Travis County Commissioners Court
January 6, 2009
Item 9b
9 b is a request for an exception to Travis County code chapter 10.0295(d)(3), peace officer pay scale. We did get -- amended backup yesterday. What does this item do for us?
>> who it does -- good morning, happy new year's Commissioners. Linda Moore, director of human resources, what this particular item does is request that the court consider granting the sheriff's office flexibility to go outside of the peace officer's policy, 10.0295 to allow two individual, slots 1427 and 1522 moved from the security coordinator positions on to the pop scale to retain their salary. This was submitted to you originally because the pops policy does not have a step at the cadet level to accommodate the retention of the salary. We brought it to you because whenever there is a request outside of the policy framework it comes to you as a non-routine. After working this particular item and talking with the sheriff's office, they produced the civil service personnel policy. And in that policy there is a provision that does allow individuals going from the -- from the classified pay scale to the pop scale to retain their salaries. One last note on that is that the security coordinators, the two slots that are affected have traditionally served as a recruiting pool to come into the cadet title and then to move into the corrections officer title. And that's really been not just a practice, but really traditionally that that particular title is a recruiting arm for the correction officers. So with that, h.r. Submitted an amended recommendation that the court consider allowing the cadets in slots 1427 and 1522 to restore their classified pay scale salary, which would remain fixed as they are on the pay scale, it would remain fixed until their years of service actually catches up to their existing salary.
>> that's the policy, too?
>> it is the --
>> service policy. And what we want to do is take a look into -- to fy 10 is to reconcile and discuss even more the personnel compensation related policies under civil service in comparison to the pop's policy that you approved. And what happened to pop's policy was just silence on this matter, although the civil service policy addressed it. This amended recommendation is appropriate because their classified pay scale job positions are in the same job family as the cadet?
>> not in the same job family.
>> > public safety. The public safety arena.
>> the --
>> that's the distinction -- that's the distinction that we're making? Is that correct? Is that my understanding?
>> yes. It is. These were individuals that the sheriff has indicated who are indeed peace officers and really -- really performing the same basic functions of the -- of the cadets and the pop's scale, you are correct, that is the distinction being made, public safety titles, but not in the same job family.
>> okay. And in terms of the staff recommendation that we analyze both the pop's policy and the civil service -- I'm sorry, popp's policy and the -- and the -- the sorry I'm having early morning -- the classified pay scale that we're looking at the policy to make sure that they are consistent on both sides.
>> yes.
>> when will we come back with recommendation regarding consistency between the two policies?
>> I'm expecting that will be a part of what we bring back as we prepare -- so whatever changes not only with this policy, but understand that we look at also coming in toward the end of the fiscal year to be effective fy 10, 10-1.
>> do we expect to have retroactive requests to be treated the same by other employees who have gone before?
>> I'm not expecting that there will be. There have been two other titles that have not been public safety titles. That have been affected by -- by I would say a loss in pay as they moved on to the pop scale. It's not a natural progression that those two titles that -- that -- it's not a natural progression that those two titles would have moved into the pop scale. I don't know what the department's perspective is, but I wouldn't expect that those titles would come forward.
>> Commissioner, this -- this rarely occurs, it just so happened that these two particular security coordinators when they came to the department, they came in close to midpoint salary as a security coordinator and then they have been there for a while, so they have received some, you know, cost of living increases that placed them slightly above that income level as a cadet co. Normally, that -- that security coordinator position is a stepping stone to a cadet corrections officer. So -- so they usually move fairly early when they are early into the civilian pay scale, so they usually get a pay increase when they go to cadet co. But we do recruit from our security coordinators is the problem. So it -- it is within the department a promotion to go from that. Since '04, this may be the second time but not more than the third time that this has occurred. It rarely happens. I just want to be clear on the record that the distinction is that this is a public safety position going to another public safety position, that's the rationale for this exception. Because we have had in -- in -- in rather recent experience made exceptions, put the -- put the rationale for the exception on the record, only to have the rationale become completely unravel velled later with a retroactive move to make a host of other employees whole by a decision that we had made ad hoc.
>> your name is debbie rich, by the way.
>> yes.
>> for the record.
>> good morning, Commissioners, debbie rich.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> thank you, judge. We have to be very, very cautious, I think, as we proceed into -- into I think some really tough times coming up. What is the relative impact I guess on -- on other positions that may be held captive and maybe similar situation? Kind of looking at this as far as what Commissioner eckhardt brought up. Going even deeper than that. Your recommendations bring in a little less -- won't be as severe as the earlier situation. But again to make them whole, completely whole, it appears to me that the -- that the department had to have the necessary funding to -- to do -- to even go beyond what you are saying. As far as the amount of money that's being recommended. So -- so I'm having some concerns because -- because right now we have to look at I think maybe even reviewing new policies and if that is the case, I think that it need to be a situation that catch all situations, we won't be caught in a -- in a possible scenario whereby the -- the other employees of Travis County will end up having to be funded and we don't have the money to fund them. That's my concern more than anything else. Whatever we do, I want to make sure that we do it in a situation whereby it's a one-time type of situation and even though we'll have a ratchet up effect because the money wasn't there before now. We have to pay them at that salary, I don't have in problem with that. My problem is that if we establish a practice that we have to go back and do a whole lot of things that -- that may bankrupt us.
>> one thing Commissioner.
>> I want to make sure that doesn't happen. That's my concern more than anything else is that we do not end up bankrupting the budget with a situation where even though you say it doesn't occur, as often, it's a public safety thing, but there are other concerns and considerations other than public safety that we have to also listen and be very cautious and aware of. So that's -- that's part of my concern.
>> just for the record, I would like to -- to mention that our -- that our administration of our classified pay structure has policies in place to accommodate that. Exactly the concern that you are speaking of. When a person moves to another position, they are -- their scale set, the position, all of that is taken into account. It's not that they automatically take a salary with them. It's evaluated based on the job they are going into. The security coordinator has been a real serious recruiting issue for us. For correction officers in the jails. So if we look at this ladder and the step up process here, it's really saving us on the recruiting side if we are able to continue to have an incentive in place for individuals to move from security coordinator to cadets and then into the co position.
>> and I have no problem with that. Now, I know there is a need to -- to have the proper recruiting as far as corrections and things like that. That's not my issue.
>> uh-huh.
>> my issue is the situation will someone also come up with and say hey we have a really serious recruitment problem. Maintaining or holding on to these folks, blah, blah, blah, all across the board. Who are they, how will it impact us. I think those questions need to be answered. So I'm just being very cautious with tight situation.
>> I appreciate that Commissioner. As far as the budgetary impact, though, there's really not any because -- because the salary we're asking that the security coordinators retain was already budgeted because that was their salary in the prior position. And more than likely when we fill their vacancies, not more than likely, they won't be at the salary that they left those security coordinator spots. They will be less because they can't go above the mid point, but most of them don't come in at midpoint in those positions. Still very, very
>> [indiscernible] here to verify that the funding is available, but I understand, we carefully watch that.
>> I understand what you are saying.
>> yeah. These fine ladies answered my first question, in that it is not routine, it's not a routine accommodation or redefinition for raises or titles. My question was really are these officers being properly paid? For two jobs at the same time or merely a redefinition of their title job requirements.
>> if they are moving from the security coordinator title.
>> one job at a time.
>> into a cadet title.
>> anybody I also here on this item?
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you,.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank you all.
>> thanks for the hard work on it.
>> really.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
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, January 13, 2009 4:03 PM