Travis County Commissioners Court
March 13, 2007
Item 10
Due to technical difficulties some caption files may be incomplete.
...Is to consider and take appropriate action on the following, create an employee category called project worker, defined as an employee hired for any position that is not an authorized regular position without limitation as to duration of employment who is required to participate in the Texas and county district retirement system, but is not eligible for employee benefits. Should we deal with a first?
>> yes.
>> and in layman's language, this is intended to cover what kind of temporary employee?
>> intended to cover the person who works more than six months and will also have -- be required to have retirement deducted to participate in the retirement program.
>> so you work more than six months, then we convert you to a kind of employee who basically has to pay into the retirement --
>> that's right.
>> plan. The county has to make its regular contribution?
>> that's correct.
>>
>> [inaudible] project
>> yes.
>> second.
>> if the court were to approve this, when would it become effective? Would we be asked to set an effective date?
>> it would be effective April 1 of '07.
>> what opportunity would the department heads have to understand and grapple with it?
>> we have been working with the department and those that came before you, ces, hhs and tnr, on last week. We've had individual meetings with them, and what the departments have really done is an analysis of their temporary work force, and just through our meetings with them and working through how these temp employees should be designated, they're managing this process to make these moves by -- so we have gotten confirmations from them that they're fine with the move we're making. It does represent a change but with the discussions that we've had, they're fine to move with designating work for this project
>> [inaudible] to leave them in the temp category.
>> and where did you and the department land on the department's ability to pick up the fiscal impact of this decision this year?
>> our other team members -- oh, there is pbl, jessica.
>> this year's budget didn't come up in most of the meetings that I attended -- I think we attended some hhs, tnr
>> [inaudible] there's obvious obviously a recommendation from pbo that these be internally funded and I think in all the cases for this fiscal year I think that is a definite and all the analysts have looked at the budgets and it can definitely happen this year. As far as fy 08, there might be some departments that would request it through the budget process. Obviously our first recommendation is it be internally funded and we think that that's very highly possible.
>> so this issue is basically left pending? It will affect different departments in different way. We believe that it can more easily absorb this hit in '07 than '08, but we won't know for sure until the budget process unfolds.
>> I think what the departments need to do right now is evaluate how many are going to be considered project workers and how many will be considered temp workers and that's the first step. Given the data that's the snapshot that was taken that showed the 220 employees, pbo feels very confident that that could be internally absorbed. If that number changes I think the departments might make a case in some instances, but I think for the most part this is a very -- over -- county wide over all it's a very minor more.
>> that's correct.
>> that's the distinction --
>> six months or less you remain a temporary employee.
>> that's correct, month retirement participation nor benefits.
>> so the day you go over six months you trigger this provision?
>> that's correct, and we have been working very well with not only the cvl but the auditor's office in terms of setting up the internal mechanism to track and monitor how the employees who are in this category, and we're working now to create not only an audit mated processing of all of these but also an automatic way that we would be reporting out to departments that have some track, thetuff l. So
>> [inaudible] might be on the brink of -- right on the border of a person being there beyond six months, we'll be alerted and say, well, we really don't want to fall into the realm of having to change disposition for this employee because of the fact that we really don't want to go beyond the six-month period. So it would be automated to blinking light? I mean, some --
>> [laughter]
>> you know, something that screams out on the computer, you know, don't take two steps --
>> we have
>> [inaudible].
>> whatever way you do it, alert the department here that you're in jeopardy -- you are in jeopardy to the point whereby you may get yourself in the position of six months criterion that anything beyond that it will trigger a certain mechanism here. And so I guess my point is, what -- what is the foolproofness of this actually taking place? We've got a lot of employees, we have a lot of different departments. What is the foolproof criterion to make sure that a safeguard will be in place to make sure there's nothing that slips through the cracks that will go beyond the six-month period.
>> the hge system of course, our financial system, runs payroll.
>> all right.
>> and pretty much that system catches everything, that system, queries will be written to extract reports that, of course, we would have to process the -- you know, the production of that type report. And we generate reports in the work force all of the time to give us certain data that we're required to track and of course monitor. So with the auditor's office and working with charles bond, we plan to run reports like that and to get that information out to the departments, coming straight out of your financial system. So the likelihood of missing anybody would be very slim.
>> all right. What's the purpose of the commission --
>> [inaudible] the purpose of the $200,000 offset? I mean, is there instances where -- what's the purpose of the $200,000?
>> well, the $200,000 is the 7% that the county contributes to the retirement, and that's the cost that the departments will internally bear. Did that answer your question?
>> yeah, that's just about as direct as you can get it. But they have to bear the county's 7% plus the other part that the employee --
>> the employee would also have their portion, that's correct.
>> -- I apologize.
>> so 10.7 is the total for the employee and county?
>> no.
>> what's the total? In 710% so when you add --
>> 17.7% is the $220,000 --
>> the that's the contribution that the counties will fund.
>> and the 7% that the employees are funding is already in the budget as part of their salary because it's a deduction from their salary, so you don't have to add any mo that.
>> compensating --
>> but for employees the good news is that the county would make the contribution even if the department picks it up. Bad news for employees is you don't have a choice about this. The employee part comes out of your check. Your option is not to keep working for Travis County because if you keep working for us and this provision covers you, it will be deducted from your paycheck, basically.
>> but you would be able to withdraw
>> [inaudible].
>> that's correct.
>> and that is important.
>> yes.
>> for everybody who does this, inaudible] if you are here you . Through December, every December they credit your account 7%. Ne.
>> but you can withdraw if you it's just like having an ira that you would withdraw, but of course if you're 59 1/2 you don't have a is the penalty situation.
>> when th
>> it is my understanding that when you go to the retirement system and ask them to withdraw, they advise you that this will happen.
>> clarify, no penalty on a roll-over because when you take it from the retirement account you put it in an ira, it's called a rollover. If you pull the cash, yes, there out.penalty of 10% and you pay
>> if you do it before the vesting, before thate year and you don't get it --
>> actually the interest is a really different approach to interest. I started work in February. I worked until December. In December they looked at it and said, how much money did you have in your account last December? And on the amount that I had in my account last December, nothing, I got 7%. Next year at the end of the year the money that I put in from February to December of this year, that will be what my balance was as of December. They'll give me 7 persist on that, so it's kind of like a delayed payroll on the interest kind of a thing.
>> are you asking about the interest or are you asking about the contribution from the county?
>> the interest.
>> okay. The interest, yes, you do receive that.
>> and if you take your money out before you're eligible to retire, whether you're vested or not, you do not get the county contribution. You only get the county contribution added to what you've put in there if you're eligible to retire and take a retirement ann bu the second year.
>> unless when you leave the county --
>> okay. If it's required by law, we're duty bound to put together a real simple laymen's language summary of impact, where the average employee can understand.
>> I agree, judge.
>> because they have a hard time as we are if they have as hard a time as we are they'll be fairly 220 employees currently designated as temporary workers to project workers. This looks the same as a.
>> well, it's not the same.
>> keep reading there.
>> as defined above. Who are required to participate in the Texas Texas and county district retirement system, effective April 1, 2007. And the difference between a and b is.
>> you created that category in a, and b, you're authorizing us to move the people who fall into that category, which is more than six months with retirement information into that new category that you
>> two quick questions.
>> one is do elected officials have the authority to make the call on this for their
>> they have the --
>> there may be a legal question.
>> is there a simple legal answer?
>> there are ways that an elected official can have the impact of making the call on it, but it depends on how they manage their staff. They don't have the authority to say I want this person to be a temporary even though they've been working here for three years and gotten a paycheck every pay period for three years. They can't go that far. But there are ways that they can manage their staff that will allow them not to have to put people into projects positions.
>> another quick question. April 1, 2007.
>> yes.
>> is that date required by law? Or is that date of the county's chooght? County's choosing.
>> that's really of the county's choosing.
>> why wouldn't we move that, may 1, to give the elected officials and appointed officials an opportunity to see this memo and the legal requirements that our lawyers say we're duty-bound to follow rather than -- rather than two weeks, basically they get a month and two weeks?
>> I’ll yield to the attorney to respond to that.
>> is there a simple reason why we can't do that?
>> I’d rather take that
>> [inaudible].
>> I can wait.
>> misdebra jones? Comments?
>> good morning, yes, please. I’m worried. I’m certainly willing to follow the law and we're going to have to do that. I am worried about how we're going to handle election workers. Elec category --
>> that's c?
>> it is -- I’m sorry.
>> the question is moving them into the category, which is why --
>> you have your own item, which we'll get into. Stay right there.
>> now, I suggest answer, becaue if we can, my suggestion would be to give those who are receiving this requirement, recommendation, for the first time, an opportunity to sort of adjust to it and do their own research, and when you have as many lawyers in Travis County and I do, I can guarantee you many of them will go and pick up the law book or bill or whatever it is and try to see if they have the same interpretation as we. So we're delaying action on makt there? We recognize that there are some departments who employ the services of interns, and that's a category that we are proposing be considered, that we would have the option as yet, the category, that we will probably need to post-and bring back to you, to allow interns to be placed in departments that would fall under the temp category of no benefits, no participation in the retirement system. We have a large number within the -- among the attorney the six-month limit. That's why
>> [inaudible].
>> okay.
>> I see. Okay.
>> let's do it next week. We may as well get it while we're on a identified as temps up to six months, temps up to 900 hours in 12 months, and election day workers into one category of temporary employees whose employment status will not exceed six months. And there is an explanation for that will not exceed six months, which we can hear in open court give in open court, and it is --
>> with election workers my factual understanding -- my understanding is that you hire them for an election. The period of time that they are hired for is less than six months. You may have to hire -- let me finish. You may have to hire them again for another election in less than six months, but they don't work continuously from the time they're hired until -- if it's a rehire for the section election, they aren't assured a job the next time an election comes along. If you had too many people, some of them might not get a job. If they don't want to work then, it's their choice, but it's like each election represents a separate assignment, a separate hiring. They quote, terminate after that election. And then they're rehired for the next election. And if each of those election periods is less than six months, each time they're rehired is for a period of less than six months, then they remain temporary.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners. ] . . .
>> they tend to be people just starting out in careers but have a lot of good knowledge. What they do for elections is come and work several weeks at a time. My concern is when you get to point where like last year when we did five elections in six months, you know, each one may be a separate event but the actual work of preparing the election completely overlaps. We are already preparing for election 3 while we are in the midst of conducting election two two. I don't know how hire and fire, where the cut off would be. It's going to hurt the idea that these young people are, who want to work for Travis County and keep returning for every election cycle, are going to go and find jobs elsewhere, ones that won't cut their pay, and my an understanding is if you are younger than 65 and have this retirement taken from your account, while you may be able to get it back sort of, in some way, you are going to pay capital gains tax on that money. Ultimately what we have done is taken our best and brightest and made it very difficult for them to work in elections. I’m very worried about how we are going to deal with the reality of the staffing of these positions and how we going to get continuity as well as how to meet the test as well. I don't know for sure that a particular person is going to return from one to the next election, but I have done my best to try to build a cadre of folks with experience that I can pull on from time to time to time.
>> what about making a later date.
>> I am asking for help trying to figure in out. I understand what the law is saying. I don't want to lose these people we have cultivat six month borderline it falls into a different category. My question is how many employees have gone continuously beyond six months ?
>> judge, I don't have a number for you but we are working on that to get you an exact number. I can tell that you the ballpark is between 100 and 200 people. Early voting workers, troubleshooters, all the people doing recruitinglve it's a lot of people. If we have to sign them off and do another, you know, paperwork to get them reenrolled, maybe that's what we have to do. That work falls on us too.
>> may I ?
>> yes.
>> we have certainly been sensitive to your recruiting and retention needs.
>> absolutely, thank you.
>> and also with that, and the way that we are defining the the temp worker, not to terminate them and let them go, we are processing them and the election as a separate event that really does allow them to continue working with you beyond a physical six-month period. They are just considered based on each election, a different event. At the point that each election takes place, that's really the beginning of an extension of another six-month period. So we are not, it's how we are handling the paperwork part to it that's really accommodating, we believe, what you are expressing as an issue.
>> all right.
>> the other thing is that in what we ran in the report as of 1-31-07, we are showing that there are 16 persons currently working over the six-month period.
>> sixteen ?
>> sixteen.
>> okay. It would be good, the reason why I ask the question, what I’m trying to look at, I guess that's what judge and everybody else, the impact of what we are doing here, once the departments have a chance to exhaust, you guys have exhausted all of your criteria that you bring forth to us , and then actually examine the employee status and what situation these employees an in each department, there has to be .
>> I didn't see that. Hold on. Hold on. I didn't see that. But my concern, though, is that dana said something different than what we are talking about here. Somewhere along the line something ain't matching even though there is something in the backup that may suggest what the number actually are , I’m hearing something different.
>> our numbers are very empirical.
>> I’m not arguing.
>> I am not debatinglve it's out of the ht the e system and out of the system, p b o actually ran it, and there were codes put in. They give us as of 1-31 the number of temp employees whose relationship has exceeded six months.
>> okay.
>> that's where we are getting the 16 people from. Now, what's happening, if I may, out of the with your bucket now. It's become overloaded and we have now created a law that says you have to distinguish between the temps. That distinction, very simply, is those who have worked up to six months fall into the category that we talked about. Those that have worked over now require, based on the law, that retirement be extracted. So basically, all we are dealing with is on one hand, more than six months. On the other hand, less than six months. Then of course, the category we're speaking of that would allow us an opportunity to consider an intern category to accommodate interns who very right come into Travis County we benefit from their service and they been from it from us in terms of careers. Departments, you heard from them last week, have been equally challengesed to say what do we do in making the distinction between people in our bucket. The departments that we quite frankly thought were going to be a greater challenge for us, acknowledged as we met over the week, oh, this is a simple way of us just looking at each one and managing how it is that we work with them based on our business need, on an operational basis. I really thought, as we went into the meetings with tnr, hss and c e s, that we would have more issues with them, but it was amazing, even for us, that when we walked away, and I use their names because they said we are fine with this it rents change for us, and o w do.
>> okay, barbara, dana, at.
>> this item has to come up this afternoon in executive session. Get as much done this morning as you can if you can't resolve it today, then we will just take another week.
>> yeah.
>> if we have it, the issues done by th it may well be that some of these election related workers fall into the six-months plus category, whereas others do not. It may be just a matter of identifying them and appropriate appropriately categorizing them and moving on from there.
>> all right.
>> there may be other legal issues.
>> yeah.
>> and this can get complicated when you start applying to individuals. Rather than deal with that here, it may be better, because we are down to the county clerk, right ?
>> that's right.
>> who has the overwhelming majority of temporary workers, looks like.
>> biggest investment in item . That.. We'll call it up this afternoon. Whatever legal issues come up, we can discuss those in executive session take. Between now and then,
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, March 14, 2007 8:00 AM