Travis County Commissioners Court
February 3, 2009, 2009
Item A2
A2. Consider and take appropriate action on the following compensation issues: a, creation of an ad hoc compensation committee to develop a strategy to address short and long term issues and policy recommendations; b, identification and prioritization of relevant compensation issues and opportunities; and c, whether to continue the fiscal year 2009 market salary study currently in progress.
>> good afternoon, alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. I have here to my right, my comrade greg powell with asne. Staff, h.r. Staff is getting here. This is to follow up on Thursday's discussion for the creation of a compensation committee and we send out information on Friday that took into consideration our discussions with the court and in follow-up discussions with -- with asfme then we also called department heads that were listed on the list of who they would recommend to be on the -- on the committee. We sent out a memorandum to the court and I think -- I think that you have that. The way that we ended up with about 11 I think -- members that we've had some other discussions if you -- please refer to page 2 of your memorandum where it talks about ad hoc compensation committee. We had added -- asfme. We grouped county clerk and district clerk together in discussing that item with the offices. They -- they would prefer that they each have a representative. So that would make that two people. District attorney's office as you see, vicki skinner. Was appointed health and human services. I think sherri can tell us today who she's going to appoint, juvie court will appoint carol darby. The chief said carol darby and she would second for darby. Sheriff's office wanted to appoint both debbie rich and tonya mills, we said okay but you have one vote. They can both attend and participate, but when it comes down to voting you will have one. One vote. Tax office, dusty knight. And then t.n.r. Carol joseph. Okay. I have a question regarding -- well two actually about the membership. One is -- one is how will the -- how will there -- there are some small departments, how will they be represented and also the second question is -- is in regard to -- to rank and file representation, is it the -- is it the assumption that -- representation will be achieved through the asfme representative and through the illicitting of -- eliciting of input.
>> we have talked about that and we have several ideas. One of the things that we talked about was focus group. And you have -- you are going to have a lot of people on this committee that have experience in both surveying and conducting focus groups. So we wanted to -- to be able to use the committee to conduct focus groups with road and bridge crews, with custodians. With the medical folks. That's how we would elicit information from the particular groups and involve also some of the smaller departments. We also talked about a county-wide survey and an employee town hall meeting which I think would also bring out a lot of -- of -- of people to discuss compensation, work environment, all those things that -- that -- that are of concern or that would go and the committee would listen to that. So those were kind of three methods that we thought that we would be able to engage not the community, but also get the information and feedback from employees. We also added during our discussions a couple, linda, we talked about adding a couple of other -- of other --
>> medical services.
>> yeah.
>>
>> [indiscernible] we felt would be appropriate to add. We have some operations
>> [inaudible - no mic] that have medical delivery medical related services. And in that particular area, a member of the committee would pick up -- medical examiner's office, emergency services and the star flight group. So we were proposing as an addendum to this particular list that we would add a medical services representative into the committee structure. In addition to that we looked at other operations in the court's area, criminal and civil courts share very much the same titles as well as cscd and pretrial services, so we are recommending as an add-on to this committee cscd as an office that would primarily cover the smaller operations that shared those same titles. And I believe that those, the medical services area as well as the cscd are those that we looked at would be representative of titles within small departments. Cscd employees are state employees, aren't they?
>> they are state employees but we actually do the classification work on their titles.
>> we don't pay them though, right?
>> do we? We don't pay, no. But their titles are the titles that we create within our classification structure.
>> aren't we seeing high turnover in cscd because of working conditions? I mean that -- I seem to recall that we've had discussions in the past that they have difficulty in retaining.
>> in the pretrial services area, in pretrial services yes because of the hours.
>> yes.
>> you might remember, also, that we had put in place recently with your direction a shift deliver ral to try to offset that. Differential. It's not cscd the entity itself because they do tend to mirror juvenile court structure. We would then come back and propose perhaps a joint representation from civil and criminal courts because they, too, share not unlike the county clerk and the district clerk they tend to share comparable titles and functions, judicial aides. There are many titles that they all tend to share.
>> let me ask you this question. I don't want to get ahead of -- of anyone. Especially in the presentation. But -- but I'm going to go back to what you discussed in work session per se. And that is to -- I don't know rightly know exactly when the material and the information will be in on where we are, the certification, revenue, a lot of the things that -- that may impact this committee short term, long term, short term probably, long term maybe will fit in because of what has not been revealed at this time. As far as the revenue that we'll have available. And the -- the -- the tough times that -- that we are going to be facing here in Travis County so I'm -- I'm hearing all of this, what you are saying, don't think that I'm not paying attention to you, I am. But you're -- I'm still reserved in my mind what the money situation is going to be and that's kind of paramount in my mind more than anything else. I just wants to let you know that is still my focus is availability of resources to fund even our current effort.
>> uh-huh.
>> so -- so.
>> to your comment. I had a discussion with judge Biscoe last week to clarify the charge of the committee and -- and in a relationship to fy 10. And his direction, to -- I want to share with -- with the court and make sure that it is --
>> observation.
>> observation, yeah.
>> his observation.
>> right.
>> and I want to clarify that it would also be the observation and direction of the full court that this committee should really focus on policy and structure. And that fy 10 you want to kind of keep that -- and wait to see what the economics of -- of -- perspective of landscape will be. And what the revenue landscape would be. So -- so an example of how that would work is for -- for -- example: this committee in looking at structure may say well our pay scale hasn't been changed since '05. So we meet mainly to change the pay scale and increase minimum by some% and you know extend the max by some percent. That may have some monetary impact that we would bring that to you. If you could fund it, fine. If you couldn't then -- then that would be okay, too. But I don't envision and I don't know whether the court envisioned that -- that this committee would come back and say yes provide a cola and it should be two percent or it should be three percent. That's not me owe our focus would be more -- more on policy issues.
>> al leisure why, I thank you for those comments. I think they are very in tune to what we're dealing with. I know that was part of our discussion during the work session policy and structure. However, folks not knowing what we did last week, probably tuning in today missed out on a lot of that stuff. I think that no false hopes will be -- will be projected. From here today when it's coming to conversation we may not be able to deal with that. They hear compensation, folks are my goodness gracious, court is talking about compensation, blah blah whether blah, of course when they say those kind of things they may be expecting something, they won't be informed. You want to make sure we're still on course with the same message. That's a way -- exactly what you quoted, exactly what we actually discussed, also, thank you.
>> I just have a general question. Why would we not want to engage in external expert in compensation? Because they certainly could bring a lot of fresh bloodand objectivity thatt be difficult to achieve internally.
>> we are proposing an external consultant subject matter expert who happens to be sitting at the far end of the table here.
>> I missed that.
>>
>> [laughter]
>> yeah.
>> this proposal that we have would include that last week we talked about -- about what services would be provided by such an individual and we attempted given the feedback last week to flesh that out a little bit more in the backup that you have before you.
>> looks like a county employee.
>> uh-huh.
>> the other question that I have, refresh my memory, I have already been over this. But our criteria for dividing between committee members and advisory members, I'm wondering why maybe some of these advisory members shouldn't be full committee members.
>> and that is -- that is the pleasure of the -- of the court. In fact that was another issue that I needed to bring up. That there were a couple of -- you know, p.b.o. For example had asked to be a voting member. When I discussed with the auditor, she said, you know, it's not a big deal. But I -- I have been a voting member on the benefits committee, it's worked out fine, I'd like to be a voting member, too. The same thing with hrmd. I think our desire was to keep the committee small but even with including those people, I still think it would be manageable. We took out the 70% consensus, because a lot of times on some of these you get, you know, five, six, a 6-5 vote. That's the way the committee goes. That has been our experience on both deferred comp and -- and benefits. It's worked out pretty good. Every once in a while we have a minority opinion and that is also delivered to the court along with the report of someone on the committee feels so strongly about an issue, then they are also allowed to -- to even though the recommendation the committee may be one way, they are allowed to provide that feedback to the court. So I think if it the pleasure of the court to add the auditor and p.b.o. And
>> [indiscernible] voting members we are fine with it.
>> keep going.
>> oh,
>> [laughter] okay. Usually the county attorney does not want to be a voting member. They want to be advisory. But we certainly respect if you want to do that.
>> I would see that the committee needed it or the court needed it, we always provide someone with legal counsel. Wouldn't be a voting member. For issues coast that deal with the office and people in the office we take the opportunity --
>> [laughter]
>> I have a question about that. It's raised by the county clerk and district clerk, district attorney and county attorney, cscd and/or civil and criminal courts. It appears in all three of those, those are categories where there's a significant overlap. I'm wondering about the decision to provide two votes one to county clerk and one to district clerk. Are there concerns sufficiently distinct to warrant two and is the population of the workforce in district and county clerks sufficient to warrant it? Because I could see a real issue of equity raised because of that.
>> I think --
>> we would have a similar issue, I think, if -- if district attorney and county attorney had a vote each if -- if cscd and civil and criminal courts had -- you see where I'm going.
>> yes.
>> in terms of numbers, the d.a. Certainly fell into that first cut at 217 I think. And the county attorney, I don't remember that, but that count straight -- straight out one, 200, okay. So the county attorney, too, is real close, the first cut was just numbers. Which of these have the greatest amount of f.t.e., therefore would capture the greatest range. On the cat clerk and the district clerk I can go -- back to that because one of them still had a concern, the other one doesn't really matter to me. I have to go baseball and revisit that.
>> the same would apply to civil and criminal courts if we were to look at that -- group that they carry pretty much the same titles, the same number of f.t.e.'s, so that would be maybe one representative.
>> it might be a discussion, it might be a negotiation that -- I don't know, I'm just -- perhaps I'm kicking in that pile I don't need to kick. I have been known to do that before. But a negotiation between -- juvenile courts as well as civil and criminal courts to hash out how distinct their views are, whether they could agree on a representative who would adequately advocate for -- for their common views. I don't know --
>> the thing that we have really righted to stress the department is that we're not going to go into classification, that is not an issue for this. Committee. Who is a 20 and who is a 21 or who's an 18. It's more the compensation philosophy. Should we be doing market salary surveys. How do we determine how to do them, should -- should three years or hot spots, the pay structure, is there a better pay structure. So -- so it's looking at -- at the -- the which is most important, performance based pay, pbp or market salaries? It's those sorts of very broad policy issues more than -- more than individuals. We did want a good representation of the job families, but it will be something that the product will be implemented equitiably.
>> whatever you all come up with in terms of policy and structure will be in place, let's say, the economy improves then it's going to be in place to -- to do something. If it's not, then it's still a good structure to have in place and a good policy to have in place to build off of. In the coming years.
>> is it uncommon that after the number of years that -- that an entity will examine it's full compensation and we have been now functioning under the existing one for at least six, seven years. The opportune time to step back and look at the structure. Because the classifications and all are important, but what about the basic policy issues that have driven and guide us and that's the broader context that this committee would operate on.
>> I would hope that under the policy we also have definition so that all employees understand exactly what our terminology means when we use a term such as the performance based pay. What is that based on? And how is it applied to all employees? There's -- I think there's a misunderstanding and that's probably going to happen because the system is six or seven years old. All of that terminology changes. In terms of the planning and budget office, would y'all, I mean, you're going to have to deliver the message to the committee about whether the money is there or not. So do you serve -- in what capacity would you serve? A voting member and the deliverer of good or --
>> [laughter] or bad message.
>>
>> [laughter]
>> leffingwell:
>>
>> [laughter]
>> I would assume we serve on the same capacity as we serve on the health committee. Ie we are a voting member on the health committee and have been since it was formed. In addition to that we deliver financial information to the committee as more or less a staff position. So that's how I would assume that -- that rodney would serve on that committee.
>> exactly. In the sense, you know, being on the -- on the budget subcommittee I expect to get, you know, the good news or the bad news. Either way. But I think my expectation of this committee would be then to -- to review a system that's been in place for a while and then look at the structure, does it need updating, policies, obviously they need updating. And definitions. Definitions that employees can -- can understand and how that process worked so no one feels like they got left behind or -- or you know jumped over or whatever.
>> anybody left in the advisory category?
>> [laughter]
>> no.
>> you all are voting members pretty much then?
>> pardon me.
>> they are all voting members.
>> all voting members.
>> okay.
>> you are having somebody from medical services, cscd
>> [multiple voices]
>>
>> [indiscernible] the administrator for the
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> volunteer.
>> and has, you know, real good background, she's a nurse, jv.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B is identification and prioritization of relevant compensation issues and opportunity. Moving to page 4 of your backup, we have identified for you really a compiled for you information that was shared with us during August 5th work session as well as feedback that we constantly receive throughout the year in terms of the compensation system. What are the issues, what are the opportunities. We have taken advantage of this opportunity to actually break it down into sections. We captured structure and philosophy which is a part of what we were saying this committee would be taking a look at, that role of this committee would be to review our total compensation philosophy as it currently exists, does it still hold for Travis County or are there opportunities to actually make some changes as a result of the deliberations that the committee would be engaged in. The second one is taking a look at what we had really begun to toss around over the past year, how do we value benefits and our work life experiences as a part of our total compensation structure. The industry does afford different models and instruct teenagers, how it can be evaluated in terms of a comp structure, one of the charges of the committee would be to take a look at that. In addition to the questions that have been raised should we take a look at redefining our at least examining our classified pay scale on a regular integral and if so what should that integral be. I will add again and reiterate what alicia just said is that we are currently taking a look at the pay scale that's a part of work that's currently underway, that we would expect that we would be able to bring recommendations to you that were slated in the time table in may to say how far off is our pay scale which could influence 2010 result. The fourth area is the career ladder. Premarket salary study of 1998. We had career ladder structures that were in place that were just kind of considered separate from the compensation allocation that h.r. Tends to bring results in on. It's not common in a compensation structure that it would be dealt with separately. What we are offering here is an opportunity, as an issue, to take a look at that, see how that factors in in a way that we have practiced implementing it. Under the fifth area, clearly rerecognize that the economic climate worldwide is quite different and under item 5 we would have the committee taking a look at what would a three year impact in term of our compensation analysis how would the economy impact the work that we would do related to that. The sixth area under structure and philosophy has to do with analyzing the pay range distribution. You have heard over and over again that we tend to market at the 50th percentile. There are options that exist for taking a look at that and bringing it into you information on what does it really mean if we're at 50% given the economic climate, if there are any variance that could be -- variables that could be considered in setting our structure or policies around that. I don't want to go into detail, the issues are here under seven. Particularly, judge, you raised the question on fy 10 as well as fy '09 market study. You notice that I have bolded there if you are authorized to continue because that obviously is a decision still pending given the item c on today's agenda. I actually enumerated some of the questions you raised. If we partially fund, if we don't fund, what would happen, how would we pick that up in subsequent years. That, too, would be an issue that the committee would take a look at. We talked about and had experiences with requests for pay adjustments out of the cycle, the three year cycle that had been established by the court. The effect of doing work out of cycle as well as compression that's created. Again, an issue. How do we take a look at vacancy and turnover in terms of determining whether or not we would do analysis on particular titles. All of these, in addition to the pay for performance Commissioner Gomez you just mentioned the need for us to take a closer look at what do we mean by pay for performance structure to define that, examine current policies to see if there's an opportunity under this to make any adjustments. The cost of living adjustments, effect on our current pay based structure. Are we nixing pay practices that are kiss extorting in any way our current pay scale, something that we want to create a policy for that we would all understand and recognize that yep we mixed these two pay structures and that by policy is what we intend or choose to do. Implementation and funding. Always the question of what comes first. I think that we have been challenged in years past on the priority of do we apply the cola first or do the green circle first or which one should we do. But we want to do -- what we want to do in the committee is take a look at what is appropriate under not only what the committee inputs as being a preference, but what based on our structure is the appropriate way to consider and do that. So those are the issue and opportunity that we didn't create as a staff. But really came from just deliberations over the year and there could be others that would get added as we move forward.
>> does this include trying to find an answer to the question that you raised when you came to us last year. In our budget discussions --
>> [indiscernible] did their questions get answered here.
>> yes, they do particularly on items 8 and 9.
>> okay.
>> you adopted specific criteria after that and court action to determine who and how you would approach those groups that we consider being --
>> okay, then this will take care, pick up the rest of the questions that may have lingered so that we don't get caught in that situation again.
>> our charge is come to you with the coherent policy so we eliminate the hot spots in the system as much as possible. The one thing that I'm going to eliminate at least in my consideration of any of these items is the -- the -- any references to -- to the economic environment. Again, we are come to -- to come to you with a policy that we will sustain regardless of the economic environment. The big challenge for us and for you is going to be in a downturn, say we have adopted a policy on market studies, how they are done, how they are going to be funded and yet the economy doesn't allow for us to -- to do the funding in that particular year. I think it's incumbent upon us and ultimately on you to come up with a policy that says how do we deal with that situation, how do we come back and pick that up, what priority do we give that group that was studied but not funded as we move into the next budget cycle. So there's a lot of -- of this that -- that I think we have to -- to digest and then condense for you. So you have a policy that sustains regardless.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. Do -- did we drop the idea of taking a look at the federal scale.
>> we will be looking at it.
>> had a hard time finding it in the backup. May have overlooked it, though.
>> yes, sir, yes, we had it in part of what we would indeed do is look at the federal --
>> [inaudible - no mic] part of the charge I think is benchmarking. You said that we should look at the federal system and we plan to do that.
>> uh-huh.
>> yes, sir.
>> absolutely. We agreed on that.
>> tell it like it is, judge.
>> anything else on b?
>> tasks and deliverable dates we have a -- we have a -- we have a schedule for you. And -- and we have preliminary report in April. And that is -- that is if we have anything that we feel would have budget impact, that we would bring those -- we would bring those to you in April. And then -- then in -- in may we hope to be able to -- to come -- to come back to you with some priorities and recommendations. That should be considered in 2010. And then a long-term we are also looking at may and June with -- with the final report in August because whatever the final report is, we would need to gear up to start 10-1-'09 for the next fiscal year whether we do study, how we do them, having a new pay scale and whether you are going to implement using comp ratio or zones or we would have those to you in August and hope to adopt them between the time that they are recommending and that the recommendations are made and the beginning of the new fiscal year.
>> > sounds good to me. If the committee runs into a snag or some insurmountable object, somebody will let us know.
>> an additional item on page 3 at the top of that. We have health and human services that in the discussion last week we were focused on who would facilitate the committee members and from that discussion we delineated some of the -- some of the tasks that a consultant would deliver and complete. We're asking today under short term note there, February 3rd '09 that the court gives us the authorization to begin the project of engaging ever green solutions to deliver these services.
>> you have salary savings.
>> yes, I believe that we can accommodate that. If not we will come back and let you know. You might remember there was -- there is a current contract in place. When purchasing presented that a few weeks ago there was some question about whether we could amend that and to leave it open for this type of adjustment given your direction. I'm sure that we can accommodate through salary savings to cost.
>> g.e.d. With cyd and try to work out an preparation modification, get with cyd.
>> anything else on 2? Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And in 3 there's a simple question whether to continue the fiscal year 2009 market salary survey currently in progress.
>> judge, I would ask the court to turn to page seven of their backup. Fy '09 is the first year of our third three year cycle. The policy had been by the court adopted by the court that we look at a -- a third of the workforce and do job analysis and the market salary survey on a third of the workforce every year. And this year the -- the job families that we would be looking at would be general maintenance, skilled trade, medical administrative support and financial job families. That affects 44 departments and 1,655 slots. The question here was should we continue this market salary survey this year since we usually have done it in three year cycles. And this he is only one third of -- of the job families. Or should we wait and see what the new policies will be and then decide at that time and start the cycle or if we come back and say no you should do everyone in one year, that you do that. But because you are -- you will be looking at the pay structure, your ranges, the ban, minimum, maximum, mid, you will be deciding where you want to be in the market comparable to other employers. That it was suggested that it may behoove us to -- to wait and not do another market salary survey until fy 10 for implementation in 11. That is the question before you.
>> mr. Powell?
>> talking to market study in midpoint flies in the face from my point of view of the charge of this committee. It may be too early a test for us or you, to -- to apply whatever policies that we're coming up, this is exactly part of the charge that we have regardless of what economic environment we're doing that our market studies continue on the studies -- a study is a study, those results are the result of that given point in time. And -- and if we look into any time in the future and moving along with our market studies, hit a slump, I think it's incumbent upon us and as I said I knew to have a policy that says how are we going to go back and deal with the compensation that's supposed to be attendant to that market study. When we have the adequate fund to implement it and implement it fully and fully fund it. So I understand the challenges and we have a lot on our plate as do you. But I think this is -- this is specifically the situation to which we are -- need to address in terms of a compensation policy.
>> quick poll and just in additional information. I do a quick poll of various department heads from -- from p.b.o., county clerk, auditor, several people. One of the concerns that I heard expressed is if you go through this market salary survey and you do find that some of these people are out of market, then you don't have any money to implement. All you -- are you indeed going to cause dissatisfaction and then will there be a commitment then by doing one third of the workforce that you have already -- that -- train has left the station will be committed then to do another third in -- in 10 and another third in 11. And then you end up backing up in terms of -- of what the costs will be. Even if you have a policy you may not have enough to -- to cover everything in 11. That you would. And so -- so do you risk causing dissatisfaction. As opposed to trying to have a clear and updated policy that you can then implement and implement consistently throughout the next, you know, three to five, seven years.
>>
>> [indiscernible] I hear what
>> [indiscernible] this is what I'm going to say: as I stated earlier, there's no way in the world I want to project any false images from this dais on any employee. I know there have been times in the past where we are not able to fund any of the study that we have had and because of there wasn't availability of money. Now, what I have heard from my financial persons, experts that deals with the next p.b.o., they are saying basically that -- that -- if I'm incorrect, p.b.o. Can correct me -- as far as the downturn is concerned, we really don't know where we are at this point and that -- that fy 11 may be even worse than what we are dealing with now. The jury is still out. And of course since it is, I do not want to say employees yes, this is where you ought to be according to what's out there. Now, it may be according to what's out there right now, go out there and do a market salary survey and you find out that this particular job, there's no jobs like that anymore. When you compare this to what, what are you going to compare it to? Maybe there's a down scale. I don't know really know. I know there's a lot of people laid off, a lot of people unemployed. I do know that. It's not getting any better. So even as we discussed during the work sessions, my goodness gracious, I think we are blessed that we are not even thinking about laying off anything to make things balanced around here. Current operations, as far as the funds that are projected to come in, hopefully we can operate at the current level. I don't know any of this right now. But I do know, I'm listening to what p.b.o. Is saying who also with the auditor has -- hasn't even certified any revenue yet. It's going to be coming in I guess pretty soon, sometime this month. But whenever all of that information is made available, then it appears to me then we will know exactly what position we are in. And again I'm just don't want to put any false -- hope out there to any employee. I wouldn't be able to sit up here very long if I tell an employee, yeah, we did your survey, we are not able to fund you, I'm sorry, so I'm concerned about that. That's just -- just -- not saying we're not going to do it. I don't know what the court is going to do. But I do know that I don't want to send any imagines out there. -- images out there. According to what alicia said, that may be a reflection of what those folks are talking about, that's basically where I'm at at this point is to make sure that I do not project something that's -- that would be harmful to our county employees.
>> a few years not just one year. Several years with the market title survey, they did one, came out with a price tag of what, more than $25 million. There's a policy we are not -- a policy then to try to do them on -- on a cycle, a three year cycle, basically. We don't know whether money will be available or not, but the problem is we face that early in February of every year. It's just that recently economic times have been better than this one. I think the policy ought to say that if there are not money available you can't get pay increases. But if you skip a year, then when money becomes available, you not only have to pick up whatever that year is that the survey is being done, but you go back and pick up whatever years you've missed in a fair manner. And -- and I think we ought to do it. Now if we don't have the physical capacity, to do -- to do the '09 surveys, obviously we can't do them. But during the budget process we landed on, let's go ahead and plan to do the '09 cycle and have that ready for the next budget cycle and we'll just take whatever action our -- our financial circumstances allow us to take.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] we can do it.
>> [multiple voices]
>> that would mean subsequent years also.
>> well, and I'm qualifying this.
>> can and also 11, bang, bang, bang.
>> yes. That's what I'm --
>> go ahead. I hear you.
>> I want to make sure I'm real clear because I don't get this question often. I want to make sure it's understood. With the support of consultant services that we can complete the work that we're doing even if it's on a three-year cycle, we would continue to do that as well as staff, the committee that you are putting in place.
>> but I think, Commissioner Davis, you make a good point because it is 10 and 11. So then you couldn't afford -- if you couldn't afford to fund f.y. 10 and you couldn't afford to fund f.y. 11, then you're up to the 25 million, judge. Because when we looked at that it's because we did every -- the whole county. And you could end up, you know, against that wall again, if you continue to do the surveys, don't have the funding to support them, and then end up with two years where you don't have the money and that third year you are going to end up with that very large amount that will be needed. Will be required.
>> and the cost of living adjustments as you have awarded them over the years have tended to off set some of the market costs, as we have shown. That in the second three-year cycle, the costs on those were less because you were awarding the colas. So that's something I guess to consider, that if you don't proceed with the project itself, and if in the event a cola is available, that you are still making some advance towards maintaining market competitiveness.
>> what is the city of Austin doing?
>> the city of Austin --
>> the city of Austin is doing what?
>> adopted a three-year cycle as Travis County --
>> no, no, no, no.
>> to answer the question, if I could get through.
>> hold on, let me direct my specific question to you. What has the city of Austin done this fiscal year to deal with their compensation issues for their employees? Have they frozen their positions or are they paying them?
>> city of Austin completed their work, which was phase 2, year 2 of their comp study, but they decided not to fund that work. However --
>> not to fund. Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. Not to fund. So let's --
>> let her finish giving the answer.
>> all right, go ahead.
>> may I start over just quickly. They had a three-year plan as we have it. Year 1, the work was completed and funded. That was last year.
>> all right.
>> the current fiscal year, the work was completed, but given the economic climate, they chose not to fund it. However, they did authorize that year 3 work be done. So did that answer the question?
>> yes. It answered my question, but the -- the -- the -- I'm into the money thing. They were not able to fund any of this this year. This is Travis County and of course our revenue streams a heck of a lot different than the city of Austin. And I am going to depend, and I guess the next question is this, when can we have some numbers, because you mentioned cola. When can we have some numbers from the auditor and also from p.b.o. To let us know specifically where we are in this financial question that's before us today? Specifically, when do we expect to have some answers?
>> Commissioner, p.b.o. Is scheduled tentatively currently for February the 12th to have a work session with the court. At that time the auditor is working on their best estimate. You know, the auditor does not certify revenue until the fifth revenue estimate.
>> I understand.
>> and that is in September.
>> September, right.
>> we run off of five revenue estimates. The first one is real general. I think we get a midyear revenue estimate that comes in sometime in the next couple of months.
>> okay.
>> we're looking -- our latest discussions have been that dusty is going to take a look at things as of the end of this week. He's already given us a preliminary run today. We'll know more about taxes once they get all of the January 31st receipts posted. Then we will be briefing the court in conjunction with the auditor on what information we have available on the 12th of February in which we will attempt to frame the 2010 budget guidelines.
>> okay, so we'll have some indication I guess as soon as -- as far as the numbers coming in from the tax office along with all the others so we'll have all those numbers floating around at that time. It would just be good to me, I think, I need to see that.
>> ms. Fleming and mr. Escamilla in that order.
>> I don't know that I have anything that can help, but --
>> mr. Escamilla.
>> [laughter]
>> no, go ahead.
>> messing with you there.
>> we know -- alicia has already spoken to the impact of doing the study and not being able to fund it. And I certainly share that concern. I think everyone shares that concern every year when we talk about it. The other concern though I would like to voice is that do we know the impact of studying positions during economic times like this, and then the subsequent morale issues for these personnel, because my position was studied, you know, during the downturn, and certainly yes, we can check it off that we've done the study, but are we not doing a disservice to our folks at this time when people are laying off, closing businesses. And I don't know the answer to that. If there's a way to quantify that impact, then maybe this study goes forward with a disclaimer on it, I don't know. But I think there's -- my concern is what is the impact to looking at the marketing and looking at these positions in the context of the current market.
>> I think I can give you at least some anecdotal questions. While we may have, be experiencing and about to experience an economic downturn, judge, as you pointed out, it would not be the first time where recommendations have come back from a market study where the economy may have been given fine, but still give ten priorities the court had the court was not in a position to fully fund whatever those recommendation were. Regardless of how much is coming in, whether there's a great deal less coming in is that doesn't stop this county from looking at the data before us and the market study and to get specific, let me tell you, my office in times past has been on both sides of this. We have had studies done where the money wasn't there and it was -- and where it wasn't funded. We've had times where we've been -- haven't even been looked at, and this is prior to the court's adoption to do it every three years. But more recently we've had market salary studies done where this question came up, and we talked to our lawyers, we talked to our employees and the truth is when you run into -- my best advice when you run into this predicament the safest way is being open and honest with everyone. They know, our employees know, they keep pace and they really vote with their feet. And if they get better offers elsewhere, they go. We found in our office it was better to go ahead with the study and for everyone to know and the court to be honest and say we understand this. It's we don't have the financing for it. I would urge that if you are not going to do it, don't do it -- don't move forward because of we may not have the money to fully fund this. Do it -- it's absolutely appropriate if you find out that the department doesn't have the band width to carry out the work, we've heard the ranchers, we think they can, but to not move forward to share all of this data with everyone based on we might not have the money I think is a disservice to our employees, and I can speak from experience in our office. As much as we were disappointed that it was not able to be fully funded or funded at all, we appreciated the effort that the county at least recognized that the markets show that these people are underpaid. We specifically ask to move forward and we would rather have the court at least accept the recommendations knowing that we weren't going to get the funding for that. And absolutely with respect to Commissioner Davis, we need to make clear up front and be honest that we really do not see the projections as being favorable and just because we move forward on this study there's no expectation that they will be funded. But it's safer and a service to our employees and being loyal to them by going forward with the policy and gathering that information.
>> I hear you. I just want to throw something in here because I think both of your points are valid and they are intertwined in a way that there will be a market salary survey that comes out that is going to -- that is going to be based on information that lags the market. And then there will be a subsequent market salary survey that will come out that will lag the upturn of the market. So there -- we are guaranteed that there will be two market salary surveys that will be to some degree more in -- more imprecise that other ones we have done in times of status -- where over the three-year period the economic circumstances relatively similar. So I -- in the spirit of being honest with our employees, we can't predict which one of the market salary surveys is going to be behind the -- the -- the bottom and which one is going to be ahead of the bottom.
>> the -- one of the policy issues that I think you do answer
>> [inaudible] is that we will be doing market salary surveys on a three-year cycle. Because, again, if one of the issues is to be consistent, fair, equitable is that taking the -- completing the study would mean that you have two-thirds of the employees in the county that will be expecting that their positions will also be looked at a in the upcoming years.
>> and we ought to look at I if the policy committee says the policy ought to be not to do them every three years but every five or not at all, I can live with that as long as the court adopts a policy and sticks to it. Every year whether the economy is good or bad, we never know -- we never have a clear revenue picture until late summer. Early revenue projections are basic projections. As the closer we get to markup, though, the clearer that gets. Right? And annually if you are doing -- if you are certifying revenue, you start off conservatively. And you give yourself some wiggle room because you really don't know. But I just think if I were an employee and the question was, you know, do you want the market salary survey, your year has come, or do you want the court to suspend that, I think I would like to see survey. But if I've been at the county more than two or three days, I know that a whole lot of revenue stuff is subject to the availability of funds. We try to buy 100 car every years for sheriff's office, there's a rotation there. But if we don't have the money one year we don't buy them unless we issue debt for them. So there are ways we can creatively meet our needs, but at the same time we're sitting here kind of projecting revenue that most of the time comes in. But we're realistic about those projections. And I think employees know that. Final comments from joe, then we'll take a motion if there is one. If we take no action today, the court has directed that the '09 survey be done. So I think that either we ought to take action and say continue doing it or take action and say stop. Mr. Geiselman.
>> I'll be brief. I do favor the study being done. Mainly because you're not going to hide the market from the employees. They know what the market is. You should know it, they know. Because -- and they also know what the economy is. So in some places they are going to stay home right now. But the minute the market changes out there and they know that they can get better jobs, they will take them. So you ought to know what the market worth is even if you cannot compensate at this point in time. My problem, trn particularly, we have so many employees who are red lined. Up to 50% that are red lined and that's going to be a problem for me. I'm not sure I know what the solution is, but I wanted to bring that to your attention.
>> is joe on the policy committee?
>> yes.
>> I do have representatives.
>> and we do have a proposal that would address the red line issue and it has to do with the --
>> take out to the committee. -- take it to the committee. Take it to the committee. Now, I can do a motion or I can hear somebody else's. You all know what I'm inclined to do. I move that we continue the fiscal year 2009 market salary studies currently in progress.
>> second.
>> we haven't voted on this, but this implies -- did we vote on the consultant being available?
>> let's get a vote on that yes, too.
>> this is incorporated into this motion because we need the consultant's help to get both of these done really.
>> that's correct.
>> seconded by two people, I think. Any more discussion of the motion?
>> yes, judge, would you include in this motion the fact that right at the very top of whenever this gets to the employees that there may not be any money available to pay for the results of this survey? I think it's very important I think for folks to know that.
>> put Commissioner Davis' name in parentheses, I agree.
>> right at the top, big font.
>> right at the top.
>> I'll support it if you come with --
>> it's at the top. With the name next to it. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> I must clarify something for the record. Carlotta reminded me that the city of Austin is postponing implementation of their year 2, not that they are not going to fund it. They are postponing it.
>> they have suspended their market salary survey.
>> expecting the implementation.
>> but still not verbatim --
>> I will give alicia and carlotta who have been working with that but I didn't want to leave the impression they --
>> but they are still not funding.
>> now, if dietz were here, I would ask him whether we could postpone d and that other item until next week.
>> there's a lot in there.
>> do we need to take it today?
>> Commissioner, I'd really like to have joe geiselman's input about d. The other item, I was going to suggest we postpone for a work session, which is about the federal economic stimulus package. I would like to suggest we put out the agenda for the work session on the -- is it the 14th -- no, the 13th. Whatever it is. 12th.
>> let's plan to put out there then.
>> okay. With respect to d, I think this is joe geiselman's roady.
>> we'll delay action and if we need it we'll take it after executive session. How is that?
>> very good.
>> sounds good.
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, February 3, 2009 2:36 PM