Travis County Commissioners Court
January 2, 2007
Item 21
Number 21 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following. A is routine personally amendments, move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 21 b, non-routine personnel actions - fy '07 temporary slots 120-day extension , the open court part of this is what? Basically we need to do this because we have a lot of temporary employees.
>> yes, that's correct. That's to extend our current temporary employees through April of '07, which is 120 day extension that we are requesting. That extension will allow h.r. As well as p.b.o. The auditor's office and there's another office that I'm missing. P.b.o., h.r., the auditor's office and the county attorney's office, of course, to continue to look at our temporary employees in the context of house bill 630 -- 633. That -- that forced news the last legislative session to examine the whole temporary employee structure within our organization.
>> we -- we try to discourage prolonged use of temporary employees, but from time to time we find their continued employment here necessary so we try to work with them as much as possible.
>> that's correct.
>> what we try to do, is if they stay here after so many months, we ask shouldn't they be permanent employees. For some the answer is yes, for others the answer is no.
>> what we are doing is examining all of that. That's what the 120 day period will allow us to do. To come back to you within that period of time to give you a full report on the status of temp employees within Travis County. Some may continue to be temps, some may very well be determined to be more suitable for a longer term, part-time or full-time type f.t.e. Within the county.
>> aside from the military leave and the election slots, what's the major driver for temporary slots in the county?
>> usually departments with a need to backfill, increased workload or assignments where they need additional f.t.e.'s in hand to do a limited task. That's the primary driver.
>> which departments --
>> we have them in our counseling ranks, which would be under our counseling services, as well as with hhs. We have office assistant type positions throughout the county. Not many. Our county clerk's office really hold the majority number based on the election staff that's needed to implement of course elections.
>> but it's really throughout the county at varying numbers. Move approval? Discussion, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Davis temporarily off the dais. C is non-routine personnel actions, mental health public defender job description, including job title and pay grade. I just thought the court may want to discuss this briefly. This was a job description included in our proposal from the county, we modified that slightly. And made other changes, do you want to point those out.
>> just briefly. I will give you the highlighted information in the backup. H.r. Took the information presented to you within the proposal. As we do with all new f.t.e.'s, we did a full classification and analysis on what was being proposed in that proposal. We are recommending to you as a department, as a result of our analysis, the market external and internal review of this, these functions, that the -- that the title of this position be director of mental health public defender and that the pay grade would be a pay grade 26 rather than the 28 that was within your proposal. The -- the minimum would be 71,084.42 to a maximum of 113,735.02. The primary difference in terms of what we have concluded in comparison to what was presented is basically the size and the scope of the -- of the functions associated with the position. What we found was that the pay grade 28 level that -- that the functions as defined did not meet the scope that a pay grade 28 would have met. Primarily driven by the fact of the size of the budget, the number of f.t.e.'s, as well as the narrow scope in terms of the mental health focus specifically as opposed to a much broader scope that a pay grade 28 would have encompassed.
>> the salary stated in the proposal was how much?
>> it was at a pay grade 28 level.
>> the salary.
>> 92,000?
>> tweat 92.
>> I think it was 29.
>> we didn't want to mislead people. 92.
>> [multiple voices]
>> that's pretty important because the -- the other proposal really had the salary at about 20,000 less than with -- about the same amount of fringe benefits, but -- but that would give us flexibility really to match the salary to the qualifications of the selected person. Your recommendation is for a director rather than a chief, right?
>> that's correct.
>> what lofty title do you have out at --
>> I'm actually the juvenile public defender, my title is, but everyone calls me the chief. So --
>> okay. What we did -- in addition to releasing this to you, we did talk to staff about the functions how we have basically presented this to you, it's my understanding that they are in full agreement with the title, the pay grade as well as the full job descriptions we are proposing to you.
>> we approved the proposal, but I thought we ought to bring the job description back for -- for a good look. Questions?
>> I'm sorry, what was the difference between the Texas rio grande legal aid proposal as far as -- as far as salary? Was there a difference?
>> it was about 15 to $20,000. That's what I recall. Substantially more.
>> substantially more?
>> right.
>> and in my view, if you can -- if you don't pay 09 when you can say 70, but at the same time if you go out there for a $70,000 lawyer in this community, I think it -- you would be hard put to find somebody with 8 or nine or 10 years experience who really can be in charge of the office, get this initiative started in the right direction, obviously, though, good -- good thing about the range anywhere from the low to the top part of it. Just in the range there's what a $40,000 difference there. Legal aid's position was that lawyers who work for them for less salary than for a public entity which might be the case. The problem, though, in my view, in order for this to work, there are other city of Austin health -- health care district, Austin Travis County mhmr, sheriff's office, court system, et cetera. There's a five year commitment hear from us. With the annual increase for the county. After five years, if we want to contract it out that can be done, then we ought to know, though, how successful it's been. I think if -- we ought to get a person in that we really can hand the program to and expect that person to get the job done. And again I mean if you can pay 70 you do that, but if it takes 90 or so, we are budgeted to do that. On.
>> judge, if I might be able to give the court kind of an update on where we are with implementing this office. Kimberly pierce with criminal justice planning. In order for us to certify the funds, we first have to know where to place the funds, whether that needs to be criminal justice planning or underneath justice and public safety. We need to know that in order for human resources to be able to post the positions. So I am preparing an agenda request to have those discussions next week. I just wanted to let the court know that implementing the office is taking a little bit more time.
>> okay. As soon as we get it up and running the better, also.
>> okay.
>> we will have an agenda item next week with a recommendation.
>> yes, sir.
>> and reasons why.
>> yes, sir.
>> any more discussion of this one? Move approval.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> show me --
>> sorry.
>> sorry about that. Show Commissioner Gomez abstaining.
>> show me in support of 21 b.
>> thank you all very much. Show Commissioner Davis voting for 21 b when he was temporarily away.
>> 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:
Wednesday, January 210, 2007 8:14 AM