Travis County Commissioners Court
June 16, 2009,
Item 3
3.
consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
>> > we're here to answer any questions that you might have, or we can go into the discussion items.
were there any questions on a through 4?
>> well, I had two or 3 notations not to put items on consent until we discussed this one.
>> okay.
>> we may as well discuss those.
>> let's see.
we have a small correction on item a 2.
the firm line item is we have the wrong object number on there.
it should read 00191065406102.
it should be from the lease savings line item, not the utilities line item.
it's a minor technical correction.
it just slipped past me and I didn't catch it.
sm caught it yesterday.
so we could just have the record reflect that that -- the line item is 6102, not 4108, that would be great.
>> 6102 is what?
>> leases, so there's lease savings in there.
>> okay.
any question on a 1.
>> no.
>> a 3 with t.n.r.?
>> leroy, let's do it this way.
item 16 I was asked not to put on consent until after we discussed item no.
3.
and why is that?
>> because that item a 2 is moving the money into the correct line item so they can -- work the requisition.
>> that's the only reason?
>> that's the only reason on that one.
>> all right.
>> for 16.
>> number 22.
>> it's the same issue.
but it's -- I believe the -- the item t 1.
>> yeah.
>> is the medical examiner, so also just moving the funds into the appropriate line item.
>> all right.
let's -- what line item should we put it in?
t 1?
>> the ones that we -- that are here from 07, 01, regular salary savings, to 8053 which is laboratory equipment.
>> 8053?
>> yes.
>> okay.
but it's still coming from permanent salary savings.
>> correct.
>> moving into laboratory equipment?
>> correct.
>> it's -- it wasn't in the right line item and it has to be in the right line item before the purchasing item can be approved.
it's just the timing of it, the correct steps.
>> okay, I may -- let me make sure that I understand what we are changing on t 1.
so that 0701 being changed to 8053?
>> no, sir.
it stays like this, but this t 1 has to be approved before -- before we can take 22, have that --
>> it's just timing, really.
>> it's just the timing on that, correct.
>> or sequencing.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> okay.
do we need to discuss the -- the bilingual pay?
>> yes, we do.
>> on item no.
1?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
this is a good time?
>> it is.
do you want to lead.
>> you can introduce it since you are posted.
>> okay.
the -- the criminal courts have requested the transfer for the bilingual pay, as you will recall, during the budget markup.
we put -- we put funding in allocated reserve pending some -- some ferreting out, if you will, of the policy and how we were going to implement the bilingual pay structure.
they are requesting that -- that that budget adjustment be made as well as hrmd requesting the transfer for the testing that has already taken place or for all of the testing.
what we are recommending and I'll let travis touch base on -- on our recommendations for the funding for the testing, and then we'll address the criminal courts if that's okay.
>> let me first --
>> [multiple voices]
>> so that item is which one?
>> d 2.
>> d 2, okay.
thanks.
>> last year the court approved -- excuse me, $59,890 in the compensation reserve for testing -- $5,980 for testing, for a total of 46 departments.
hrmd pleased a request to transfer that to pay for the testing fees.
however planning and budget and hrmd met regarding the potential impact for fy 2010, they would jointly recommend to suspend the pilot program, pay for the testing that's already taken place or will have taken place as of the end of today, that will be for a total of 28 employees.
which would change the budget request from 5980 to $1,820.
so -- so the two numbers for d 2 would change from 5980 coming from the compensation reserve to 1,820 and then 1,820 would be going to hrmd's other purchasing line item to pay for the testing.
>> just as a point of clarification, if that recommendation is being made if and only if the court agrees to suspend the bilingual pay program until economic times change and we can implement that through the compensation.
we did some -- some rough estimates in terms of the numbers.
we as directed hrmd did the survey, they can give you an update on the survey results.
just so you know, based on the survey results that we saw and the rough estimates in terms of the cost of this program, we anticipate the cost to run, if we fully fund everything that's been requested or anticipated to be requested, this program could run anywhere from 350 to $500,000.
based on that number, as travis said, hrmd and p.b.o.
got together, met and it is our joint recommendation that we suspends the program much like we did the market survey study for 2009.
>> I recommend that we do three things.
one is that we try to refine that number between now and next week.
two is that we have a separate posting that specifically addresses that policy.
>> yes, sir.
>> I'm not sure that it's legal for us to do it under budget amendments and transfers.
and that full amount is not down there anyway.
what's down here is -- the -- the 5,980 that we approved for testing, we did commit to do that, I think we ought to keep our commitment.
if we only need 1820 transferred to cover the tests that have been conducted so far, it sounds fine.
but the third point is that next week we will have a full court so it's a kind of big deal, especially for the departments that have numerous employees covered, which is what the number indicates to us right?
>> that's correct.
>> the 300 to $350,000.
we thought if we had a couple of people per department, the total cost would not be that much.
but some of the departments are saying two is not close to the number that they need.
and they -- they are suggesting 15 or 20.
and so if you look at $75 a month in annuallize that it's a real big number.
so I think that -- that we need a separate posting where we have an opportunity to address this as policy and we try to refine the number as best we can between now and next week.
and third point is that they will give the other two members an opportunity to be here.
>> okay.
>> okay.
Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> I just wanted clarification the 350 to 500,000 is that based on the two employees.
>> no, it's not.
it would be some of the larger departments that indicated that they were not prepared to even project at this time because their numbers would have been much greater than the two.
>> so this is probably the -- this range is actually a low end range.
>> it's a low end range, yes.
>> it's for that -- that would be the impact on fiscal year 2010?
>> and beyond.
>> so is that -- is that an annual hit or --
>> ongoing hit.
>> per year?
>> right.
>> that costs us with benefits as well.
included.
>> we would expect for it to be more than the 350 given the fact that the departments are still responding to the survey.
>> well, didn't we have -- I'm sorry, Commissioner, go ahead.
>> I can wait until next week until we have clearer numbers.
>> yeah.
yeah, that's for sure.
but even with that, if we have last year set aside the -- the amount of money that we have set aside to deal with this, all of the departments have not responded then my concern is why haven't we respond, we will have a better handle, these are smaller departments, we are talking at a minimum 300 some to $500,000, the larger departments have not responded so -- so I -- what would it take for them to respond so we can get the -- the full picture and still -- still -- instead of a partial picture as far as the amount of money?
>> I'm not really sure why departments have not responded.
some have responded but had he did not have a need for is that compensation or pay for their departments.
but some that have not responded were indicating that they didn't feel comfortable selecting two employees when their need was much greater.
>> so my concern is that we are not getting a full picture.
of course we are not posted properly anyway.
i -- for a lot of this.
>> for the --
>> [multiple voices]
>> it would be good to have a ballpark jump down drag outnumber.
knowing exactly what we are really dealing with when they actually report in force all of the numbers that we really need to look at to analyze that.
so that's my concern --
>> I think this conversation, Commissioner Davis, will be very good for departments who are listening.
what we can do in an effort to refine the numbers for next week, is with -- with this conversation put a notice out to the employees of the court's interests in getting a more refined number for fy 2010 and ask that they respond by some date and time certain so we can bring those numbers in.
>> so for item no.
3 today what we would recommend then is to -- to do -- do item d 1 or excuse me item d 2 at $1,820 versus the 5980 that you see and then hold on item d 1 which was the criminal court's transfer until we can get some direction on the policy.
if that's acceptable.
that sounds fine to me.
>> your considerations that I guess we ought to think about between now and next week, one is that for the small department that have salary savings that can cover this hit this year.
>> that's right.
>> but we would have to budget for a full 12 months next year.
>> uh-huh.
>> the other thing that I didn't realize until recently, I guess we ought to try to confirm this, but some departments actually require that you be able to speak spanish and they have provided additional income already, right?
>> our current compensation policy allows for -- for that to be considered when they are moisting a -- posting a position on a slot basis, they would prefer and would state that in the job posting that they prefer the
>> [indiscernible] scale.
our current comp policy is to allow hiring 10% above midpoint at which time departments can consider between minimum and 10% above that extra scale that the employee brings to that particular slot.
>> okay.
if you get five or 10% for extra skill already, do you get an additional $75 a month under our new pay policy?
you see what I'm saying?
why not a double hit for -- that was clearly not the intention.
it was basically to compensate those who were using a second scale for their using that for our benefit.
at the time of hire we bring them in at -- at five or 10% more because they had demonstrated that skill or claimed it, then we already compensated them for it.
the question next week will be how do we basically address that issue.
our intent is not to pay you twice, if they are using it.
the department's question really is are we paying them already the premium five or 10%.
i guess that brings the question will we be ready for this next Tuesday or do we need to give ourselves two weeks?
i would say that's h.r.'s call.
>> when I say we I guess I mean you
>> [laughter]
>> a week or two.
>> two weeks would probably be better.
>> two weeks.
>> the departments have indicated that it's difficult to assess what has been done in the past upon hiring for bilingual skills and whether that is the $75 supplemental pay or whether it's greater or less than that.
i think that giving them an extra week to assess that and make determinations and projections for what their needs truly are would be beneficial.
>> in that two-week time period, is there going to be any meeting of the compensation committee?
this really should be an issue taken up in the compensation structure.
>> the compensation committee meets tomorrow and this is an item that could very well be discussed and added to that agenda.
>> I think that it would be good to -- to have this issue raised in terms of how it should be addressed from a more holistic standpoint.
i would hate to do an ad hoc particularly in light of the fact that some people are being compensated for their skills currently and then we would be possibly created a double dip circumstance.
>> we actually talked about whether to make that recommendation or not.
alicia made a very good point when she said the court had already acting in taking a position on this.
that, you know, not to speak for alicia, but I think she felt like it should be a court decision in terms of any recommendations.
we are coming to the court making a recommendation in terms of -- to suspend the bilingual pay program for some indefinite period of time until some economic circumstances change based on the cost figures that we projected to be.
>> I hear what you are saying.
on that, also.
that's why I pose the question really how much money we're really talking about.
we just got partial.
just a partial rendering of that expenditure this morning.
there's a lot more money out there that folks are hollering about and stuff like that.
but of course economic conditions are going to dictate a whole bunch of stuff.
>> ms.
perez?
>> yes, sir.
>> I think it was suggested some time ago that this be -- this be deferred to the compensation committee.
that was my sense since it had been a policy decision that was made by the court it needed to come back to the court.
if the court so wishes to then defer it to the compensation committee then that -- that is totally your car.
i was just respectful not to take something that the court had already decided on to a committee.
before it got back to you.
>> well, when we acted on the last one, though, we had no idea it would cost $300,000.
two is I know we didn't know some employees were already getting five or 10 percent more for use of that skill to conduct county business.
that double dipping I know we wouldn't have knowingly approved.
>> I remember feeling at core if you were using that -- you were due additional compensation.
we were told I think that $75 per month is what many of their major employers pay.
including the public sector, so it made sense, all of the sense in the world to me to do it.
>> I think the issue of -- of someone getting a level because of that particular skill we would have to do some spot auditing on -- on -- on the -- on the pay determination guy to see if indeed that was the case.
that is not consistent throughout the county.
because some jobs say most will say preferred spanish speaking preferred.
but it is not -- we do not have the evidence or the fact that we could go back and say that consistently throughout the county that people indeed do get another level for -- for speaking spanish.
we would have to do a spot audit and see how prevalent that is.
the evidence would be more readily available the more recent the action.
if it happened 1, 2, 3 years ago, I assume that supervisor I don't know whoever did the hiring.
>> we can check the determination guide.
>> it has a check off on it for being able to speak another language, doesn't it?
>> uh-huh.
>> yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you would provide a level because there's two factors.
one the skill that they have your ability to pay.
so if -- if the -- if the -- department did not have the ability to pay for that particular skill, then that may be a skill that the person has but they weren't necessarily compensated for it.
>> how do we -- how do we compensate or how do we address, maybe not compensate might not be the -- the right word.
but how do we address those folks out there that -- that not only hispanics, we have folks that speak vietnamese, we have -- this is a very diverse country, period.
we have a lot of folks that speak several different languages.
how do we address the advent of maybe a person that speak vietnamese for an example, calling and saying well, you know, we need to deal with this and -- blah, blah, blah.
how do we address that?
and I really don't know.
>> you would address it by the particular needs.
if you indeed had a population --
>> [multiple voices] in a particular community, that where you needed the -- that particular language, then either you would have a translation service or you could indeed have -- if you had a -- if you had an employee who spoke vietnamese, you could also -- also I believe it would -- it would be fair to -- to submit that as a need of the department.
and then we could just as easily get someone to come and test for -- for a vietnamese.
and amend the policy.
>> I am aware that -- that health and human services has access to a translation service.
when a person with -- was speaking of the language other than what we have, southwestern internally to translate for, they will contact the translation service to provide that.
typically the compensation on that is -- such as what we have done to spend to the peace officers is because our population is one that requires more of the spanish speaking skills that we would internally as we have under you pops provided it.
just to remind the court that under the pops policy, in addition to spanish, we do have the option under that policy to -- to compensate a vietnamese vietnamese speaker as well as sign language.
i know those are two different policies but respond to the question that you have raised.
but we have not been requested by the sheriff's department to revise that add pay because there has not been a mass or a need for that under the vietnamese or the sign language skill.
>> okay --
>> what are -- I don't know, I know it will be posted next week.
i didn't want to belabor the conversation on it, but our job descriptions are do not require I should say that spanish be spoken for the certain positions.
departments on the other hand on a slot by slot basis, will make that determination as to whether or not spanish is preferred at the time that they post the vacancy.
so you may have a number of office specialists as an example and for the position of the duties that will be performed by one office specialist, the requirement may be or the need may be for that person to -- to be able to speak spanish because of the interface based on the business needs.
so it's on a slot by slot basis that it's determined spanish would be required.
>> but we did not arbitrarily choose 2.
our thinking was that in an 8 hour day, in some areas, the likelihood of us needing you to use that second language was great.
and for that reason, you should be compensated.
>> that's correct.
>> and with two people available, there's -- you know the likelihood that at least one would be available throughout the work day, was greater.
but to be honest, I didn't think about three shifts.
that's a little different good you think 24 -- different if you think 24 hour coverage.
>> or multiple locations.
>> multiple locations, too.
two at one time made all of the sense in the world.
when you think about it, in some departments really there's much, much greater need and in the court system you can't just think what system.
i think that you have got to think the number of courts.
i guess still a good question is whether one person could cover more than one court.
i mean, I guess we would have to rely on those that work in those courtrooms a lot more than ourselves.
i look forward to a full discussion two weeks from today.
we will have a separately posted item.
now, on this item today, number three, in a 2 we will change 4801 fund code to 6102, right?
>> right.
>> and t 1 we change --
>> t 1 the same.
>> good.
>> we leave like it is.
we will pull d 1.
and incorporate that in our discussion two weeks from today.
>> all right.
>> and we change d 2 from $5,980 to 1,820.
and we transferring that to hrmd?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
as I said in that second line.
those are all of the changes that we need to make.
>> yes, sir.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> with those changes included.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
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, June 16, 2009 2:41 PM