Travis County Commissioners Court
December 11, 2007
Item 25
25, a, amendment to Travis County county code section 10.0295, peace officer pay scale executive December 1, 2007, and b, recommendation to conduct market salary survey for all certified peace officers not on Travis County sheriff's office peace officer pay scale. We need clarification of b. But on a, ms. Smith.
>> yes, judge, members of the court, lindsey smith, director of human resources. This particular item is an item that we're bringing back to you, which is to consider the amendment to Travis County cote10.0295, peace officer pay scale effective 12-1-2007. What you have under this particular item are amend mentsthat have been made to the actual policy to bring consistency between the budget decisions that were made for fy '08 and to put into policy language a course to implement and to cover those changes that were made. Joining me is paul kitchen who worked with the departments to receive their input for the amendment that we're bringing before you. I will mention that we did have feed back on the policy from the Travis County sheriff's office, constables 1, 3, 4 and 5, transportation and natural resources, the Travis County sheriff's law enforcement association, the Travis County sheriff's officer's association, as well as the district attorney's office that is not noted in the backup but indeed we received feed back from them. To briefly highlight for you, the department offered what we considered are two significant changes to the policy. You will see in page 2 of your backup, the very first item is one where both the tcso and nontcso officers that are on the peace officer pay scale propose that the department's elected officials have the flexibility to hire above step one for both of the offices, as I mentioned, on the pay scale, which would be defined by the experience and the license of the individuals that they are hiring. As noted there, a person who comes in with five to nine years of relevant experience with an intermediate tcso license would possibly be placed at a step three. Those coming in with ten plus years of relevant experience with an advanced license could possibly be placed at step five. I have put emphasis on possibly because each of the departments were very clear in saying that the flexibility, the way that they are defining flexibility is that they have the option, although a person may have that level of experience, that they have the option to either start them where the policy says that they can, which is the max that they could bring them in, or they also have the flexibility to have them come in at step one. And much of that could be dependent on budgetary considerations, the relevance of that law enforcement experience that the person is bringing into the organization. But basically giving the departments flexibility to determine if they would put them on a step three or five in spite of the experiences they may hav.
>> that decision would be ultimately made by the decision makers, those of the particular departments, even though it's actually embedded and coded into the sale, the pop scale itself as far as meeting the particular criteria that you just mentioned step three and slow the step five. It's discretionary but it's according to what the final decision is of that particular decision maker of that department.
>> you're absolutely correct. If I can put it another way, that if a person, a new hire, would come to Travis County and they would have five, between five and nine years of experience, based on the policy, it says that that person could be placed at a step three. But as an electioned official, I might say that paul does not have the relevant experience, although that he may have the license that's noted on the policy, or I may have budgetary considerations, or I may have an internal equity kind of issue. I might choose as an elected official through the flexibility clause here to bring paul in at a step one. And the same thing would apply to the ten-plus years of experience and the placement on five that is there. It's not unlike the flexibility that you offered managers under the classified pay scale, you know, where you have the range where you can take them up to ten percent above and they basically determine based on years of experience and different certifications where they want to place them. So this particular area is one that is new to the policy. It's been agreed upon by the departments that are affected, with special emphasis, again, on the discretion that they have to bring them in forth reasons that I stated. The second major change to the policy has been one that would allow both the non-tcso as well as the tcso peace offices to move between the pair use departments. You might remember that there was some piece of the policy in place originally that indicated that a person who had worked in a particular, let's say a constable's office, could not move into the Travis County sheriff's office at the level that they might have been in the constable's office, as an example. Both and off of those on the scale agreed that given the amendment that is proposed under one, that they would want to consider that experience again that one would have obtained from one of the other offices and the relevance of that experience in coming to the organization. So one and two are really kind of related but they are highlighted separately here because in the policy it actually lays it out in a separate kind of way. So the two as it's cited really pulls out that restriction that had been in place in the past.
>> so we're going for flexibility. We're not mandating either. We're just saying you can consider these factors and if you want to bring them in at this level, you have that discretion.
>> they have the discretionment and it affords a greater opportunity for individuals on the pop scale to move within different elected official offices and take their experience with them as well as the opportunity to really sometimes upward mobility and other things associated with that.
>> in other words, an example would be, let's say that you worked for whatever department that has law enforcement on pop scale, let me put it like that. And you move from one department on pop scale to another department that has the same pop scale. You don't actually, the time and grade will not be lost, or the time, I guess, will maybe not be lost am I don't know about the grade. But the time won't be lost basically because of the fact that you won't have to start all over again when you move from one particular department to another department within the pop scale arena. Is that basically--
>> it would depend on the position that they are going into. And based on the revision that I mentioned at first, it would be determined by the elected official.
>> portable stuff moving from one to another department. In other words, the experience and all those other things that you mentioned won't be lost.
>> uh-huh.
>> it would certainly be consideredit would be on the table for you to look at.
>> real world example, someone who is a sheriff's deputy who is now mtheir 50s and would like to move sideways over to the constable's office. And by moving sideways they would not move their years of service. They plobal wouldn't be able to move sideways to equivalent ranks because they are different but they would be able to move sideways without losing senior ty and their opportunity to let that team have a bearing on their positionthat is.
>> that is correctanother polic.
>> another policy in place requires the department to respect the amount budgeted. If you don't have the money to pay for it, hiring a deputy at the higher level because of experience, then either you come get a budget transfer or basically have you to operate with the money that you have.
>> and that is really an an understanding that the departments would have, that they would sometimes make the decision for a lower step based on budgetary constraints.
>> that policy is in place already. Move approval of a with the two changes described today. Discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Now b.
>> under b, we are asking that you, as the item is posted, but the language would actually change a bit.
>> I changed the language to try to make it clearer. I may not have done that. What is not clear here is that certain non-tcso peace officers really are intended to be excluded from the market salary survey.
>> that is correct, judge. I think the way the language is posted, it includes and makes reference to all certified peace officers. We do have some certified peace officer titles that are not on the pop scale. It's really kind of a technicality, about you just for clarification purposes, the positions that we're looking at and proposing for '08 study are all peace officer job titles that had are non-tcso that are affected by the pop scale. And that would include constables with the exception of two, park rangers out of ten are the investigators out of both the da and the county attorney's office. Did I miss? Da, the county attorney and park rangers out of tnr. And constables with the exception of two.
>> all right. Those would be included in the survey.
>> exactly. Those that would be excluded based on the way that the agenda item is posted, which was sort of inclusive of all certified peace officers not specifying specific to the pop scale, would be chief investigators, captain of corrections, captain of law enforcement, those in the major titles, the chief deputy sheriff the fire marshal assistance department two , assistant department three, fire marshal assistant and fire marshal. Now, why would need titles be excluded? The reason is that these titles are actually under our public safety and emergency management job family, and they were already studied in '07. Okay. That, the posting kind of took us in a direction of a need to clarify and exclude those titles that I just mentioned.
>> now, when was that survey actually take place for these that we have included? The exclusion, of coffers, was base--course, was based on the fact it had already been done. The next survey, when will that be done for these included on the pop scale as far as survey is concerned?
>> Commissioner, that is how we will work for '08. Actually we are in progress with that now.
>> okay.
>> just as we bring in, you know rank and file recommendations for the budget process, our recommendations related to those included will come in around that same time.
>> the same time, okay.
>> April, may time frame.
>> thank you.
>> yes.
>> the e-mail that you sent to me did not go to the court. Just went to me.
>> yes, excluding those titles that I mentioned, yes.
>> right. I will copy it and share with the court. I just saw it myself this morning. I asked that it be sent yesterday. I was not thinking of these. This fire marshal would need to be a certified peace officer and the assistant deputy, the assistant deputy two and three, I hadn't thought of them. Okay. I guess they really have no reason to think they would be included in a survey this year anyway.
>> really not. Really not. But this clar --clarification helps us as a department. I have to explain that later? Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? Who do we refer callers to after they see this vote?
>> human resources. Lynn, paul. Lynn and paul.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and the order will be coming, judge, for that policy change.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all.
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, December 12, 2007, 18:30 AM