Travis County Commissioners Court
August 1, 2006
Item 6
Let's call up six, take appropriate action on fy 07 elected officials salaries. > good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. There are a few things I'd like to pass out to you. An updated calendar, seeing as we rolled everything a week. Then we do have some spreadsheet spreadsheets that show some different percentage increases for elected officially salaries, so that you all can have a ballpark figure on those amount.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> the easy part is the calendar calendar. We moved everything back a week. If we do that, we wind up with the advertisement appearing on August 10, assume we're taking action today, which we recommend recommend. Then holding a public hearing on the proposed salaries on August 22, and that would be the day also that would you set the salaries for elected officials and the day that the county judge's office would provide written notice to all elected officials of the salaries that have been set. And the deadline for an elected officially to file a grievance would be August 28. Then if agreement is received from September 1 through September 6, you would have a committee, a grievance committee that would meet to determine what they wanted to recommend, and then Commissioners court would consider the committee's decision on regular meeting on September 12, and the budget adopted on September 26. Moving it any further than that, I think we get back to christian christian's comment this morning about getting that a bit of a pickle. So, I highly recommend that you propose salaries today and we stick to this, to the schedule.
>> mispowell, anything-- ms. Powell, anything?
>> nos.
>> I would like to talk about salaries. The citizens committee that was pointed to look at all elected officials made some recommendations that some elected officials should be corrected. But the other thing they recommended is that the other elected officials get the same increase as the work force. So I would like to talk very briefly about that. Because the way, clñr a couple issues in the law, and one is that once you run the ad, then that's the top for elected officials. You could give them less, but not more. And last year what happened is that at this time we advertised at two percent for elected officials even though the committee recommended that they get the same thing as the general work force. Later as we all worked through compensation issues we gave the general work force five percent and elected officials couldn't make up that three percent. So I would like to urge you to set the elected officials at five and a half percent. And I will tell you why. A couple of things. First of all, I'm looking at the city manager's proposed budget, which I spoke to very briefly earlier. And in this community it's interesting to see what the city is doing because they are in the same position we are, and that is they need to be able to recruit and retain qualified people. This is for the noncivil service so this would be like our general work force. In the '07 budget they are including pay for performance for everyone who meets standard at three and a half percent. We would call that a cola here. For those that exceed expectations they are appropriat appropriating another 1.5 percent. They get a compensation review in '06 and they are including 14 14.2 million in full-year funding for their nonclassified staff, 86 percent of the work force going to get an average market adjustment of four to three and a half percent on top of the other three and a half or one and a half. So that means that the average nonclassified employee is going to get between eight and a half and nine percent. They also have a service incentive pay which is based on tenure and also one-time two percent lump sum payments that they are going to continue with. They pay for full dental insurance for their employees, which we don't pay any, tuition reimbursement they are increasing from 1200 to 2,000 annually. They are increasing the vacation that they are giving their employees. They are changing how they calculate overtime to the benefit of employees. They are also making a $3.6 million contribution, additional contribution to the retirement fund which is equivalent to one percent. So the city of Austin is making a very, very significant investment in their work force. I would like to ask you to do the same here if we can afford it. The median income, the cpi index has gone up to about 4.2 percent in this area at this time for this year. So I would like to suggest that as a beginning, and I think this is very moddest, that we would consider setting the elected officials at a 5.5 percent increase, and then if during the budget process we didn't have the money or you felt it wasn't appropriate to set that for the rest of the work force, that number could go down. But I think it's a number that is very conservative considering what our sister organization is investing in their work force, and we're recruiting from some of the same pools.
>> what I'm hearing, we can, you can have it at a high range, not a high range, but at another range, and we can't go above that ones it's set but we can always decrease later on. That is what I'm hearing?
>> right. The other issue on the ad, which I think is appropriate to bring up now, I was looking at the ad and I wish I had look at it, I ge, differently in other areas, but I didn't. Commissioner Daugherty has declined to take increases for numerous years on his salary and declined the salary that was paid at the time he took office. We advertised like that was the salary for that office. But the law really requires the salary to be set and that if any elected official wishes to decline that the method for doing that is to write a letter to the payroll officer, which is me, and say you're going to decline. So I believe that the ad has incorrectly stated Commissioner Daugherty's salary, that all of the salaries should be set the same, and then any elected official, including a commission Commissioner or whoever, that wishes to decline that needs to follow the law and send me a letter and say they are declining that. So, I think that no one was hurt the way we really did this, but I don't think it is in strict compliance with the law. I asked to talk to john hilly on that, and you may wish to talk to him in executive session on that issue.
>> I think that if we set the salary and an elected official chooses to accept less, we can easily footnote that in the ad.
>> we can, judge.
>> so the public will be advise.
>> that's exactly right, we can do that.
>> that presumes that we have received some indication.
>> right.
>> that the elected official chooses that action.
>> right. My suggestion would be you set them all the same.
>> let me chat with john in executive session when we go in this afternoon. How that is? If there are questions from the court, we can ask him. If there's additional advice, we can receive it. In the meantime, though, I do think last time we received some unexpected positive news toward the end of the budget cycle after we had set the elected officials salaries lower than we would have set had we done it much later.
>> right.
>> my inclination today is set it at five percent rather than 5 5.5, based on what I know. If we can land the rank and file it would be good. A lot of it depends on how the budget unfolds over the next couple of week. I move that we set elected officially salaries at a five percent increase. Indicate to elected officials that our intention is to put them in place as rank and file filecan we not use--
>> can we not use the word set?
>> I take that word back.
>> we do this every year.
>> we advertise at five percent. Second part too, right? That our goal is to set theirs the same as rank and file. I guess, unless the news is dramatically different and more positive, seems we would be working to get five.
>> judge, will you take a friendly on this? I want to play off of susan's things. I think that the salary for a presinth three Commissioner needs to be set at exactly what the salary is for precinct one, two and four.
>> my intention is to do.
>> that won't fix it.
>> not what you received last year but based on salary for the position. So the Commissioner's salaries are all the same.
>> right.
>> the five percent would be applied to all of those. If Commissioner Daugherty wants to footnote his, which is what I'm going to discuss with john, we can indicate in a footnote whatever his is at.
>> my only thing is that in terms of the way the ad has traditionally been done, and it may be that it's just a matter of changing the ad, we talk about fiscal year '06 budgeted salary and we have not, christian, correct, been budgeting the correct salary in that, and then the differential falls to the fund balance. It is budgeted at a lower amount amount. So we are creating an issue her.
>> the friendly to fix it without an issue.
>> I meant to fix it without an issue. But the intent is that all four Commissioners, again, I have no schtick in this, people, all four ought to be paid the same. I'll be real honest, anybody that wants to write a letter, that is your personal business and quite frankly ought not be part of any kind of an ad. Take out a political ad and tell everybody about it. We ought not have personal decisions like this put into our public document. It's just--
>> it's a pretty important personal decisions to voters.
>> in which case it is a political decision.
>> all of that is not friendly. The first point I think is.
>> I'm with you. I'm just pontificating on the rest of it.
>> all right.
>> the intent is without issue, everybody gets to the same plac.
>> that we advertise the same place.
>> thank you. That works.
>> second part of that, any member of the court that wants to accept a lower amount, not higher, but a lower amount.
>> will write a letter.
>> write a letter. I have no problem with sticking that in the ad.
>> we will work on that ad.
>> yeah.
>> I guess it's up for discussion, judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you. I don't have any problem with it but I want to make sure I'm not cutting my throat on other issues that may affect rank and file employees. Because we do have some significant issues that we must deal with during the compensation. And if this motion is to say that rank and file, you will just end up getting five percent I have no problem with that. But there are some issues beyond the five percent, such as green circle, such as compression issues, that's going to go beyond the probable five percent to satisfy those particular issues. Green circle and also compression issues. So, I don't know if this motion ties my hands to looking at the other compensation.
>> the mowing was not intended to deal with those.
>> okay.
>> wherever we land on those--
>> the reason I said that, I heard rank and file come up. I heard it down here and I just want to make sure that it's two separate and distinct categories categories. This is elected officials, but I did hear someone say something about rank and file. And--
>> it could go higher if you want it. Nothing would stop you from doing that. But what this does is say that, you know, the elected officials could get this if you give this to rank and file. If you do not, then you can change your mind. It's the complexity in the advertising in the law with regard to counties. The time frame doesn't always work out as you would if you didn't have those. If we were all discussing this, it would probably all be discussed and come up at the end but we have to advertise early. It's the complexity of the law. But this does not tie your hands with rank and file.
>> okay. It does not tie our hands to what we do comparable for rank and file because it may not be exact as what we are doing here for elected officials. I do want to make sure we keep those two things separate. I think this is what this is. In other words, even though it's an action that we are setting, not setting, but discussing here I'm just trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
>> that's true, Commissioner. You're only advertising the elected officials salaries. Nothing to do with the rank and file.
>> I wanted to make sure that we aren't tide.
>> good question. The two -- tied.
>> good question. The two are not connected.
>> thank you mr. Attorney.
>> for setting the ceiling.
>> judge, if we set this today at five percent for elected officials, is that five percent on top of what we have voted for in the last couple weeks, on setting some of shows those salaries? Will that be five percent on top of whatever we have done with like the judges salaries?
>> no, the judges were a separate group with separate rules.
>> so all of the judges, jp's, all of that group will not be subject to the five percent.
>> right. I think one question is that the committee recommended that the sheriff get a larger increase. And one question is, is that what you want him to have, or do you want to add the five to that for the sheriff.
>> the citizens committee recommended the 61,003 dollar addition to the sheriff's salary and then on top of that, whatever the percentage across the board increase that you might approve. So the numbers that you have on those spreadsheets include the 6 61,003 plus five percent on top of that.
>> susan, can you tell me why you suggested 5.5 percent? Why was that recommended? Can you go through that one more time?
>> I would like to have suggested nine. But as long as--
>> what you landed on.
>> with a I did was, I look at what the city was doing. I looked at the cpi, you know, what the cost of living is. I always feel very strongly on performance and flexibility issues to handle, you know, other compensation issues that departments keep. So my suggestion I guess is the basis on what I think would be realistic and what money we might be able to come up with, you know. I'd like our work force to have a lot more. I know all of you would too. I mean, it's just a relatively--
>> okay. With that I'd like to make a substitute motion. Basically knowing that during the budget process, I'd like to make, let me move this. I move that the elected official officials get a 5.50, I guess, adjustment, I guess.
>> for elected officials.
>> I may not get a second thing. I think the intent is to let folks know we can always bring any of this down, even the five percent, if we get into trouble during the budget process and we see the money is not available. I guess that's what you're suggesting, this is something that can always be brought down. That's what I think I'm hearing.
>> there is a sub tonight for 5. 5.5 first for the designated elect officials. Is there a second? That dies for lack of a second. Back to the original motion, five percent. Discussion? All in favor. Show Commissioners voting in favor, and voting against, Commissioner Daugherty.
>> two more items, judge.
>> okay. When we first presented this item to you last week, we had two versions of the ad. One was the full version that includes the judiciary in it and the district attorney salary. And then there was another one that's a short version that does not include district judge, county court law judge, probate judge or district attorney. We have always gone with the full version but we want to show you the two options and want to make sure which one you want to go with. If it's the full version or a short version, that's fine.
>> I'm going to articulate for the full version because I think it is appropriate for people to put the salaries on the short version in context with everything else in terms of where some other folks are slotted. I think full information is better than partial information. Especially related to the jp one that's going to look totally out of context if you do not put it into the context of what a district judge, a county court of law judge and probate judge is making. All of a sudden, of course, that makes total sense now.
>> no problem with fulla. We'll put salaries in there base based on previous acts by the court.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> also on the footnote, I am assuming you will work with counsel on any footnote corrections or additions. The second thing is for the public hearing August 22, according to the schedule, and then taking action which on the 22nd will be actually setting the salaries. Do you want an additional item to address the whole policy issues of the justices of the peace and the jew dishary thing? The reason I'm asking is because the elected officials salary committee, the advisory committee that you have established will be working in the fall on doing the big market salary survey. So do you want to give them any guidance on do they include the jp's in that or should they be considered as 75 percent of district judges and that's the way you go, and that's it? That way it's just a workload issue for them.
>> I thought we said 14 different ways that they are on the judicial family and it was 7 75 percent.
>> yeah. Why--
>> yeah, why don't we later, have it based on the way the court was talking today, I don't know that we need a full decision. We bring it--discussion. We bring it back up and hear whatever comments and then take action. I refer it's after the budget process.
>> then we do it in October right before the committee starts meeting again in novembe.
>> let's have something to do in September.
>> okay, September then is it. Thank you.
>> is that okay?
>> yes.
>> let me ask. We don't have a sheet here that shows the new ad.
>> no, we don't because we weren't sure where you were going to land on the percentage. Unfortunately we have the ad as a word document and transferring everything, that's why we gave you the spreadsheet so you could see the dollar amounts for each elected official based on the different percentages. So we would have to prepare the ad. Once you all have settled on the footnotes, then we can prepare the ad and put it together, send it through the county attorney's office and make sure everything is okay. I'm sure we will work with the county auditor also to look at all the numbers.
>> anything further on number 6?
>> did we neat to vote on the long ad versus short ad or is that just direction?
>> I didn't hear any objection. Okay for direction? Long ad for the actual salaries.
>> yes.
>> for advertising in our previous motions. Not today but previously, john.
>> correct.
>> when will the ad be produced?
>> it's posted real soon, right?
>> what we are proposing is next Thursday in the city of Austin chronicle. That will give us a few days this week to work on it, get it to purchasing, a cameradri copy. They already have been--camera ready copy. They already have been notified and are on stand by waiting for us to have the final add.
>> we don't see it again before it's advertised, right?
>> right.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> 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, August 1, 2006 7:14 PM