with it. Another issue that we did look at during the course of the study was supplemental pay issues. Most of the jobs that we looked at were typically what you might classify as 8:00 to 5 type jobs, so supplemental pay was not as big an issue as it might be in some places, but we do know, for example, that within the sheriff's department that there is a shift differential and for clerical employees. We recommend that that be kept in place. We believe that the market does support that. One request from pretrial services for essentially a similar shift differential, and we do not show evidence at this time that the market would support such a thing therefore we have not recommended it at this time.
>> but when you say the market doesn't support it, that means that similar workplaces do not pay the differential?
>> that is correct.
>> one of the constables notified us that in order to get papers served, he has a slightly different shift because he has to cover from early in the morning before work and up to 9:00 at night, and he wondered, I think, why the deputy constables who worked those shifts do not receive a shift differential. What's our response to that? 7:00 in the morning to 9:00 at night.
>> we would need to check with constable it was. If they were on pops, we are not currently paying shift differential on pops.
>> I believe it was the precinct 2 constable's office that sent us an e-mail yesterday.
>> if they're not on pops, then we could look at such a request just like we've done with the sheriffs and pretrial.
>> but the other constables whose employees are on pops?
>> they're not receiving.
>> no.
>> so it's not whether you're on pops, if you're a deputy constable, today we're not paying a shift differential. So his question is why don't we? And let's just think about that and maybe -- if we don't answer that today, maybe we could answer is next week.
>> the point that was brought up in the constable's memo has do with the administrative staff being required to be on these, not 9:00 to 5 shifts. So speaker specifically asking about not the pops people, but their administrative folk. Andic it's a valid question to be asked. It's not about the pops people.
>> we'll take a look at that. Some departments accommodate that just by rotating by how their design their 8-hour shift been a day. And that can be accommodated in a number of ways and we can take a look at that.
>> but to get the job filled that way, the question is do they receive added pay if they're working earlier or much later, which is what his point is, I think.
>> and I think another question that needs to be resolved, forget about the parbgt in terms of what does everybody else do, but related to the pretrial, if you have administrative folk who are working side by side with sheriff's administrative folk and I’m thinking specifically over in central booking, it doesn't seem logical nor fair that somebody at one desk gets a shift differential because they work for the s.o. And that's their number, and somebody over at pretrial who is working the exact same shift. What I see there is there could be a kind of approaching why do I go and work for pretrial when I can move one desk over in the exact same place administratively. So I think we need to be looking not necessarily at market there, but at about the fairness of two people working side by side doing the same job for different folks? And that is something we may need to make sure that we are dealing with those folks fairly.
>> the common practice was that they're taking place at the same workplace.
>> same workplace.
>> well, we went over the funding level of the project, and I guess at this time I would ask if you have any questions or if you would like for us to go over in detail anything that was in the backup particularly on pages 1128.
>> and this is for item b, the recommendations from the job analysis, which were to include approving the actual reclassifications, the five percent differential for the sheriff's administrative staff and then a market differential for the interpreter, interpreter senior and interpreter language court senior titles.
>> we discussed this during our briefing in terms of -- and I don't have any problems whatsoever in terms of I think you've done a lot of work and these things are all appropriate, but where I need to tie it back to in terms of before any decisions are made before we fund, don't fund and keeping some kind of flexibility, and yet control. How do we ensure that when somebody is sitting in a job with an incumbent and they have a pretty massive difference in pay grade being proposed, that incumbent has the skills to have that job at that higher level. Because I have a feeling that some folks that were hired in at much lower pay grade jobs, that's what they were able to do, and it's not that weren't qualified to take a higher pay grade job within that same office. So I want to spheubg thaur before we -- make sure before we have people starting to spend paychecks that have not been authorized yet that there is some way for somebody, a department or an elected official is going to need to evaluate the skill set of an incumbent before a pay raise is granted to somebody at a much higher skill set. Some of these things I know we went through back in the '97, '98 time frame, when we had movements of three pay grades or more, there was not a presumption that the person holding that job was still qualified to have that job at a higher pay grade. We need to make sure the people are competent to hold the jobs at a higher pay grades because they may have been very good people who never went for that job because it paid so low. And it may be that the people who are in the jobs that pay so low do not have the skill set at the higher levels. And I want to make sure that they are given every opportunity to get that skill set so that they are indeed qualified to be paid for the skills that they have. What I’m not interested in is paying people for skills they do not have, but clearly the job necessitates that they have those skills. I want to have fairness on all sides. People need to be paid for the jobs that they are truly doing and what the market is saying, but if they do not have the skills that that person is told exactly what they need to get done and are given every opportunity to be able to qualify for that higher level job.
>> that's why I was interested in knowing if job descriptions were going to be developed based on this study so that we'll know what is required of the positions and they know if the person who is going to fill it really has those skills.
>> I’m coming from a little different perspective. My speaker architect active, looking at -- my perspective, in that you've done the analysis and the slots that have been looked at and the particular categories, the administrative, skill trades and la, la, la, the list goes on, is that that's something that's already been done as far as the market is concerned. And then b is directly tied into that as far as looking at I think a set aside in the preliminary budget to address those pay grade minimums. When the market -- when we did conduct the market salary survey out there, you saw that these particular folks have been identified well below the market. That's the analysis that has been presented to us, so we're going in the direction and many other entities, since I’ve been on this court, when we saw those different -- we tried to bring those people up to market as we possibly could do those things, and that's what we could have done as we've gone through the particular families and we've looked at these market survey analysis. And here's another job family that's come up, we've identified those. When we saw the market, we said wait a minute, we have folks here that are well below the pay grade minimum. So here we are charged with the task of doing such. So a and b are in my opinion are directly related and I have continued to support those particular entities where we have tried to bring folks up to market. And I remember a situation where we looked at tnr last year and we had a whole bunch of folks that piled up in the courtroom as far as testimony. At that time we looked at the heavy equipment operators in tnr, emergency type situations. We were losing those persons going to other heavy equipment employment opportunities because of the fact that they were paying more money, blah, blah. So we tried to keep our heavy equipment operators here in Travis County and hope we not lose any in the future. So this is the kind of thing that we have done in the past. I think we're in the same situation today. So I’m really going to support a and b, the things that you've done, but also b as looking at the way to catch up and make sure that those particular employees in these particular slots, in these particular various departments have have been affected, we look at setting something aside in the preliminary budget to ensure that the pay grade minimum, green circles are met. I’d leak to make a motion at this time that a and b -- we move approval of a and b for this particular item, item number 5. Do I have a second?
>> I’m not sure where that's going, so I guess I need a little bit more discussion. The one thing that is related to what you've said are very comparable to what happened at our public hearing from employees is the fact that on the interpreters, that is the same situation as we had at the budget hearing. So that's the one where we are having people living and then the private sector is paying them more. The same situation as with the heavy equipment operators. I can agree with taking care of that group of employees. And that is also a very important responsibility, I guess, that county government carries out, especially for the deaf community. They need representation internally with Travis County. They also need that service externally to go into the court system and all the other places. So I’m all for that. I think we'll take care of the green circled employees somewhere along the line --
>> I made a motion, and thank you, Commissioner for your comments.
>> I heard the motion. [overlapping speakers]
>> I didn't realize that she was off the dais. I wouldn't have made that motion. But you heard the motion? I guess that was loud enough.
>> let me go through it briefly, but I think there are some other things --
>> I’m not ready for the motion yet.
>> so I might be a little ahead of myself?
>> yes, sir.
>> a wee bit.
>> a little bit.
>> I’m just letting you know I’m on my p's and q's this morning, so you watch out. [ laughter ] [overlapping speakers]
>> I think Commissioner Davis is raising a very legal list tick staeus spa eus and I’m going to be ready to join somebody on a motion, but I want to say this. The sheer number of people that are impacted by the administrative family recommendations and simply getting people to a green circle even if we make a presumption that everybody is qualified and everything is cool and everybody will get through this process, it is far beyond the ability of any department, especially because there are some pretty large departments here that too much of their folk should be able to use a set aside of across the board, performance pay, whatever. They will never get there because the numbers are just too big. So I am interested at whatever time we get there of saying, yeah, I think there needs to be a set aside amount. I’ll call it a reserve, the green circled reserve just as this point for planning purposes as we proceed through the budget process, the numbers are too big for us to say, christian, we'll get to that in the August, September time frame because there are a lot of other demands. To me it's not one of, yeah, you go ahead and allocate it or we make decisions about how it gets done or etcetera, but I think there needs to be a set aside in a reserve so that christian as he's working through plugs that into the numbers and we take a little bit of money off the table that somehow people are led to believe that it's still in play. What I need to know is what is not here in our backup. This has the estimated costs without benefits. I think we need to know what the number is with benefits so that at whatever point we make a motion to say, christian, there's a new number you need to plug in for planning purposes, we need to know what that might be and we can defer other discussions about, so what's the criteria? How are we going to move people? How do we deal with compression?
>> we have a number.
>> somebody got the number?
>> I’m figuring it's going to be about two million.
>> 1.8 million with a 30% benefit calculation that we have. Do you have a different number?
>> I have slightly different. I applied the numbers that presented in your backup with our calculations and I came up with a general fund of $1,616,110. The other fund's 57,516. All funds, 1.67. We can get together and --
>> so that figure represents the amount necessary to do what?
>> to bring the recommended slots -- slots up to at least minimum of the recommended pay grade.
>> thank you. Constable van also said in number 3 of his memo -- this went to hrmd and was sent to the court.
>> I believe, judge, that constable van indicated that he would be here today --
>> doesn't really matter. Here's the issue. He says that if we follow the recommendations of converting the lead court clerk 1 to court clerk 2, then the supervisory responsibility, which includes training and scheduling, goes away because duties are not part of the clark 2 position. That's -- clerk 2 position. That's his point.
>> I’m speaking for constable van who had a previous engagement and could not make it. All of the problems have been worked out with hr in a very cordial manner this morning. The only matter that we still have on the table of course is the shift differential which I think the court has addressed and we'll be taking up at a later date.
>> why don't you share with the court what the resolution was for number 3?
>> basically I think there was a miscommunication between both departments. There was some material that was sent out that our department obviously did not get. Luanne and I and linda have been on the phone this morning and all the problems have been worked out. The other thing we have not received is the actual job description of the court clerk 2 senior.
>> so who will do the training and scheduling in the con strabl precinct 2?
>> I’m assuming this will be included in the job description of the court clerk 2 senior.
>> in precinct 2 as well as in the other precincts?
>> yes.
>> and the other constables are in agreement?
>> I have not been in contact with the other constables, sir.
>> if you're happy -- (indiscernible).
>> so the rest of this memo I should think shift differential the only outstanding issue issue?
>> that is correct.
>> that's good news. Thank you. Anything else?
>> no, sir.
>> now, some other elected officials have come down today. If they would like to address the court on this matter, this is the time to come forward. By not coming forward, we will interpret it as being in total agreement with the recommendations from staff.
>> we might need to make some chairs available.
>> we need to have two of those available. So you can answer questions and address different issues, we need you sitting there.
>> we have a large number of slots that will be affected by this. We're in agreement I think with everything we've seen from hr. We appreciate the work that hr has put into this. To answer one of the questions that Commissioner Sonleitner has, we currently have slots that are underfilled due to people's skill sets when we moved from downtown to airport, we changed the way in which we did business, basically requiring everybody to do the motor vehicle titles. Some of the employees that have been hired previously didn't have the skill sets, remained at their own level, and hr has graciously allowed us to keep them at the old slots. When we're looking at these things, the new thing moving people up by two groups, these individuals would have to be looked at that you haven't made the skill sets, and maybe now they will. The problem I had was there was only one pay group differential. A lot of people said that's a whole lot of stuff to learn for a little bit of money. It's not worth. I don't want to worry about it. Now the employees may see it's time for me to learn this and do those type of things. So we're very much into this. The concerns that I have about this, it takes about a year to get employees where they can get be productive on their own. Three to four years before you could actually turn them off to a remote substation that we've been dealing with. We're getting a lot of turnover and my concern with this is not just the green circles, but the kprogs. As it is, if you were hired three or four years ago, you may have moved along. If you were super employee and gotten raises. If another person was hired at the same time and wasn't the superstar -- and I appreciate all that the court has given us in the past. I’m not faulting that at all. The person may not have moved as much as employee a. And then we hired somebody last week, and under this the green circled people, the ones that hadn't moved along and the person I hired last week would be moved up to the same level as my superstar. And that's one of the concerns that I have that I hope that y'all will look at that also because that's the group that looks around and says, I’m not getting anything here, let me go someplace else.
>> is there item c to address that, hr?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think that's something that I think is pretty important. The problems with the compression type issue, I think that in this whole array of what we're trying to do here, you see how that can be addressed during this fy '07 budget process. I think you have to continue with hr and of course your particular shop to address those compression issues.
>> I just wanted to say to Commissioner Sonleitner that we are looking at the skill set in doing these type of things. We're not going tow randomly move people because that's something you can do. Thank you.
>> no, thank you.
>> dana debeauvoir, Travis County clerk. And thank you to hrm d and to our executive manager for such a good job of laying out this problem. It is a big problem and it's been building -- unfortunately for all of us it's been building for four or five years. It is our largest family and that makes it a big problem. For the county clerk's office, and that includes civil probate, misdemeanor and recording is the lion's share of all the employees in my office, as many of you correctly pointed out. It's becoming so serious that I’m having difficulty even finding people who are willing to take the job. And when I do find people who are willing to take the job -- and sometimes I have to underfill in order to get around that problem. And as dusty said, we go by matrix and we have no intention of creating yet another problem with that. But the -- it's becoming so problematic in those three areas of my office that I either have an extended vacancy rate or an extended turnover rate for all of these employees. The court clerk 1, the court clerk assistant and the court clerk 2's especially. It takes about -- especially in the court area it takes about a year to gain proficiency. Now, especially know that we have facts in. Facts has exacerbated some of the problems I’m having. It takes about a year to get somebody up to speed. In just my court clerk 1 level for civil probate I’ve had one position turnover three times in three years. What that effectively means is that that the county clerk is now serving, to extent that I can even hire people, we are serving as the training ground where I get the clerk trained nine phaopbts a year they go out and go to a law firm making considerably more than they can make in county government. Now, there are some trade-offs to working for a law firm, but when the salary differential gets to be that big, they accept the trade-offs. They'll accept no health insurance or limited health insurance. They'll accept 80 hour weeks over 45 hour weeks. There are life-style choices they're willing to make at that pay level. What I am concerned about is that we've gone in and we've fixed our computer services families and we fixed our financial families. We even fixed the tnr group of folks. But because this family is so big, what I’m concerned about is that we will try to do only a small part to try to fix this big problem and actually make it worse. To the extent that we can have some flexibility in trying to figure out how best to raise people up to a market value without creating a compression problem or rewarding people who don't have the skill set, then I think what we have to also think about is that they need to be -- they need to follow their pay grade level. To add to what dusty said about depression, if I have hired somebody in on matrix and managed to find a person, and over the years I have talked to them about, you know, they're doing the study, I know it been awhile, please hang in there. I think the court will address this obvious market discrepancy, so they hung on. And if we do not recognize the skill sets and the same level at which they are at that pay grade, when we transfer them to the marketable comparison, then what we will do is we will suffer compression, but we will also end up losing all of those people and we will be -- we will be contributing -- even though we're spending more money, we will be contributing to the problem of us either not being able to recruit in the first place or not being able to retain these people. I’ve got vacancy rates in some of these positions -- I should say occupancy rates in some of these positions, and I have given this information to pbo so they have the documentation. At 16 and 13 percent. If I walk away with nothing else sharing with you today, it's the extent in addition to the seriousness of the problem. Okay. I think what I want to do is leave that for the time being because I appreciate the fact that today's our first opportunity to discuss this problem, and I appreciate the fact that the court is considering not just how much is it going to cost, which is a valid thing for you to consider, but also -- what's the approach going to be what level of flexibility, what level of requirements are we going to do to the extent that we do have money that we're spending it correctly and fairly and efficiently. Thank you for having the discussion.
>> I think this court has had a pretty good history, since I’ve been here, of being flexible with a certain amount of cooperation. I’m talking about compression. I don't think nobody is trying to get away from the flexibility at all, and I guess as we go farther down the line, in this process I guess it will reveal itself. I want you to feel comfortable that I know -- especially as I sit here that I’ve tried to be as flexible as I can to give you the flexibility.
>> yes, sir. In fact, I’m fortunate to have the best Commissioners court in the state.
>> thank you for that.
>> that is clear. No question about that. I’m more concerned about the technicalities of how we're going to communicate to pbo when Commissioner Sonleitner mentioned some kind of a set aside so we can proceed with the budgeting process. That's really what I mean. It's more the technicality of how we make sure we've sized the solution to fit the problem and then how do we accomplish it? And that's what I was referring to. Thank you.
>> do you have any flexibility in mind? In your dream, what would you like to see the county clerk able to do? [ laughter ]
>> I think it's important that -- there are two things that -- really three things just right off the top of my head that I think are important for us to consider when we're doing this. Let me see if I can remember them all. The first is if we only deal with green circled, we're only going to make the problem worse. The second is that we -- we need all the elected officials, for the offices involved, need to pledge and need to be able to demonstrate that we're following matrix. And third, we have to look at in order to avoid compression that when we do the market salary compensation that we do so at the same pay -- at the same level within the pay grade. If you're at step 3 that when tkpwou to your new step grade you retain your step 3. I think those are very important factors and unfortunately all of those factors, while they help us prevent other problems, they do tend to drive the costs up.
>> right now the funding is tied to the new grade for step 1, right?
>> yes, at entry.
>> so if you were step 6 in a lower grade and the grade moved up, you would start step 1.
>> correct. Ars.
>> not the new grade plus step 1.
>> correct. Which means we are then scrapping all of the good work that has been done over the years with us following the matrix systems and we're exacerbating the -- we're greet krao eting a new compression issue while we're trying to solve the market salary issue and we end up with the same kinds of occupancy rates, high turnover rates that we've got right now while we've spent this money.
>> so what the problem about number one, that if you only deal with green circled, you create a worse compression problem?
>> you do, yes, sir. Even if you do the green circled and still follow the matrix, we will be responding to the pay level that the skill sets can get in the marketplace. Is that a fair way to say it?
>> the people will actually suffer -- the best ones are the ones that are going to suffer.
>> I need to make sure that people do not think that somehow the matrix still exists other than on dvd starring keanu reeves. It doesn't. We got away with that. It was based on somehow people were thinking that years of service tied to people moving along. So whether that -- if it's a phrase you 82 you in terms of how you place people on the pay scale, we need to not use that figure. I think the --
>> it's not the correct term, I’m sorry.
>> to me there's something in between. I think the dream world is what we call compared ratio. If somebody is on grade 6, we move to grade of on the new scale. But if we're talking about people moving three pay grades, that in and of itself to do a comparable ratio is they're already moving 21% and that's a big number. So to me the answer is somewhere in between. It is wrong to put everybody at the beginning of a pay scale and not allow any kind of differential. That's going to make the pops scale look cheap compared to this.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I will tell you that I agree with everything that dusty said, I agree with everything that dana said. I especially want to thank you all in hr for all of the work that you all did. I’m really lower to support the work, here to support the work, staff, to answer any question that's you all might have. I applaud Commissioner Sonleitner's effort to make sure that we properly evaluate our people. I think it should be done every year, to give people a reason to grow. You heard me say just a minute ago, I think if all of these problems are not addressed simultaneously, it is the best people that we have who have grown over time that will end up suffering the most in this process. I would like to encourage all of them to grow because as everybody before me has said, it takes a year investment in an employee to get them where they are productive and I would like to have that as, you know, a continual tool over time to -- to help them set goals in an annual review. [testing the emergency broadcasting system, no video available] [emergency broadcast test, no audio or video available] I just think that we are only flexible to the degree that we address one and not the other, that's not sufficient flexibility. The amount of money I do not have an idea.
>> based on my reading of this, if you are in a grade now, say step 6, and the recommendation is two or three grades higher, it may well be that you are already making what step 1 does. If we take you to the new grade, same steps, my guess is that the total cost would be two or three times --
>> but I think those are individual, I think those are individual to the degree that I’ve -- while I don't have the documents in front of me, I knew that we wouldn't get in that detail. I have noticed that say an employee that I have hired within the last four or five months would make more immediately than somebody that I’ve had for throw or four years.
>> make more or the same amount.
>> make more than.
>> not if everybody moves to the new [indiscernible]
>> but everybody is not moving to a new minimum, some of them stay in the same category. That's the issue that I think that we are really talking about along the table here. Because every -- I think from the discussion, everybody is assuming that each employee is going to get bumped up. Some of them get bumped up together, but still the same thing.
>> yeah.
>> you know what I’m saying? So if you are only using categories but you are not paying them to some degree, I don't want -- I’m for the saying everybody should go, you know, 20 steps up because they were down here, but you have to watch out that the new employee is not now making $5,000 more than the one that you've had for three or four years when they are called the same employee.
>> same grade.
>> yes, sir.
>> therefore the combination of addressing green circle and compression becomes a real need because as we had mentioned there are 800 plus slots in the administrative support family. The funding that we are speaking of, are those that are green circled represent 50% of those. So as judge bimbry mentioned, 50% out there that this recommendation would not affect for green circle. Therefore the importance of a compression related discussion to add the issues that would be remaining as she cited them.
>> our goal was to transcend the what and go to the how to, can we get recommendations on that next week? That's what we are talking about right?
>> that's a part of the whole discussion, a and b, b item in particular addresses that 50%. The c item and the d item we could perhaps bring it back some discussion on it next week, but the thought that we had --
>> we believe that to be c and d addressed the how to.
>> pardon me?
>> we believe b, c and d of 5 address how to?
>> b we think is pretty well defined. B is pretty well defined based on the report that we are giving you today. The c and d items that begin to talk about compression were those that we were anticipating discussing with you in terms of alternatives in the budget process. If you want that before then we're happy to have discussions with you around it.
>> we can certainly give it to you before then, but we would like to -- parameters and alternatives, [indiscernible] with the departments before we bring it to you. Make sure that we are in agreement with what those parameters are.
>> I think the how-to requires a whole lot more discussion.
>> I’m sure.
>> the bulk of the work done so far has been 5 a in terms of -- right? But in terms of how to implement it, in order to us to address the flexibility needs that we are hearing about today, seems to me that we teed to be a little bit more need to be a little bit more flexibility than I think b, c and d entailed. And I have no problem with chatting with the departments and trying to see. I don't know that we would want to implement 50 different recommendations. Unless it's on the one heading and that is let the department head decide. You get up to a two million dollar range, and discuss the need to double that, I mean it's a lot of money. But even at 1.6 to 1.8, a lot important people than the Commissioners court and hrmd teed to be satisfied, you know, that we have done the best we could. That's my way of saying if we want to approve a 5, that's fine with me. The how to, b, c, d, whether they are appropriate or should be otherwise we ought to give ourselves a couple or three weeks to work on. We are looking toward next fiscal year, right, for bc and d.
>> yes.
>> I don't think it would hurt to stick another two to four weeks to bring the department heads in, trying to figure out how to address some of these, seems to me three or four issues, in addition to making sure our compensation is comparable to the market, as we implement is, if we are not careful, which I was saying was that we would create additional problems.
>> I would like to ask that they give us some other numbers that travis had presented other than what we have here. I don't know from p.b.o. And this is going back to b. Who would the -- what would the actual costs be to implement b. Like I say it is 50% of the total amount of a as far as those slots are concerned. So we are not talking about the whole nine yards. We are talking about 50% of that total amount of the 800 plus slots. So my question now is what are the actual numbers for b? Because --
>> [indiscernible]
>> sure, linda mentioned 1.8 million, my number is slightly less. I think if you are talking about for planning purposes, rather than specific, probably best to go with the 1.8 million because the numbers could change, it's better to err higher than --
>> 1.8 million?
>> that is for the green circle, bringing people up to minimum of the pay grade.
>> right.
>> and may I add one note to that Commissioner Davis is that some departments have not yet administered their performance pay for '06. So if you are looking at a planning number of 1.8, we are expecting that to go down and not up because of the pbp spending for this year.
>> like, okay. Then other. Did the a. Of money for other, did that challenge as far as funding for other in the same setting. The 448,000 did that change? For other?
>> no, the other funds you are speaking of.
>> yeah the other fund.
>> no, that didn't change.
>> still the same amount.
>> yes.
>> so my concern I guess I don't mind looking at it later. But I guess my concern is as I stated before, I’m really anxious to move forward with setting aside this amount of money in the fy '07 preliminary budget for fy '07 for the pay grade minimum. Which would address the green circle. Now, I guess those other things will come and reveal itself later and then this number could change according to what I’m hearing hr saying as far as being 1.8 million. It may even come in significantly less. So I guess with that I guess I can wait on the b portion. I have made the motion, I can get -- I didn't get a second on it. I’m going to make another motion to approve 5 a at this time. Then of course there's work to be done and then go from there. So I would like to in that motion and then hold on I think for b, cd as for what the judge suggested.
>> second.
>> I think we need to move on.
>> 5 a.
>> yes.
>> michelle brinkman from the district clerk's office. Just wanted to speak to a handful of items. In our office we've had two situations affected by the recommendations, one is what I would call the rebanding or pay range assignment for a lot of our positions. The other is an actual reclassification of positions where the current classification is being raised to -- to a higher level classification. And I think it's important that we look at pay changes on those two situations differently. Especially if you have a reclassifying of a position. Because you have incumbents that were hired at a certain level of qualifications that are now being placed into a position that perhaps they would not have qualified for. Had those standards been in effect at the time that they were hired. I really think that it's important to look at their current skill set. We have actually raised the standards that we use for hiring for the last year in the district clerk's office because we recognized that the current job descriptions that the county had were not bringing in the skill set that we needed. So we changed our qualifications where we require at least two years of college or a paralegal certification for the court clerk positions. Again, we have certain positions in our department that are not currently court clerk that would be reclassified to court clerk. But obviously the incumbents are not as likely, although some of them do meet those standards, but not as likely to meet the new standards that we have set forth. We have been holding to those standards even at the expense of leaving certain positions vacant because it's been difficult to recruit people. Because our experience has been we have a far more competent and successful employee if we hire along those lines. And with our -- we are not planning on changing that practice. I think we do need to look at those two situations differently. Another thing there is a presumption that time and position necessarily lead to continual increase in competence. I’m not so sure that's necessarily so. I think that it's an individual matter. And I think that it's important that when we do this, we take a look all wait down to each incumbent at their skill set and at their performance, especially to the extent that they add value to how the department operates beyond the current range of duties that may be assigned based on the job description. We have some very good people who are performing at what we call that added value level and I think that -- that those are the type of people that we would really want to take a look at with regard to compression issues. So I would throw that particular thing into the mix. We do have -- we do have, what we are working on with certain incumbents, what I would call flex for ed, meaning that we are allowing employees to flex their schedule in order to go to college and get some of the credit that's we feel are necessary and we intend on continuing that and would then expect once they meet the qualifications that we have set forth, that we could do a pay adjustment. So I ask that you consider that. That you may not be able to -- may not want to do all of the pay adjustments that are talked about right away. But if departments are working with employees to get them to the level that they do meet the new qualifications, that there would be an opportunity to adjust their pay once they get to that point. That may not be for another year or two down the road. I think it's important in our budget planning that we take a look at that particular issue. I think that's all the things that I have to say. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
>> I guess I don't have any questions and I know it's -- there's a motion on the floor right now. But it would really I guess for those departments elected officials or department head that's looking at this today. I think it's very important to look at the c and d portion of this item on this agenda and get with h.r. I think a lot of these things that you are bringing up have very good valid points in my opinion, I think sharon with them for future, I think the judge brought it up, will be getting back in a little bit here see what we can do to rectify some of those things. Again I applaud you for your interests and as far as looking at those particular things that affect the department.
>> now, for the employees that we help obtain a -- a college degree, what kind of post graduate commitment do we have to Travis County? By the way I think of this every time we approve a tuition reimbursement list meaning I’m of the impression that any education is important. But on some of this where we really go out of our way to help an employee obtain either an associate's degree or bachelor's, master's, what kind of commitment do we get for Travis County? Afterwards?
>> well, judge, I can say that we are not involved in any type of tuition reimbursement that might be something each employee might be working on, on their own with h.r. But our commitment right now is simply that we will flex their work hours to allow them the time and the people that we have going to school I believe are doing it on their own nickel. At this point. Just working with them to make it possible for them to -- to do the school and work at the same time.
>> well, they get tuition best of your memory, right.
>> yes -- reimbursement, right.
>> yes. There's no -- no post graduate commitment to Travis County.
>> I guess some other courses that this is true taking are related to the position.
>> exactly.
>> only the courses that are related to the position.
>> uh-huh.
>> > some of them aren't. We have generally found that the basic two year college curriculum or the paralegal curriculum gives people the essential skills upon which we can train to do the job. But it's very important that they have very good language and communication skills that those first two years give somebody. If you have been in the job market 12, 15 years, a high school education served you well, but you find yourself unemployed, how do we accommodate those employees?
>> we would have to take -- well, certainly if they came to work for us we would certainly work with them to get the education. For the positions that we are --
>> how do they get hired in based on the criteria that you mentioned a few minutes ago.
>> depends on what their work experience is in. We have a six-year legal background of criteria, if you don't have the college education, six years is a long time, but again it is the threshold that we have found that people are able to come in and be successful in the jobs that we have them do.
>> we will credit your experience.
>> yes, sir.
>> if you worked in the harris county court system 10 years, we give you some credit for that, although it may not be 10 years.
>> in the harris county court system, I think we would probably go ahead and give them 10 years.
>> now you're talking about [laughter]
>> equivalency [indiscernible]
>> this is really a question for christian. Can you please remind us of where we are in terms of your preparation of the preliminary budget. Give us a sense if we did want to talk about a set aside, like hi, work it in, what's your real cutoff for you to be realistically able to old rol that into the preliminary budget work? Well, the sooner the better.
>> we know that.
>> I do believe that we are looking to establish what I have called the major building blocks. This is one of the major building blocks, but we have some others out there that -- that will take up space in -- health benefits. We already know one building block which is retirement benefits, 1.3 million, we are making an assumption that nobody is interested in -- in tinkering with the level of benefits on the retirement system. So that's a -- that's a -- something that I think we have -- we already have in front of us. We have this notion of -- of an amount for green circle, but that then leads to resources set aside for green circle only begs the question on resources for compression, which is much more complex because it's departmental unique. Some departments can deal with their compression, some departments cannot. Well, or indeed should not and that is a -- that's a judgment call of some complexity. And really the -- the official probably knows best. The uniqueness of their department. In terms of that compression issue. But there have been discussions about pops. That has in the past been a building block. I don't know if it's going to be this year. And then we have the lever of -- of an amount for performance based pay. The more those big other building blocks get -- get established, and -- in large numbers, the more difficult it is to deal with the overall compensation issues for those that aren't in the green circle or aren't in pops and that's standard rrng and file. So rank and file. So this is a long answer to -- to the sooner the better you know where we are. We are providing a work session on may 25th.
>> preliminary --
>> July 25th.
>> July 20 is when we drop the preliminary budget. We lock it in by early July. We will have departments have all provided their -- their budget requests, I think you know the magnitude of those, I have communicated that with you. And we will be meeting with the departments and then by June 1 we will lock it down.
>> but in terms of what you already --
>> excuse me.
>> giving us that chart, that you kind of fill in of we already have a number and some of them are to be decided, you already have the pops what's it called.
>> step increase.
>> step, pops step is already in.
>> that's easy.
>> didn't you already have some amount represented to a comp amount for rank and file? A percentage?
>> we believed we could afford a range and gave you high-low numbers. The more that other big boulders take up space, and we have a fixed amount of resources because we are planning and intending unless directed to the contrary to bring this in at the effective tax rate, there's only so much money. And we have other things that -- we have some contractual obligations as well as programmatic obligations that are just seven figure court that we must -- we believe we must fund. There are a variety of contractual obligations with the city of Austin. And other entities. There is fuel. There are a lot of things that are going on out there. I hope there are resources for -- for comp reserve for -- for rank and file. And -- but I cannot violate the laws of mathematics. And there's only so much and it's a zero sum gain.
>> what I’m trying to get to, because this one is a big number, even if we just talked about green circle for just these departments, it's 1.6 to 1.7. I am thinking in terms of half again as much, the job analysis reserve I’m calling it to like take it off the table. Believe me, there are folks out there who are wanting to spend every dime that's out there, keep us in the at the effective tax rate, if there are not signals put into a set aside saying no this may not be your year for that. Because there are huge issues related to this particular job family in the same way that we have been very respectful of dealing with the job family situation of i.t., in the same way that we have been very respectful year after year on pops, it's like these folks also deserve our time and attention and money and if you don't set it aside now, we are going to find a million ways for those dollars to be spent. There is no money. You complaint talk about these kinds of numbers in August. [multiple voices] [multiple voices]
>> waiting on it a long time, they have certainly waited more than I have, I guess, I think that every year we have huge issues. That we have to deal with. At some point we have to say this is what we are going to deal with this year. Maybe let's go ahead and commitment since it's such a large number to phase it in. And let's go with -- with the issues that are more important and then let's go for some of the positions, but let's phase them in at least. And you know five years is a long time to wait to -- to figure out where they were in the market. But I have a feeling some of the positions are more important than others. Some of the positions that serve the courts would probably be up there a little higher. But let's try to -- let's try to -- to -- to phase them in. So we can address this -- this group as well. This is the supportive group of -- of every department in this county. And I don't want to minimize them.
>> maybe -- maybe make -- amend the original motion, we have to withdraw the original, make another one. I don't mind doing that. So I guess it's a matter of property coal. Protocol.
>> vote on a yet.
>> no. [multiple voices]
>> separate then. We have already made a motion for a and I got a second on it, I believe. So then I would like to make a motion on b.
>> b until we act on a.
>> okay. I seconded a because that was out there. Let me ask you a question before we vote on a. In your mental preliminary budget, you have two numbers, one for compression, with unfor performance pay.
>> in my mental --
>> you mentioned a few minutes ago building blocks that you have, mental building blocks. What two numbers do you have? Mind?
>> no number now, good enough.
>> any more discussion of the approving a, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. In my view on b, c, d, ask hrmd to get with the major department head, talk about the other issues, if in fact we go with the -- reclassifications, trying to address the -- the green circle employee, what other issues are out there, how -- do they think we can best deal with them. Then get back to us, a two, three, four week assignment or what?
>> three weeks.
>> in three weeks and basically it's how do we implement this, what money will take it to do it, then we will figure out whether you are looking at a single year, multi-year or what? The other thing is -- is that between now and then we may as well hear what the other salary related requests are. I know that the law enforcement and sheriff's people are asking for added pay. And the one that I saw I don't know that I saw a number, I just saw different areas. It would help to see those, I guess.
>> see what I’m saying.
>> if we can have those, if not we will just take these.
>> well, I want to -- because I forwarded this on to h.r., we need to get some really clear indication from the so, because it's very large department, as to what exactly they are going to be seeking in the area of compensation. I think all of us got a listing of things that had to do with what they would like to see new benefit increases related to education and supervisor pay, et cetera, et cetera. Bilingual pay.
>> that's what I meant by added pay.
>> I understand that. But I’m also getting the signals that perhaps they are talking about an adjustment in the pop scale. If that is not the case, well,.
>> no.
>> one person has sent a thing saying we are not looking to change the pops scale, it's just this other stuff. But if that is not appear accurate statement, then the two associations need to make it very clear whether they are going by just that list of added benefits that are going to be on their list or if they are talking about a change in the pops scale beyond the step increases. Because if it is something else, that is a -- that is something that needs to be surfaced today, soon, as opposed to that there is going to be a -- a -- hold on you all were misinformed of course we were going after a change in the pops scale.
>> as far as direction to the extent that you can help us ascertain, what the -- what the dreams are on that let us know. In three weeks.
>> uh-huh.
>> my guess is should we set this for like a work session discussion? Or -- Tuesday? If it takes -- let's look at both schedules and move on to one that's more convenient.
>> may 25th.
>> there is a work session. There should be some time.
>> [indiscernible]
>> because then on the 30th it can come to court.
>> that's fine with me.
>> by then, also, I think we will have more clarity on health benefit issues.
>> okay.
>> not full -- not full clarity, but some of the fog will have lifted and that's another big, it's a bigger building block than this one.
>> I want to make sure that the rank and file who are not impacted by this job analysis are not thinking that they are going to be zeroed out and get nothing in this gig. So me it's -- there are pop issues and to me at this point unless I hear differently it's just step is already in there and there will be discussion during budget about whether there's anything beyond step. There's the rank and file an amount and to me I’m calling it the job analysis reserve, which talks about all of these things with this humongous job family that deals with green circle, compression issues and other kinds of shift differentials that are brought up by the report that linda and her staff have --
>> [indiscernible] I like to maybe move that -- that p.b.o. Is directed to -- to set aside a set amount of money, I really don't know exactly what that figure is. 1.8 million earlier. Other was a different figure. But whatever that am is, $1.8 million, fine. But then I understand it may go down. Whatever it is, need to put a set aside, a circle, in other words the preliminary, fy '07 budget for the pay grade minimum slots. In item no. B.
>> Commissioner I’m willing to second something that is beyond that related to compression. To me if we only say green circle then that number he is going to get --
>> green circle plus compression.
>> and you want to up that number by I was kind of thinking 2.5 million to deal with green circle and compression within this job family.
>> it may come in less.
>> I think it's going to come in far more. The green circle issue is something that can come in less, compression is a big deal.
>> just to give you an order of magnitude, one of the departments that gave you testimony submitted a budget request for compression for more than $800,000 and that's just one of the 43. So I would reiterate, I would reinforce Commissioner Sonleitner's observation that compression is a much larger and a bigger, on how and how much to land on.
>> that's why that number is a comp or ratio thing. Somebody being exactly at one spot moving exactly to another spot.
>> whatever you died on. If you want to preload it, just know that we will work around it. That's not a problem. But understand that --
>> professional courtesy of one week that turned into three or four. But it won't hurt --
>> [multiple voices]
>> professional courtesy that's fine.
>> I will signal right now I have every intent of voting for a set aside right now, take it away, off the table to deal with this large family and we would still have pops step and we would still have rank and file who are not impacted by any of this. Otherwise we are doing a huge disservice to people to say that somehow there's all sorts of money for stuff and this thing is still hanging out there.
>> arbitrarily to pull a figure from the air.
>> I’m willing to wait.
>> without knowing exactly what it gets for us.
>> I’m willing to wait, judge.
>> is not really walking the talk. At some points the walk the talk opportunity will be here. In my view we may well have to decide whether we do that walking in 12 months or 24. These are big numbers, but if they are convinced they ought to do the right thing, I’m with the majority.
>> I want to do the right thing.
>> can I ask you a quick question before we take the noon recess. We have indicated that likelihood of -- of -- was that motion withdrawn for the professional courtesy or not?
>> yes.
>> yes, judge.
>> I think we will get a lot more done if we get a few more facts on that. But we indicated that we would maybe conduct performance evaluations for two coordinators this afternoon, which are posted. Also posted them for Thursday. Do we want to try to do it this afternoon?
>> two today, two on Thursday.
>> yeah.
>> two coordinators what we will do this afternoon, I will make sure that we know every lunch. Move that we recess to 1:30 for lunch.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, May 10, 2006 1:15 PM