Travis County Commissioners Court
August 25, 2009,
Item 38
>> now let's go to number 38.
38 is to consider and take appropriate regarding a, the hiring processes and schedule to fill the following positions.
a, certain positions in the human resources management department.
a-1.
two, director, human resources management department.
and three, executive manager, administrative operations.
and 38-b, interim assignments and related actions as appropriate.
>> morning, judge.
>> morning, Commissioners.
my name ised to osbourne, -- my name is todd osbourne, compensation manager.
to my right, lorraine shiewl.
dan mansour, to my left chris nielson, acting stir manager.
to her left norm mccree.
financial manager.
>> I'm not entirely sure about the proper order to go in here, but I --
>> there is a proposal from the hrmd team.
>> there is.
>> maybe you should just lay that out for us.
>> perhaps I can start with an update.
since the events have taken place within the department, it has caused the leadership team of our department to work much more closely together and try to act to fill a perceived leadership void within the department.
and I guess I come here to tell you that it is our commitment to you is that we will work together on a team to as best as we can to fill the shoes of our director and to make decisions that work to the benefit of the county.
we will be working closely on -- to manage the day-to-day operations of our departments.
we are recommending to you as a court that certain actions take place on a personnel basis.
the leadership team would like you to consider taking the interim designation off of our acting stir manager to my left.
i believe she's fully qualified for the position and it is of course -- it has been posted, but we feel that she has demonstrated the capacity to serve in that role and we are asking the court to directly remove the acting manager and make her the manager of stir.
we are asking the court to designate luanne schull as the project manager on the hr side and to assume the leadership role for be fit within human resources.
we are also asking that the other vacancy within be fit and human resources be posted internally and externally as soon as possible.
we have two other vacancies, one is an hr analyst specialist 2 within compensation.
another one is a medical director position.
we are simply asking that that recruitment process simply continue on as scheduled.
and that we would ask that you consider as you go through this process that in terms of the order of filling vacancies, that is the considered opinion of the leadership team that the executive manager, administrator of operations be filled prior to the filling of the director of human resources and that that be filled prior to the assistant director of human resources.
i know last week there was some discussion about moving immediately to fill the assistant director position.
and we do believe that that is probably not the wisest course of action this the this point.
it is a position which has been vacant.
the responsibilities are still somewhat undefined and we believe that the director, once they come into that position, would probably go a long way towards defining what the responsibilities of that position would be.
so we ask that -- actually, that entire process be delayed at this point.
having said all that, that was the recommendations of our leadership group.
and did you want to discuss any of the vacancies at this point?
we certainly prepared some backup related to how far each of them have gone in terms of the recruitment process.
we're happy to discuss any of those, but otherwise we'll let the backup stand as posted.
>> I have a question of legal as it relates to the filling the stir position.
do we need to -- can we just accept this recommendation or do we need to post it and go through a process?
>> I'll have to get with barbara, whoever has that.
>> on the stir position, though, we have posted that before.
>> we have posted it twice.
>> we received 241 applications as of -- gosh -- as of last Friday.
>> so that's the problem.
>> I'm sorry, that is incorrect.
we received 241 applications the first time we posted it.
it was not filled, it was reposted, and as of last Friday we had 190 applications.
>> and that's the problem I have with it.
it seems to me that since we've already posted it and we already had the applications on hand, and ms.
nielson, have you applied already?
>> yes.
>> and she's already applied, I think what we ought to do is try to position ourselves to short list that down to a workable number where we can interview and fill it.
and if ms.
nielson is the best applicant for it, then so be it.
ms.
nielson, you were hired into which position?
>> hr specialist senior.
>> she was hired into hr specialist senior.
>> slot number 8 on the org chart.
>> of course, we can -- what's the teens the legal question?
-- what's the teens the legal question?
>> I had a chance to speak with john and he believes you can fill that position according to your posting, the interim position.
that's the question I heard.
>> well, the question is really can we simply elevate ms.
nielson from her current position and she's doing double duty as interim stir director 2 to the permanent stir director position.
>> according to john that, his understanding of the posting that you should be able to do that, fill that position.
>> it wasn't so much the posting as to whether we could legally do it.
>> right now?
>> yes.
>> what if there's any impediment because we reposted the position and have all of these applicants.
>> I'm sorry, judge, I misunderstood.
i thought you meant the posting for the agenda.
>> I wasn't talking about the posting.
i was talking about really we just take the action, although I oppose it.
it seems to me if you have 150 applications on board and you've advertised it twice, then you would short list and interview and put ms.
nielson in with the others.
and if she wins out, in my view, so be it.
>> there's not a problem with the job posting being listed currently.
if we've posted it, it should not be a problem to still fill it now.
>> that's not quite the legal question, is it?
the legal question is we have ms.
nielson serving in this position on an interim basis.
>> yes, sir.
>> may we simply elevate her to this job permanently?
>> yes.
>> okay.
so legally we can do it.
>> yes.
>> why don't we go ahead and decide that?
because it is -- it's a -- it's a good question.
i mean, I just think that since we posted it twice, since we have 150 applications, then we ought to short list those and interview.
and in terms of who conducts the interview, then I think we ought to have -- we ought to have a panel to do that and we ought to engage one or two of the executive managers to assist some hrmd personnel.
>> and judge, if that's a motion, I would second that.
in addition to that, there are two executive managers who have stepped up and said that they'll be part of the interview panel to -- I guess either to short list the applications -- I think it is important to follow through when we post positions.
and whatever we do after that, we still need to notify people and say it's been filled, thanks for applying or whatever it is that we do.
i think we also have two executive managers who are willing to accept up and help either screen the applications and/or serve on the panel to interview.
>> yeah.
i think that way we basically choose the best applicant after considering them, including ms.
nielson.
the other thing is that it should be our standing policy that no matter how many applications we get, if we're not happy with any of them, we simply repost.
although reposting this time would be a third posting, right?
>> that's correct.
>> so I assume that there's a limit to how many times reason allows you to repost.
any other comments on this?
this is just one of the items --
>> I have -- I have just a couple of things.
number one is that I'm not going to support this motion.
i'm going to let you know that now.
>> okay.
>> I think number two is that sooner or later I think Commissioner Huber had some real good points on some things.
sooner or later we'll have to face the music as far as reorganization within Travis County.
i think sooner or later we'll have to also face the inevitable, ineffable meaning that -- inevitable meaning that we're getting older and we're going to be moving on.
and that means succession has to be in place somewhere.
and I don't want to go too far into that, but I do know that we need to start discussing at some point succession.
how will we address the baby boomers that are here with Travis County and who -- how will we deal with the succession plan?
i think those are very relevant.
and of course, issues that really need to be looked at.
but anyway, this is not part of this particular motion as far as what they're coming up with, but I think it is probably a by product of something that probably need to happen.
so anyway, that's my two cents on that.
and -- but I'm not going to support the motion.
>> okay.
>> I'd like to say that I respect the recommendations of the hrmd leadership team.
i do think that since we've started down a process here that it's something that we should follow through with.
i think it sends the wrong signals if we cut it off in mid stream.
>> my two cents are in regard to this team working together and coming up with the suggestions, it's again just a remarkable show of how resilient the organization is and the incredible talent that's within it.
and in regard to this particular position, the stir manager, since it has been posted twice -- and I understand that ms.
nielson was the recommendation in the first posting.
that we should move forward with a short listing and an interview process of including the executive managers that have offered their services.
you already seconded the motion, correct?
i would like to throw out the possibility that -- for consideration of including those two executive managers on the hrmd leadership team.
>> that's separate.
it's not covered by the motion.
i think we ought to discuss that, though.
the motion deals with this one job, which has been seconded.
any more discussion of it?
and it really is about feeling the stir manager position, it's about basically short listing -- what two executive managers?
>> I believe dan any hobby and roger jeffreys.
>> we had asked mr.
hobby and mr.
jeffreys to assist, and do we have individuals in hrmd selected already?
would the team select those?
>> we've already started screening the applications, but for the committee we have not selected members, but we would certainly be glad to do it.
>> okay.
can we just defer to them to choose two or three later?
>> yeah.
>> two or three hr members?
>> to work with the two executive managers.
>> absolutely.
>> is that all right?
any objection to that?
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor of that.
can I try to do a softball or two if --
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> yes, sir.
ms.
schull has been sort of designated the b fit person I guess for the last year or so.
and in my view it makes all the sense in the world to do her as manager because from the beginning we would have two from hrmd and we would still have to post the area.
and this is a softball, right?
so in my position, we reaffirm ms.
schull serving as b fit manager and part of this too is for us to go ahead and post for that second b fit person.
>> and show that hris is a separate position.
i wasn't completely understanding that.
>> the only thing is that you will have to go back and look at what we've voted for in order to make this b fit project work.
and as I recall, there was two people presently on board with hr who would go over to the b fit project, based on the experience that they've had with hr and the county structure, then those two people would be backfilled by new people who would then be trained in.
so my guess is we still need one more person from hr who -- and these two people also need to have the authority to make decisions when they meet with the b fit team so that they can get going on the process.
and so this -- we need to designate another hr person on staff right now to move over and then we post that position to backfill for whoever goes over.
>> well, my problem with that is that hrmd is fairly thin.
>> that second position was identified as chris, who has -- as of last Friday confirmed to the leadership team that her interest is in the stir manager.
that is why we need to post for the second b fit position and not --
>> Commissioner Gomez is exctly right.
the way we exapped for all department -- the way it happened for all departments is we wanted functional people who were very familiar with the operation, and then what we would doshire backfills like with louann.
she's the person that is doing compensation and then of course she has duties that she has been performing and todd was hired as a backfill for that position.
the skill level that we need for the second position which is what we plented to you on the project is benefits and there needs to be someone who really understands benefits.
and can work -- this is several years.
i absolutely agree with the recommendation that louann be kind of the manager there because someone will have to be making decisions all along.
that second person has to be someone who is very familiar with the benefits in order to fulfill that, so our -- what we have done with other positions is you would pick one of our experts and you would hire to train and backfill that position with someone.
so you're exactly right, Commissioner Gomez.
in theory that's what you would hope.
>> that makes sense when we made the decision.
i'm not sure it makes that much sense today, though.
because of a thinning of the ranks in hrmd.
if ms.
nielson prefers another position in hrmd, I guess there's some interest in trying to keep her happy.
not that she wouldn't be happy serving on b fit if required to, but shouldn't we be able to find a person who -- who has the benefits background and can learn Travis County benefits fairly quickly?
>> if hr and you are comfortable that that person will be making the decisions on the system, I mean that really is your call.
and of course life isn't perfect with any of these things.
and you need to make that decision and they need to make that because what we can't have for any -- not just hr, but people over there making decisions and then they really can't make a decision and then they come back and they get back to the office and oh, no, that's not right.
this all needs to be changed.
it needs to be somebody that understands the county and understands the function.
and the systems people that we have will help them, but what the systems people will not have is the functional knowledge, like louann is going to be the expert on compensation.
our people aren't.
the systems people will work with her, but what she's going to bring to the table is the functional knowledge and these systems do a lot for you, but you have to make the business decision and you need to load it.
so that really requires people who know that.
so if you think you could recruit someone that would have that level of knowledge, and it probably would be needed in about five months, then that would be a strategy.
my suggestion would be you take someone that knows that on staff and backfill them.
but that is absolutely your call.
i wanted to let you know what we're going to need for that project to be successful.
>> I think also along with that, I think in some manner -- but anyway, I think we need to really -- I think we heard testimony today from citizens of this community that said that, hey, Travis County, you need to look at your diversity when you do these things.
i think diversity is part of what this process should be about, but anyway, I just want to throw that out whichever -- whatever the court decides to do.
you would be mindful of diversity.
>> let's take the easy part.
that is that ms.
schull, louann schull, be appointed to manager.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor and Commissioner Davis abstaining or voting against?
>> I'm not supporting it.
>> how are you voting?
>> no.
>> he's voting no.
>> now the question is what to do with the b fit benefits persons is that we're calling them or the number two hrmd benefit person?
dan, were you about to offer advice?
>> I was about to.
my suggestion is to post the position for internal and external to the county.
see what applications we get, what the background of those individuals are.
and make a decision at that point on who is best qualified.
>> one concern I have, and again, I can't praise y'all enough for what y'all are doing for the organization, being kind of a five-headed manager.
but I'm concerned that we are -- I'm concerned that we are not distributing our resource according to what's best for the organization because when there is a five-headed manager, you're having to -- it's scially immediate management and I'm a little concerned about that.
>> yeah.
and I agree.
that's what I had kind of thought about.
>> I'm a little bit concerned about that, I'm greatly concerned about that.
>> I am too because I think it's a matter of making the decision that is best for the organization and the outcome of that financial system.
you know, we have to have people who are experienced and know the county.
and if we posted the position, we would have to bring somebody in and train them.
we've got to get going on this financial system, which is already behind schedule several years.
and so we need to -- can you think about it in those -- in that manner?
>> of course.
i mean, that's consideration.
i think I heard that the position would be needed in about five months.
>> yeah.
>> it needs to be up and running.
>> it needs to be up and running, ready to go, hit the ground running.
>> ms.
nielson, does your background -- is your background strong in benefits?
>> my general background including benefits, but it's not Travis County benefits.
my focus has been for the past three and a half years, staffing, training and employee relations.
>> which makes you excellent for the stir position.
>> but I do have the prior experience in hr benefits compensation, all of that.
>> what about norm?
>> my plate is full with financial matters related to the hr department budget and other things.
i mean, I'm not day-to-day benefits.
>> well, if we post this thing very quickly, say for 30 days, take a look at the applicants, we'll know whether there are some gems there or whether we think we have a better person in-house.
it's just that I think -- my thinking is what we have is a b fit generalist position, and today we're saying generalist/benefits.
so the question is can we post and find that person to work for us on a financial system.
or should we pull somebody already in-house?
and what I'm hearing you say is based on your background, being sort of away from benefits for three and a half years, you have a learning curve there of some sort also.
right?
>> that is correct.
>> plus an interest in really working in some other areas instead of benefits and financial systems.
either one is fine with me except I do think we should go ahead and today figure out what direction we'll head in on this mid level position.
>> obviously the other person that is in the room, I guess we don't want to say it, but nobody knows more about benefits than cindy.
is your plate just entirely too full?
>> I can't do both.
you have to --
>> [inaudible - no mic].
she is the expert.
>> you will have to come up.
they can't hear you.
>> absolutely.
>> you have to hire someone that cindy would train to do her job here.
and of course, she'll be communicating back and forth, all the team members would.
but that's true.
she's your expert in benefits.
but what you would be doing is you would look for someone who has her background.
she would work on training them.
so when we need them -- we're all doing that.
when she's needed across the street, she would move over there.
and hopefully a person who can fill her position would be doing that and of course they would be calling and asking some questions and things like that.
but that's kind of what we envision, not just with hr, but the others.
and in hr the two skill sets that we need because of the volume and the way the system works, is compensation and benefits.
those are the two skill levels.
and louann has the compensation.
so ideally we need someone who knows benefits.
>> I guess I'm trying to figure out why we couldn't expect cindy to help us train a new person on -- about Travis County benefits.
>> we would.
we would expect that.
she would do that, judge.
>> because it seems to me that having worked with cindy through long years, we kind of need her where she is if we can leave her there.
she's too valuable.
but if she can train a new person, it's almost like having our cake and eating it too.
>> well, it's your call.
if you think the new person can make the decisions or you think that cindy ought to make it and the new person is here, it's absolutely your call.
and we're kind of struggling through some of that in our own divisions.
the only pitch I need to make is that if you -- whoever is over there needs to really understand benefits and Travis County.
and they will be making decisions that you will be living with for a long time.
and it will fit into everything else.
all the positions over there are like that, not just this one.
so in my own department as well as this, my preference would always be the experienced expert in-house and we backfill with someone new.
but if that absolutely cannot happen, then we need to make the best decision we can and go forward with it.
>> okay.
but it looks like we need someone new and we can decide, I guess based on that person's performance, whether it makes sense to send that person to b fit or to leave that person --
>> absolutely.
>> in -- in hrmd and let cindy go to b fit on are use both of them.
>> I can see county employees all over the departments calling cindy for those questions that she is able to answer for us and make us comfortable that we're making the right choice.
>> I have her on my speed dial.
>> yeah, absolutely.
>> [ laughter ]
>> you can put the other person on your speed dial.
but either of those will work.
and I think, judge, you're right.
look for another person and that person will either backfill cindy or they'll work on b fit and as time goes on, I encourage you to get that done as soon as possible so that the training can take place.
and then you could make that decision and you've already designated that louann would be the one for the department making decisions because we need someone who can make decisions over there for hr.
and I -- there's going to be a huge role for hr in many regards inasmuch as there will be a lot of training.
your hr training people will have part of that.
your its training people will have that.
i'm sure when we bring up the new system there may be issues on requirements in job descriptions throughout the county.
hr will be working on that.
they have a very important role in this because some of it is a reconstituting of how we do business.
but you can absolutely do that.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion?
>> can we achieve a level of flexibility in this b fit hris posting so that we can make a decision that is best for the organization if we need to move an existing, experienced employee over to b fit and use this position to backfill them rather than putting them in b fit?
>> that was susan's recommendation, I think.
i think we can do it.
>> yes.
>> what it means is that we have to make sure that we hired the right person or the best person we can.
and based on that person's performance and cindy's working with her, decide at some point later whether to send cindy to b fit or the new person.
>> yes.
>> but our goal would be to fill this as soon as possible and get this person up to speed on Travis County benefits as well as I guess a keen interest in financial systems.
>> right.
>> that's the combination we're looking for, right?
>> it's a special person.
>> okay.
>> I guess that's my motion.
everybody -- all right.
second.
so we post the position, fill it as soon as possible with an eye to bringing in a person with the benefit background, some interest in financial systems, and expect all of us to work together and help cindy bring this person up to speed on traibt benefits.
that was seconded?
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
now, the other softball I guess is the director of the clinic.
what's the official title?
>> medical director.
>> and we're proceeding with that, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> and we are down to a single finalist.
>> single finalist who is going through the second interview on September ninth.
>> okay.
>> so your request is just that we stay out of the way on that one.
let's do it.
>> [ laughter ] let do it.
>> okay.
>> the other kind of mid level position, the hard part will be the top ones, I guess.
but the other mid level position is the hr assistant.
specialist.
>> I think it's the hr analyst specialist that is in the compensation division.
and I guess to paraphrase your words, I guess my request would be to yes, stay out of the way and let us do the normal procedure.
i've narrowed my list down to six.
i haven't interviewed them yet, but that's where I'm at.
>> that makes sense, right?
okay.
now, let's talk about the director of human resources and the executive manager position.
okay?
>> can I lead off?
>> I circulated yesterday a proposed plan that I have come up with that deals with not hiring immediately for the executive manager for admin ops and proceeding down a path of organizational assessment.
i would like to say thank you, mr.
bender for your testimony in citizens comments.
>> springer.
>> springer, I'm sorry.
>> ringer.
>> thank you.
>> obviously.
i was about to say I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him yet.
i look forward to it.
>> his first name is frank.
frank ringer.
>> I'm going to find him out after court.
anyway.
i don't believe I could say it better than he did of why I believe it's so important right now that we pause to look at the organization and its needs, its opportunities and its efficiencies.
>> we've grown tremendously since the last organizational assessment since 1994, both the population in the county which has increase bid 54 percent, and we've grown internally, but we haven't grown internally to the level of the populations.
so -- and with the economic conditions that we're in we're going to be looking at need for more efficiency possibly and addressing that right now in this situation I believe is the best possible course of action.
the other thing that I believe makes it important for us to pause to do this is that we are currently embarking on a facilities master plan.
if we indeed find out that there are organizational needs that are different than what we're currently assess willing them at, that could impact this planning.
so it's timely in that respect to do that.
>> I had an opportunity to talk yesterday to most of the hmrd leadership team and I am impressed with the way they have risen to the occasion to address the responsibilities that needed to be assumed there and the issues that needed to be dealt with.
one of the things that comes out of a situation like this is I believe it can bring the best in people out.
they raise above themselves to do things.
and I think our hrmd leadership team is a very good example of that.
so that's another reason why I believe we should seize this moment to capitalize on the needs that we have and take the time to address them in the right way.
if we do not hire immediately for these two senior level positions, we have a cost savings over the next year that could be applied to some resources that we might need in an organizational needs assessment.
at the same time I want to point out that we have have great leadership not only in the team I mentioned, but in the -- in our executive managers.
we've got five excellent executive managers.
they know the county, they do a great job in their divisions.
they probably know where some of the needs are that we need to look at.
and I think we should capitalize on that.
i have not floated my opinion in front of them at this point.
i do not know where they may stand in support of this, but I believe -- I can't imagine that they wouldn't rise to the occasion.
so what I really think we should do is postpone the hiring for these two senior level positions, address how we manage the existing departments in the interim.
that we put together a team of the executive managers -- by the way, I did not include on my list, but should have audit and purchasing as part of that team because that is -- those are two other important components of assessing the county.
to look at the -- walk down this path of organizational assessment and then we need to walk down another short-term path of addressing the short-term or the interim management needs of who can assume, for example, in the executive manager leadership, the other departments that are currently under admin ops.
so that's where I am open for discussion and I have a motion to make.
>> well, and I looked at the ideas that you presented last time.
and what I did was go back to the study that the comptroller did in 1994.
they applied some logic that I think has not grown old because what they came up with was the pbo administrative operations, hhs and veterans services.
help me.
what are the others?
and then we added -- and then we added the ems and the fire marshal.
that -- to separate it from justice and public safety which is the criminal justice system.
and so to me the logic that they applied then has not gotten so old that it can't be applied today because those are the functions that Travis County government has chosen to be involved in.
and so those are reflected in our budget process.
the executive managers, yes, they are very familiar with Travis County government as are the judge and I since we've been here, I certainly have worked with county government since 1973 as an employee and then as an elected official.
and I had to report to this Commissioners court, so I know how they operate when they ask you about your budget.
and when you ask for certain number of f.t.e.'s and sometimes they give you what you want and sometimes they don't.
but I learned to deal with that process.
and so I really want to stress that I think I have I believe valuable experience and as do other people.
i want to continue applying that for county government.
county government has some mandates that it has to carry out.
and in most of those, of course, are regarding indigent si and so we're pretty familiar with that.
now, the administrative operations function came out of the general services that used to exist, and what they mostly dealt with was facilities, the employees, all of the needs of employees and that's why hr made sense to come under administrative operations.
the facilities -- and I think later we added the expo as something else for that executive manager to deal with.
and so while I think that we -- yes, we need to fredricksburg enthe organization -- to freshen the organization and I totally agree with mr.
ringer that in terms of, for instance, conflict that I thought that this organization certainly ought to move to the point of recognizing that conflict is not a bad thing.
it's going to occur between humans every time you turn around whether it's here on the job, whether it's at home, whether it's in schools.
children face conflict.
and they're being taught to problem solve their conflict.
and I think that's a real eye opener and a glimmer of hope for me that in the future we have more people coming out of those elementary schools knowing how to deal with conflict that it's going to be a good thing.
i think when we don't deal with conflict that's when we become dition functional.
i totally agree that our organization does not need to fall down to that level.
in terms of the cost savings, I kind of -- the experience I've had with that, yes, there's cost savings when you have vacancies or you don't fill positions.
there's also a cost to not filling all of the positions that you need in order to get an organization to function properly.
and in our -- I'm concerned about the growth of government agencies just like every other taxpayer is, but I don't think that we have wasted any money in this organization.
pbo has been pretty good in the past of trying to identify those issues, and I think that we're very careful because any time that we add on more f.t.e.'s, it means another tax increase for our taxpayers.
and I certainly hear, and when you run for office you will hear from a lot of folks who will talk about their tax increases.
and so I'm very mindful of those costs, and it's really good to have more efficiency when people say, yes, I can do that.
and I can include it with the -- with my job that I currently serve.
i can multitask.
and so to get everything done for county government.
i'm not sure that I personally have seen added challenges to my plate.
land use has been there forever, since 1973 when I joined this organization.
so it's -- have you to find different ways of trying to deal with that.
and then you also hear from people who want to get away from the city of Austin.
with all their development requirements and fees and permits, and they want to live out in the county where they can kind of live on their own.
you have to remind them every now and then you can't have a street light.
you had it in the city of Austin, but you can't have it out in the county.
we don't -- we're not into that business.
you're basically out on your own.
so no, you can't have speed bumps.
we don't have lights out in the county.
and it would increase our liability.
so we have to kind of explain those differences, but I think that I agree with most of the suggestions you have; however, I think that we can still do all of these things by filling the positions.
the position of executive manager.
and the other thing that I'm fearful of is that is we have to have a team that reflects the makeup of this community.
it is not because some group is screaming about it in the community, it's simply because I like to go back to the fact that we're a democracy.
and we can't forget that we're a democracy.
and we have to reflect the makeup of the community.
we have to listen to people, especially when they're angry.
i think that it's a -- it's a skill that we kind of build up and develop when we have to deal with folks who are really angry about something that we have done.
we have to have classes that we protect, especially when it comes time to redirect.
there are groups that we have to protect.
and we have to make sure that they have a standing in this community.
and that's what I am.
>> judge, could I add a couple more things that I didn't?
>> certainly.
>> first of all, I would like to say that I didn't say this earlier, that a good organizations usually do some reflective analysis on organizations, at least every three to five years.
and it has been a long time since we've had organizational assessments.
1994, that's 15 years.
there's been a lot happen in the last 15 years that could directly impact how we manage our organization and where the responsibilities lie.
none the least of which is the growth in height tech industry and the resources there.
so certainly things are changing as well as what -- and the demands have changed, I believe, I respectfully disagree on the demands on the county in some categories.
and I do respect the history because that's very, very important.
and we have to pull together as a team to do this.
but I think that we -- the demands have changed enough on the county that it really would want us to pause to reflect on hiring.
and I feel like that given what we've been through and the conflict, I do agree with you is good.
conflict is good because it causes us to take a longer look at things.
i'm just not -- I just am not comfortable that hiring right now is the time to move on past that conflict because I think we need a healing process, which could be realized during this as well.
and I had first proposed and interim hr manager because I know we're thin in hr.
after talking with leadership team yesterday, I think that there may be some other options we should consider on how to manage the hr in particular in the short run.
so I'm not prepared today to say let's hire an interim hr manager, but I think we need to pause.
i think we're -- I think they've demonstrated that the bases are beginning to be covered and diversity is huge.
we need to be sure that we've got succession planning, that it incorporates good diversity planning, that we have leadership training to cultivate the diversity that we need at the top.
and we're looking at major retirements among a lot of senior level managers in the next five years.
and better now than later to bring those pieces together so that we end up not only with an appropriate executive manager, but additional ones.
i believe if we rush into hiring an executive manager now, it will complicate that process.
>> it's just that I don't understand what putting off the hiring of the executive manager will help in the long run with all the other ideas?
i mean, these other ideas can fit in with that one decision.
and so unless I'll just not -- I'm not seeing what exactly -- what plan you're exactly proposing.
>> well, first I believe that we need to take a look at admin ops department.
it may end up staying the same, but i.t.
is there, i.t.
needs are changing.
we need to be sure that's where it belongs.
we've got major things going on with facilities right now in the facilities master plan.
is this the right umbrella for those other departments?
if we were to go ahead now and hire an executive manager for admin ops with the expectations of having all of these departments under them and then do a needs assessment and change that, that's a little bit of a back sider to slam someone that you just hired, in another year or two we may change the whole job description for you.
so I don't think that it's been absolutely proven that we need to fill that position until we've had a chance to take a look at what that department in particular -- that decision in particular needs -- that division needs to be structured.
and we're in a bit of -- there's no perfect deal.
and we're in a bit after bind here where we have two open positions.
but if we can manage the hr position, that's the biggest one.
either through an interim or through the leadership team or through a combination of the leadership team and executive managers.
if we can do that and give us long enough pause to deal with the diversity succession and other planning, then we can go in with a program that will really fit well with the major level new hires.
and that's what I'm just saying I think we need to do.
and I think we have tremendous talent in house to guide that.
>> I think if you talk to the departments that are under administrative operations, I think they are also very competent folks.
and they have gone on and taken care of all of the things that they have to do, agenda items, backup.
and so that in talking to them, I feel -- I believe in them.
i believe in them strongly that they will continue to keep this organization moving forward.
>> I would also like to add that I think it presents a great opportunity in the organizational assessment to pull in external advisors to participate -- we've had a lot of people comment on the -- individuals and organizations comment on the process that we're going through right now.
and to pull those people in to work with us on their -- with their -- offer up their ideas of diversity programs, succession, planning.
i think it's very healthy and I think it would benefit us all the way across the board not just in the hiring of the senior level people, but to get that process moving sooner.
>> but the diversity challenge applies county-wide.
county-wide you're talking about 4600 employees.
hrmd you're talking about 40?
there's no way for us to achieve diversity just in hrmd.
it has to be county wide.
i don't know how we tie that to the executive manager of these four distinct departments.
my problem is last time we took a real good look at reorganization it took a year and a half because we got outside assistance.
we got help whenever we could get it basically.
so really at the executive manager level it wasn't as high as it should have been in terms of managing strategic planning, providing overall direction and my view is that we ought to give some thought to the kind of executive manager that we want here and that we seek that person.
it will take even if we expedite it, three or four months to fill.
and if we do the other thing, though, the real good look at what county government needs and how it should be structured, it's hard for me to conclude that that will take less than 12, maybe as many as 24 months, which is a long time.
>> I would anticipate it would take about a year.
i also have heard, and I don't know this for a fact, but the '94 process was very, very time assuming and very tedious.
if that's true, I would like to offer up that when I was doing -- I'm not current, so I couldn't plan to be an expert on this.
i do understand and I do consulting for organizational development.
and that if it's done right, it's energizing, it's not as time consuming and it can be done in a year.
so I don't know what your previous experience was, but I would suggest that we try to do it and do it right and plan on the year.
i would also like to ask -- you may not be prepared for an answer, but if we were to embark down on a path where we utilized the hrmd leadership team, do you have any idea how long as a team you might be able to feel comfortable serving with your own job responsibilities specifically in this kind of role?
>> I think we're prepared to serve until such time as you appoint a director.
>> even if it were a year?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> if we hired the executive manager first and let the executive manager hire the director of hrmd, you're looking at a long time.
>> but if we find in a needs assessment that we may not, for example, hypothetically -- I'm just speaking because in many organizations, hrmd is the department in and of itself.
what if we have evolved where we have a better structure here?
then we have an executive manager who has the most major -- one of the biggest departments taken away from them.
>> it's not one of the biggest departments, it's one of the smallest.
it's small compared to facilities and i.t.
i don't know about records management.
it depends on who you put in there.
but hrmd is a department unto itself already with a director.
>> they report to -- it doesn't report to the Commissioners court --
>> but it did at one time.
that was not good.
>> [ laughter ] a lot of other departments reported to us too.
that was not good.
>> let me talk about that very idea.
i am very, very concerned about managerial drift in our current state.
and I want to say our current state as I define it occurred long before the employment actions with regard to ms.
perez and ms.
smith.
we are in managerial drift, not because of what occurred last month.
we are in managerial drift and have been for some time with regard to the administrative ops and hr in particular.
it seems to me that Commissioner Huber's proposal that she sent out yesterday could be broken down into two parts.
one being a short-term proposal and one bag a long-term proposal.
the short-term would go a long way to addressing -- to mitigating any managerial drift that we have in the short-term as we wrestle with how we're going to fill these positions, the administrative ops and hr.
that proposal being utilizing the executive managers, all five of them to select an executive manager to work with the management team and hr, a specific one to work with the management team and hr and then allocating the responsibilities of administrative ops among the other four executive managers.
i think that that is an excellent proposal to mitigate what we're feeling right now as a drift.
i think that that proposal in itself would help us out and give us some breathing space to figure out what we're doing next.
i am concerned and have been for some time that the tasks under administrative operations have become too numerous and disparate for any one person to truly manage the whole beast.
i could be wrong about that and I am not an organizational structure expert, but it has occurred to me in my dealings with administrative opens ops before that perhaps it was simply too broad a palate.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] and susan is doing a tremendous job in managing that so I don't feel management drift, I'm just concerned about h.r.'s inclusion in that.
the cbd master plan, which is also massive, although again I don't see management drift there because we have mr.
smith working on that as well as a consultant.
but we've also got the airport plan and facilities.
we have a compensation structure review that's being done by committee, which is exceedingly important to the organization long term.
and I think it would be good to implement the first bullet in order to mitigate that -- any perception or actual drift that we're experiencing.
>> it just seems to me that when I see one, I'm thinking we need to do this -- if we want a long-term strategy.
if fact we will take a year to a year and a half to reorganize and figure out where to go, then I think that adding additional responsibilities to the current executive managers makes sense.
if we plan to move short term, it does not.
if the opinions of the department heads matter, their preference is not to have an executive manager if there is a short-term action by the court.
we did chat with them.
i don't know that anybody was real --
>> I'm sorry, the executive manager or the department heads?
>> the department heads inside of administration operations.
they say on the short-term basis they can make do and they have basically shown in hrmd they can.
and I think part of the time the best we can do is kind of stay out of the way.
but there are long-term things that require a little bit more organization, you know, so one is I think their opinions ought to matter, and two is I don't know reporting to one of the other executive managers necessarily helps the departments.
it really depends on who heads them right now, what issues they have and how long we expect for them to travel alone.
and the longer we expect them to do without an executive manager on a permanent basis, the greater the need, I think, to appoint somebody on the interim.
that's a good -- now, I'm diabetic, as you all know, and I'm real bad about eating breakfast and I insist on eating lunch.
we need to get back at 1:30 in order to finish this afternoon so we can complete this item, okay?
and what I would like to do is contact judge evans on that hearing and say it looks like it will be 3:00 instead of 2:30.
that will buy us an additional 30 minutes.
if over lunch we could look at some of the other items and figure out what we absolutely need to do today and what we might be able to hold off until next week.
so if we can get that done over lunch, we may be able to finish this afternoon at a reasonable hour.
but we will call up 38 first thing this afternoon.
well, second thing after the corporations.
how is that?
>> that's fine.
>> and take as long as we need to to finish this discussion.
is that all right?
move that we recess to 1:30.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
Now, let's call back to order -- let's call back up for -- for a completion of our discussion of number 38.
which we started this morning.
john, do you think that I need to read this again.
38 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding a the hiring processes and schedule to fill the following positions: 1.
certain positions in the human resources management department; 2.
director, human resources management department; and 3.
executive manager, administrative operations; and 38 b is interim assignments and related actions, as appropriate.
and this morning Commissioner Huber laid out her proposal, which we were in the middle of discussing.
when we broke for lunch.
judge I think that I will make a motion at this point and we can have further discussion on it.
in recognition of what Commissioner Eckhardt was saying about looking at the short-term first and also in -- with the idea in mind that the -- take there seems to be substantial interest in assessing the organization, and I firmly believe that we should at this point.
i would like to move that we delay the hiring for the top two positions, the admin ops, executive manager and the director of human resources, and direct the executive management team to work with hrmd leadership team to come up with a plan for covering in the short-term the -- the different departments in admin op, with looking at that, from a perspective of time.
and how long they could -- they could feel that such a plan would be workable.
with the idea in mind that we would be interested in entertaining a long-term organizational assessment under that management plan.
>> any way to break that motion up into different parts?
>> perhaps.
>> I see three, really.
first, delay the hiring of the director of human resources.
>> all right.
>> I'm good for that.
>> can we do that.
that was the first -- part of the first part of your motion.
what if we take that one.
>> all right.
>> okay.
>> I'll second that motion.
>> discussion?
this is to delay the hiring of the director of human resources.
>> terms of discussion, just to throw it out there, I think that the team of executive managers could come together and possibly come up with a far more useful -- job description than we are currently working from.
the current job description is essentially the old job description and I think that there could be some fresh thinking on -- on the skill set that we need for that job.
that's -- that's one thing just off the top, I think, that we could probably achieve through the -- through this that would require a short delay.
>> all right.
the motion is to delay hiring of director of human resources.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor.
>> abstaining.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> two, delay the hiring of the executive manager.
and until we when?
would be the question there.
>> I would go back to my original motion that wanted me to break up.
looking to the executive management team to assess how long we could -- they could manage the pieces of admin ops pursuant to organizational --
>> we would leave that up in the air, the time frame would be dependent upon on the executive manager's decision with regard to their ability to manage what's under admin ops.
>> right.
>> against the time it would take to do appear organizational assessment.
>> I think that would -- that would promote that management drift that Commissioner Eckhardt is fearful of, I now fear myself.
secondly, I think that the department heads are willing to -- to row their own boat, short term.
and it seems to me that we have a responsibility to concentrate on the executive manager and fill that position as soon as possible.
short for us would be three to four months.
and if we find ours self not having enough progress, we could easily revisit this item.
but that's my fear.
the other thing is that the executive managers have offered to assist.
i think we can really use their help now more in helping to -- to short list some of the other critical positions that we have already discussed and providing input and making sure that they continue to manage their -- their functional areas as best they can.
so --
>> well, I have a question of the executive -- have the executive managers been asked how they feel about an organizational assessment?
>> I asked that question, but they said they would be willing to split up the four departments and each of them take one.
they offered that from day one, which is what led me to kind of check informally with the various departments affected.
>> right.
>> and those departments kind of left me with the impression that --
>> they can do it.
>> the best we could do them right now is leave them alone.
where they needed to put a team together in the department they would do that.
if that ended up not working, they would come back and chat with us, and if we saw it wasn't working we could chat with them, too.
>> of course there's a huge disincentive, sort of feels like the parents talking, this is really weird
>> [laughter] but I think that we have to be honest that if there's a natural human disincentive to say I can't handle this, this is has -- this has gotten too big.
you all are really capable top notch folks and I know that I in the same position would wait until the absolute last moment to say I can't -- this is not working anymore, we can't handle it, we need Commissioners court input because for all intent and purposes we're your direct boss right now.
>> they are communicating with us, though.
you know, as needed.
>> but let me go back to a question that Commissioner Huber had.
i hear that the executive managers offered their services and -- in managing the different divisions.
but did they -- did they -- it may not have ever been asked.
what the executive managers would think of an organizational assessment.
>> I think it goes back to what the judge was addressing this morning.
yeah, we need to do that.
but I think it's going to take quite a while.
so for me it's a long-term goal.
>> I agree.
i'm just unwilling to be y'all's direct bosses in the next four months.
>> well, but the judge and I -- I don't have any objection, you know, having -- having just -- just call me and ask me questions about how to deal with different things and usually, I mean, like I said I really believe in them.
they know what they're doing.
they have kind of for a long time.
>> but we've asked them to work sort of through dan, then through roger el khoury before they get to the Commissioners court.
we put two real good buffers between us and them.
am I misspeaking in.
>> I don't think so, judge.
we -- we believe that the current arrangement is working okay for us.
but obviously the -- the decision about who manages the department is obviously in your hands and so we would certainly defer to however you want to proceed.
>> they are real diplomatic.
>> they are, that's my fear.
frankly that's my fear.
you all are so ding dang diplomatic I'm very concerned about management by committee.
i don't think that there will be a desire to please -- not only us, but also each other, that will possibly result in not the best result for Travis County.
>> no, the way to address that concern is for us to go ahead in the short term, let's hire the executive manager, in the long term it's to approach the organizational assessment.
>> and I think that -- I think that the decision by committee can often work in the best interests of the organization.
and we need simply look ahead to get confirmation of that.
>> I agree.
it certainly can.
heck, we manage by committee.
>> [laughter]
>> that was my point.
>> that is -- whether that is a good example or a bad example.
but my point is if it is the stated preference to manage by committee, but we're managing by committee because -- by necessity, rather than by choice.
>> mr.
mansour was about to comment.
>> I think something -- something important to point out, until about three weeks, four weeks ago, we -- we managed our units, our divisions in kind of a silo.
over the last three or four weeks, we have -- we have come together as a team and our -- our purpose is to manage the department, the division that we're in and jointly manage the department.
i can say that there's not always time to -- times that we agree, but we discuss the areas that we don't agree in.
and work out a solution.
>> that's a huge --
>> so it's not that we're going to please each other.
but we do work well together.
and I think that's where the emphasis should be.
>> the other thing, too, is that todd and ms.
nelson and chris are fairly new.
compared to the others, but -- but dan has been here how many years at Travis County?
>> 14 years.
>> 14, lu anne, thelma about -- 10, norm, forever.
>> since the downpour.
>> my final note on this is, there's a wealth of experience.
in my view, if our goal is to go ahead and consider reorganizing, then we probably could put our four other executive managers to better use now by engaging them in that process.
still there is up front work to be done before they really can provide meaningful input, I think.
but there are some basic computer research sort of amassing other models that have proven to be successful elsewhere.
chatting with those people, trying to figure out strengths and weaknesses, what they would do differently if they did it over -- over.
you really can get a good computer person to pull a lot of that information together for you.
then engage our four executive managers to help us do some of the -- some of the in depth thinking that you have to go through.
we will find that our biggest problem is that in order for the five of us to work together, you really are looking at either executive session or a work session context.
so you add additional days.
and so we can get a whole lot of this done without engaging the court regularly.
and so if -- I mean, I would engage the executive managers to do that if I wanted to reorganize starting immediately.
they have indicated a willingness to help in whatever way we see fit.
so --
>> may I make an alternative motion?
>> nope, but it can be a substitute motion.
>> okay.
>> did we have a second?
>> yes.
>> same person about to make the substitute.
do you withdraw your second?
>> do I have to withdraw the second to make the substitute?
>> I think that you do for a substitute, don't you?
>> [multiple voices]
>> in an an done dance of caution.
>> I will are draw my motion.
>> move to include two executive managers on the leadership team and to -- to tax the five executive managers with -- with an examination of organizational assessment.
both -- to up -- to come up with a deliverable for that task.
for that tasking.
>> all right.
will you divide that motion?
because I'm -- I'm in complete agreement with the second part and not the first.
>> sure.
the first is to -- to include two executive managers on the leadership team for hr.
>> didn't we do that this morning?
>> we discussed it.
but it wasn't part --
>> I thought it was part of the motion this morning.
i considered it a part of the motion this morning.
>> it wasn't to be part of the team.
it was to be part of the panel to evaluate applications, short list, et cetera.
>> okay.
>> and select.
>> okay.
>> which two?
>> all five of them are excellent.
i -- I would be fine with any one that's willing to serve.
>> all four.
>> not to have all four.
not to have all of them, but all of our executive --
>> point is we don't have five, we have four.
>> you are right, I misspoke.
>> the four of them would basically become part of the management team that's in hrmd.
>> no, not all four of them.
two or even -- two or one.
just have executive management representation on the leadership team.
>> nothing will hurt if it's danny and roger jeffreys.
they are going to be over there for the panel anyway.
>> sure or danny and roger as an alternate or roger and danny as an alternate.
otherwise our executive manager team won't have firsthand knowledge of what's going on in that shop to be useful in a discussion of reorganization.
>> but if they look at reorganization, they are looking at 20 departments.
not just this one.
>> correct.
>> they are looking at 19 more, many of which are larger with greater staff, bigger budgets, et cetera.
so if we are looking for an opportunity to have positive impact, while we certainly don't want to exclude hrmd, but there are bigger fish that we need to take a look at to try to --
>> I would offer -- I would offer that in line with I think where you are coming from is if we have one of a double team so that one was participating with the hrmd leadership team, that they have the perspective then in conjunction with hrmd team to bring to the broader picture from the assessment
>> [indiscernible] executive management team.
>> in my view, if you're going to do that, they are better off with one executive manager than two.
>> that's fine.
what I'm driving at is executive management representation on the leadership team.
>> I guess the only problem that I'm having, I think -- let me applaud you, Commissioner Eckhardt and everyone for working on such a fine piece of information.
it's a lot of good information that I think we can, you know, pull out and examine.
i think that you done an excellent job on that.
of course you heard me mention this morning about the succession plans.
i think it's very critical that we start looking at this entire organization and help determine how we're going to fill these positions as far as succession.
we have a lot of folks that are near retirement within -- as you -- as you stated in your document, five years or a little more.
that will be leaving Travis County.
how are we going to do with that?
this has been discussed before.
sometime in the past.
of course I don't know where we are on it.
but I do know it came before the court as far as how we look at succession.
the only problem that I'm having is that I just feel that you need to have an executive manager in place, especially if you are going to deal with something that's going to deal with their reorganization.
of that particular -- of that particular department or departments that come up under that executive manager.
so I applaud you on -- on what you are doing.
like that's a good, good point.
but I just feel very strongly that without the head of them placed and the reorg that will affect how that person functions, even though they are not there, just appears to me that -- that those persons should be in line and in place and everything else come afterwards.
but I -- I'm not saying anything to show you any disrespect for what you have put on the table before us today.
i think that you have done an excellent job.
in fact you have put a lot of time in.
the data that's in here, you have put a lot of time in it.
i guess a lot of other folks have, too, on the issue that you are working on as far as this particular concern as far as our executive manager and also our -- our human resources department director.
of course, that would be my concern is that still goes on, but I just wanted somebody in place there.
>> if we hire an executive manager for admin ops, we are hiring someone who doesn't necessarily know anything about the departments.
so that's why I have that we have got good leadership in there that can help guide an assessment that may end up in reorganization and we wouldn't have to go through the learning curve for a new hire.
>> he reorganization, I think, in my opinion, it should be revisited every so often because the demand of the county continued to change.
it's a living -- it's a living entity.
and -- and it grows and the services -- even as you indicated, the services demand growth with that.
there's the same thing that's going to be taken into consideration.
in that regard.
but I've just -- that's just me reflecting, but I'm not here to -- to shoot you down.
or anything like that.
i'm just letting you know, or anybody else here, I'm not here to shoot anybody down.
just showing my perspective as far as what I see.
i respect what you have put together.
>> can you restate your motion?
>> my motion is to -- is to place -- we'll say one -- one member of the executive management team on the h.r.
leadership team to provide that perspective and that continuity and I have the -- the motion doesn't entertain who the executive manager would be.
>> is there a second?
>> second.
>> so how and when did we make that decision?
>> I think we leave it to the executive managers to died who among them is most -- to decide who among them is most appropriate in skill set and in time commitment.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
>> yes, sir, quick question.
the executive manager would lead the leadership team?
or it would be a voting member of the leadership team?
how would this play out?
>> a voting member of the leadership team.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners Huber, Eckhardt, voting in favor.
voting against, show Commissioner Davis, Gomez and yours truly voting against.
>> abstain.
>> Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> that motion dies.
>> the second part --
>> for lack after second.
>> the second part of the motion was to task our executive management team with -- with looking at organizational reassessment and we would come back at a later date to -- with the task list, list of deliverables for their examination of organizational reassessment.
>> second motion.
>> second.
>> did you second?
>> yes, ma'am.
two seconds are all right, though.
any more discussion of that motion?
we will try to do that in a couple or three weeks.
>> yes.
>> okay.
this is pursuant to Commissioner Huber's proposal.
>> any more discussion?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
>> now, there was another -- did we finish -- if we to go the organization chart, this morning we did not discuss that vacant h.r.
assistant 1, is that still vacant?
>> no, sir.
>> okay.
that's -- that's not say can't.
>> it's filled -- say can't.
>> it's filled.
>> any or mid level positions that we need to discuss today?
did we get them all this morning?
>> we didn't technically discuss the assistant director position slot 27.
the recommendation of the h.r.
leadership team is that be put on hold.
until the director job is filled.
>> all right.
now, we got the executive manager's job unfilled and we have the director's job.
>> right.
>> unfilled.
this recommendation would be to leave the assistant director position unfilled.
>> that's correct.
the -- the position had never been filled, the new position.
and we believe that the director is going to define the roles of that position as soon as that person is in place.
>> all right.
now --
>> you all realize that could be several months?
>> absolutely.
>> didn't you also say that the -- that the job description for that position is not fully detailed out, too?
am I confused on that?
>> I think that's a true statement.
well, in my view, where he ought to monitor that and see if it becomes at some point, if we need to fill it, take steps that we need to do that.
realizing, too it would take three months to fill it, too, wouldn't it?
get the job description?
>> looks like we were getting hundreds of applications, short list those down to a number to interview, give that person at least two weeks notice unless the person is not working, in which case maybe a week will do.
but you get to two and a half or three months right quick.
so otherwise it's fine with me.
you still have -- three critical vacant positions at the top.
>> we feel that it wouldn't be appropriate to -- to fill that position, the director position until it is filled.
they would be working very closely together.
as has been mentioned the job really is a new job, has not been fulled fleshed out to exactly what the responsibilities of that job would be.
and therefore that would be the new director who would -- who would finalize what that assistant would be.
would consist of.
the job was consist of.
>> okay.
that's fine with me to go with that and see how it works out.
>> okay.
>> okay.
anything further on this?
now there was in the backup in your e-mail -- in your memo, Commissioner Huber, this says form new Commissioners court subcommittee to work with the executive manager team.
what's that about?
or did you -- did you abandon that?
>> I didn't abandon that, I didn't know if you wanted to revisit the current subcommittee if they wanted to continue in this, if they didn't if they wanted to tweak it for the future.
i don't really care.
i just thought it was a subcommittee of the court.
>> > for administrative operations?
>> no for the organizational reassessment.
>> hum.
>> well, the -- the large scale organization, I think all of us ought to kick in and do that.
otherwise it doesn't work.
that way we share the effort.
>> fine with me.
i put it in there for discussion purposes.
let's try to file our hrmd team and I'll chip in.
how is that?
>> they are doing a great job.
>> anything else today?
on this item?
thank you for your hard work, dedication to duty and all of the other good things.
>> thanks so much.
>> okay.
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, August 25, 2009 2:07 PM
