Travis County Commissioners Court
June 5, 2007
Item 10
>> human resources is here, let's go to number 10, 10 a, to consider and take appropriate action on recommendation to use fy '07 green circled compensation reserve balance to fund vacant slots affected by the fy '06 job analysis project that are below market competitive pay grade minimum numbers. B is to consider and take appropriate action on request to use the fy '07 green circled compensation reserve balance to fund underfilled slots affected by the fy '06 job analysis project to allow couple bents through 6-30-08 to meet requisite requirements for the new market competitive pay grade. C is to consider and take appropriate action regarding proposed technical definition of compression, criteria and guidelines to determine the compressed condition of certain positions, and d, to consider and take appropriate--appropriate action regarding request to fund a compression reserve to address compression issues.
>> good morning, linda smith director of human resources, to my left, , planning and budget. We appreciate the opportunity last week to present the details of the agenda item in work session. We provided you of course with our backup discussion, your having heard from dents that have affected by the motions before you today. In general we are presenting to you the final report, we consider the final report, on the green circle compensation reserve that you approved out of the if f fy '07 budget process. That particular reserve which we started implementing personnel actions against jan 1 of '07 for the total amount of $803 156. We reported to you last week that we have a balance in that reserve of some $229,85 $229,853, and the annualized balance would be $307,033. We have actually processed some 328 green circle slots against that reserve. To date we have some let's see, 29 slots that remain under filled, eight slots actually vaguants. The motions today are to have you consider our recommendation to put monies aside out of this green circle fund to address the remaining vacant slots. I don't know if you want to take it motion by motion, but the motion would be that we would have you consider funding the vacant slots out of the fy '07 compensation reserve and have that available to the departments to actually access when those positions become, when they are ready to actually make a hiring offer against that.
>> there are eight ?
>> there are eight slots. And the value of those eight slots is $26,870.
>> how much, linda ?
>> $26,870 for the vacant slots.
>> the eight.
>> yes, just for the record to remind us all that a green circle slot is one that is actually funded at this point below minimum of your new market approved pay grade.
>> I move approval of that.
>> second.
>> basically a vacant slot.
>> that was a mistake we corrected in work session. Transposed the numbers, judge.
>> reversed those numbers.
>> yes.
>> do you agree with that ?
>> sure. I would say that once the court approves this we will be working with r. This-- this--with hr, it's possible a position has been filled or numbers changed. When the court approvers we will work to do the budget transfer and see if the numbers need to be tweaked. They look basically correct.
>> nal favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the second motion has to do with the similar action that we are requesting that monies from this fund in the amount of $76,603, be allocated to the 29 slots that remain under filled. We're also requesting that the court consider a June 30 30th of '08 deadline for departments to work with the incumbents of these slots to meet whatever requirements are needed for that individual to perhaps immediate those requirements to become authorized in that slot.
>> that is for the 29 slots. It's 76,000 ?
>> 76,603.
>> I move approval.
>> Commissioner Gomez moved.
>> she did ?
>> second.
>> the rationale ?
>> has to do that as we did the audits on all of these slots, there were some 29 slots that dents indicated that in order--dents -- --departments indicated in order to move to the pay grade, skills develop the and educational requirements learning the new job to qualify for that approved pay grade. What we are suggesting is that in order to give departments and employees an opportunity to meet whatever those requirements are, we feel that a 12-month period of time, and supported by the dents, is an adequate amount of time for the individual to meet the requirements. If--
>> we hired these people knowing that they possess qualifications, those that the job required.
>> uh-huh. In some instances. Also, if you will remember, we actually analyzed the old titles. And as we moved to the new business needs of the department by establishing the new pay grade, a great great majority of the 500 or so slots actually met the requirements. 29 of those individuals and incumbents did not for whatever reason did not meet.
>> I'm having a hard time understanding why we would set aside a special fund for 29 people who are being paid at whatever level they are working at today. That is why they are called underfilled.
>> yes.
>> so the job posting, they didn't quite meet the requirement to even come in at the minimum. So we paid them what we thought they were worth, which was less than minimum. Why would we let other county policies come into play as they stay here to work, they would be entitled to whatever else we do for regular employees. I'm having a hard time think these employees have been treated in an unfair manner today.
>> have they trained up? Are they now fulfilling the necessary job description ?
>> they are in an appropriate job description with the skills and knowledge.
>> instead of putting them on reserve, we would be paying them.
>> yes.
>> we hope that they work their way up to the job description requirements.
>> right.
>> within the next year. I guess I'm saying, we are not dealing with unfairness. We really are giving them favorable treatment, for lack of a better--
>> the department--
>> were these particular employees, when we did the green circle, we dealt with the green circle reserve last budget cycle, of course we dressed many green circle needs. And we did that. As far as showing up to make sure we adequately funded them. My question, is this still a part of that process of using green circle reserve to still show up those particular persons that have been identified as green circle, is this still part of that process ?
>> yes, I would say that this is a part of that process.
>> that is why I have no problem witness--with it of because if we had started out the gate with the same money, the same money we appropriated in the budget process, to identify those green circle employees and fund up and take care of them. Now, even though they have come in at this late date, they are still a part of that process since we opened up the gate to do that. So that is my concern, are they part of that earlier initiative to deal with that process. In this particular physical yearyear fiscal--fiscal year budget.
>> they are a part of that allocation that you are talking about.
>> okay.
>> are they eligible for green circle compensation today?
>> I can provide some in insight on this.
>> we will let you do that. From the hrnd perspective are they eligible ?
>> they would not be because they are in an underfilled slot.
>> one other question. When they are hired in an underfilled status, was there money in the department's budget to at least bring them to minimum?
>> no.
>> we know that. When you post a position, you have at least the money to meet the minimum.
>> uh-huh.
>> the argument at the work session was, we should fund to meet it.
>> uh-huh.
>> which would have made it. I guess that is the problem I'm having. If you post a job, my an understanding is at least you have enough funding to hire in at the minimum level level. Otherwise the job is not posted. If you don't have that much, you really ought to come to the Commissioners court and get budget augmentation before before before you post the job. I don't think anybody posts with the--the intention to underfill. At least the minimum. Our point is folks have been overqualified and dents have not had the budget--dents dents departments have not had the budget to pay them.
>> I can give you two scenarios that address this from the clerb's office. Most of the positions in our office that are underfilled were people who were hired before the study was done. They were hired at a lower pay grade for lower classification. When the study was done it was found that the duties that he's people were performing were far above the classification into which they were hired. So you had the adjustment and the change of classification, say from an office assistant to a court clerk one, that was going from pay range 5 up to pay range 13. When they were hired at the lower level, they did not have the skill set or in many cacecases the experience to qualify for the range 13 reclass. In some instances they are only looking about a year of work experience in the office to fulfill the qualifications for the 13. So they got underfilled at a job classification that met their credentials at the time this was done. In the year that linda is talking about, many of these people will have remedied that experience deficit and will now qualify. But it wasn't like we hired people that were underfill. This is a legacy from prior to the market salary survey. The second scenario that we would be faced with with this is that, say, an under underfilled position becomes vacant and we need to post at the classification that is assigned to that slot. Without these funds that we are talking about to address the underfill, there would be no money to compensate them at the full pay for the classification that we have been trying to fill.
>> I can understand the second point. I cannot cannot understand the first one. On the first one, if the we were to analyze these employees today, they would not in fact meet the minimum requirements. We hope they will within a year.
>> yes.
>> I guess that is what I am saying. I can understand why you may want to put money in reserve until that particular employee leaves and post the position, we at least want money there to bring the newly hired provide provide provide--employee to the minimum.
>> yes.
>> let's say there is an underfilled person whom we hope will a--attain the qualifications necessary to meet the minimum. Does the department have other ways to adequately compensation the employee when that day arrives ?
>> probably not. Because the amount of money that would be required for that slot, or and above what is the funded amount is, is in excess of what the department has available. Because the funding never came over for the new classification.
>> and just an example, out of the--19 slots--29 slots, 13 are in the district clerk.
>> how many ?
>> 13 of the 29. It would be difficult for them to come unwith that much.
>> it would be really im impossible to fund those positions. Another thing too, prior to the reclassifications that occurred where the judge was talking about someone who had been here say 20 years and retired, you have the differential between the beginning pay and the pay that person had at retirement to use to perhaps take over the need for a budget request to fill new hires and everything at the new pay scale. But when the re reclassifications were done, say that I'm going to just use my hands, you had this much of a difference originally, they got re reclassified and were already above the minimum pay for the new classification. That minimum got raised to here. So now when you have a retirement, the amount of money that would be available in the differential to allocate towards other employees was reduced because of the way the minimum came up. So somebody who may have been at midpoint prior to the reclassification, we do the reclassification, and they are now sitting at step three of their pay range instead of midpoint.
>> what you are saying is really the money is not readily available as it was because of the--
>> right.
>> because the movement of the employees that would have been impacted otherwise by the person retiring.
>> your an understanding is exactly on point. The differential in money that used to be there when you move that minimum up was no longer there.
>> right.
>> there was a little bit but not as much.
>> why is it that the employee with 20 years of service is not the same as--
>> that is the compression issue I think that we talked about. When the green circle just am was--add just am am-- am--adjustment was done, if the present pay was at or above the minimum, nothing was done to fund movement up up. They stayed the same and did not experience any pay raise at all and the department never received any additional funding. The only positions that were funded for green circle were those when the re reclassification was done, their pay fell below the minimum for the new classification. And enough money was transferred to bring them up to minimum. But we have some people who are $200 above the minimum pay for their new classification and that is where they stayed. No additional money came in to move them up--
>> .
>> .
>> except the cola.
>> that is correct.
>> the motion is to put the money in reserve. If the employee in the under underfilled slot achieves minimum qualification in the next 12 months.
>> yes, or if we have a vacancy and need to hire, the money would be there to fund that.
>> what is differ, I may add add--
>> I am sold.
>> okay.
>> all in favor.
>> thank you.
>> (laughter.)
>> we need those three votes.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> wonderful. Thank you for that.
>> judge, just a clar case, did you want that funding directly in the department or did I hear you say you wanted that remaining in reserve ?
>> in reserve.
>> okay.
>> reserve.
>> and we agree that is the appropriate place to put that.
>> okay.
>> and motion c has to do with approving the definition, the technical definition for compression criteria and guidelines so that dents would have that available as they-- they--departments would have that available as they begin to identify positions that are compresses. Lou and, would you take that motion, please.
>> did we get pushback from departments on that ?
>> not at all.
>> any issues ?
>> not at all.
>> move.
>> seconddiscussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and d.
>> move that we delay action on d until the appropriate time in the future.
>> second.
>> I think we have to address the compression issue as a matter of policy.
>> yes.
>> the amount left will just cover a little bit of the compression issue.
>> yes that is correct.
>> we have like 126,000 left right.
>> yes.
>> that is part of the request here but just a small fraction of what we need the look at as far as that compression issue. The department is trying to find ways to solve that compression issue within their department. I think it's some pretty good suggestions being laid out here and I think some dents need to take a fine- fine-tune look at some of this stuff. I think we need to see exactly what we need to do.
>> I think it's in the policy.
>> all right.
>> any objection to postpone action on d ?
>> no.
>> very good. Yes, thank you. Thank you.
>> thank you, linda
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, June 6, 2007, 8:00 AM