Travis County Commissioners Court
September 2, 2008
Item 2B
Let's go to 2B. 2. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: we put a on consent, the routine personnel items. B is non-routine personnel action requests. 1. Facilities management building security guard, slot 64, fy '08 salary adjustment increase added to base that exceeds pay grade maximum; 2. Records management and communication resources mailroom services assistant sr., slot 22, salary adjustment that exceeds 10% above midpoint; and 3. Records management and communication resources mailroom services assistant, slot 23, salary adjustment increase added to base that exceeds pay grade maximum.
>> good morning. Lieu anne shull, compensation management. Personnel requests two non-routine actions for approval. One is for the facilities management, they are using their fy '08 pbp salary adjustment money and they are requesting approval for one slot to -- to receive the -- the moneys to be added to their base. Versus receiving the increase in adding it as a lump sum adjustment. So similar to other adjustments that you have approved recently, it's adding the money to -- to their base salary so the employee would be and is currently red lined. But the moneys would extend them even further in being red lined. But the -- but the moneys would be added to their base pay versus awarding the money as a lump sum. That's the request for that one slot in facilities. Any questions?
>> is this particular slot the job title for when the increase was apply ed?
>> this was another title. They did not receive the $2. This is another this is another group of job titles that the facility has requested -- exactly.
>> does this job title as an average across the job title, does it show it being below market?
>> that -- that -- let me -- let me see -- validate that.
>> of course this particular slot is red lined, but --
>> yes, yes. There's other slots that facilities is awarding through their fy '08 pbp salary adjustment monies, so it's not just this one slot, but they are awarding 16 other slots the similar $2 increase. It's just this slot that is currently red lined and that is requesting your approval to add the moneys to the base versus receiving the moneys --
>> and we have -- the department has in the past used that money to correct issues in their department, so this will follow that.
>> correct.
>> annualized impact?
>> on this it's about -- about -- 36,000? 34 from its.
>> the annualized impact --
>> for the 17 slots.
>> for the 17 slots roger can speak to this more in detail. But he's provided me --
>> we have to get that number for you. Either way it is covered within our budget. We are not asking for additional --
>> we are only looking at three, right, not 17?
>> that's correct. Because the court, if you remember at the work session, I brought up an issue about compression. It was more -- not departmental compression, but since you had provided the $2 an hour increase to many others, you heard from the mail clerks, there were others security guards, movers and the judge said alicia, go away. If you can fix it within your budget do that. And don't come back to us unless you are asking for money. This is not asking for money. This is the policy issue. For one year the rest of fy '08 to remove the red line. Just like you did with all of the t.n.r. Facilities management and juvie court and
>> [indiscernible] folks before for $2 an hour, it was not an issue of market, it was an issue of compression. That the people who were provided $2 an hour, comparable jobs were not because the security guard perhaps -- I don't have the numbers here --
>> this comes to an issue of what was comparable. Was it comparable because all of those job titles their average salary was more than 20% below market and that they had a turnover rate that was --
>> the ones that you provided the $2 an hour, they were not all 20% below market. Remember we had this discussion?
>> right. We keep having the discussion because of course that was the impression that at least that I was left with that that was how they are comparable. You are saying they were comparable in terms of what? Salary?
>> they were comparable in terms of salary and skills and even some of these electricians, plumbers, skilled position compared to the road maintenance. You have to go through an apprenticeship program to be an electrician, carpenter or plumber, you don't for road maintenance.
>> my issue with it is that it feels very ad hoc. My concern is that that where do we cut off the tail here because I would suspect that after we do this one, next week another division will find someone else who is at red line but there's a compression issue and they may be market surveyed next year, but this sets a precedent for -- is that which had already been set I would contend.
>> that's what we talked about at the work session. We knew exactly what was going to happen. It happened last year in t.n.r. Get over there, get your money in. I mean the compression was created when the two an hour -- $2 an hour happen. We thought it was going to be this number. All of a sudden we have a much larger number than that. People -- I can remember people
>> [multiple voices] --
>> [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> if you have it within your budget, you use it. But if you don't --
>> so do you have it within your budget?
>> yes, sir, sure do.
>> you are talking about two or three weeks, aren't you? Two or three weeks of compensation, you are not talking about '09.
>> no, we moved enough money to where it is covered in '09, also.
>> you did that without violating budget policies?
>> yes, sir.
>> and the only reason this thing is on here today --
>> we're very capable, judge.
>> apparently.
>> [multiple voices] --
>> [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> then also the pbp is still in departmental, it's available for departments to use this. To fix issues that come up like this. I remember us saying that to departments before.
>> but this is not a request to fix it with performance based pay. This is to add it not as a lump sum but carry it --
>> [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> [multiple voices]
>> remember, pbp is added to base. You provided 2% across the board to each department. To -- to add it to base. Like the judge did a lump sum, I'm sorry the sheriff did a lump sum with his. We're actually adding it to base. We were able to do that, the way we did it, we borrowed about $34,000 from its for facilities, but that goes over permanently. And we -- we --
>> this is consistent with what we did before you
>> [indiscernible] hrmd?
>> yes, sir.
>> you would say that even if alicia weren't sitting to your right?
>> yes. It is consistent.
>> it's consistent in that we are essentially adding this job title to the one -- to the ones that were -- that we had previously treated. Is that what the -- what the circumstances of -- is that how it's consistent? This is where my beast comes in. We keep saying comparable and consistent, yet I am this -- apparently misunderstanding the criteria for comparableness and consistency. So how is this consistent? In that we lifted the red line policy for the individuals who received the $2 across the board; is that how it's consistent?
>> yes.
>> but it's not consistent in that this is not a $2 increase.
>> it is.
>> it is.
>> we are essentially adding this particular job title to the list of job titles that got the $2 increase, is that what you are saying?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> you are?
>> yes.
>> okay. Now, do we see turnover in this job title?
>> yes.
>> not much.
>> well, but there's an issue of compression, though.
>> I know there's an issue of compression, but -- but that is supposed to be -- that's supposed to be a -- a criteria for handling these market adjustments outside of the market salary survey schedule. Let me give you the data. Let me state this is not the reason these were brought to you, but let me provide the data that you were asking because we did look at -- at that in doing our analysis. On will building security guards, average turnover for '06, '07, '08 is 27%. Their variance for market is a negative of 13.58%. Just shy of I think it was 25 was it? 25%. They are at 13.58, their turnover is at 20 and our average is -- is 11. So yeah. So it's higher.
>> in security guards.
>> but we are looking also at mail room, correct?
>> uh-huh, yes.
>> mail room is where there was a bunch. We've had people here 130 years.
>> I'm sure there's not the turnover. I don't know about the comparable pay. Did you look at that? I'm looking at five slots here, you say 17 will be impacted?
>> yes. Because that doesn't -- the 17 only three -- because it's a policy issue, not a money issue. You said don't come back to us. -- okay I'm not asking for money.
>> for money.
>> it's a policy issue.
>> you are quoting me in a different context. That was six months ago I think
>> [laughter]
>> no, it was less than that, I'll get you a date, sir and the tape, too.
>> get my vote and forget the rest of that.
>> [laughter]
>> but so we didn't, we didn't -- we're not asking for money. It is a -- it is a policy issue because unless you move the red line the folks won't get anything. So the $2 an hour they won't be able to -- these are 28 and -- both of these individuals have over 20 years with the county.
>> both means two. But we're talking about 17 people being impacted. Okay, the fiscal impact is about $36,000 are you saying?
>> 34,000.
>> 34,000.
>> but that's in -- that's in your '09 budget already.
>> yes. Yes.
>> and p.b.o. Agrees?
>>
>> [indiscernible] just yes or no.
>> yes.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners -- all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> although I have to say I am voting in favor of it, but this is just a serious case of policy creep, we are creeping all over the landscape in regards to our compensation policy.
>> sarah, that's one of the reasons why whenever we do the things like we did in the last 90 days, and not realizing I mean what impact that -- that is going to have, this is exactly what happens. To us.
>> I don't want to punish the employees who are experiencing compression because we have -- we have -- because we have policy creep.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> there is a good thing that all of these positions will be looked at next year, but that's the point --
>> but that's the point. We should have a policy whereby we look at all of these and capture these issues without having to do it on an ad hoc basis. This ad hoc-ness begets more ad hoc-ness. That shows poor planning and a reactive positioning on compensation. It does not show proactive management. And it is -- it is disturbing to me.
>> okay.
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, September 2, 2008 8:37 AM