Travis County Commissioners Court
November 10, 2009,
Item 22
Number 22.
consider and take appropriate action on issues regarding the human resources management department, hrmd, and county organizational design including director of human resources; b, confirmation of court subcommittee to work with hrmd issues during the interim; and c, appointment of subcommittee to work with the current organization on planning team.
and this item is on after several conversations with managers and -- at Travis County.
a may be the one that's a little bit controversial.
back in -- on September 1 when we took our action regarding the two managers, we decided to leave the director's position open.
and we basically created a subcommittee of the court made up of Commissioner Gomez and me to try to work with the human resources department.
we really said we would leave that in place two to two and a half months, and it was two and a half months ago that we took the action, September ormulary I think.
and so this -- September 1, I think.
so this would be roughly two and a half months.
after conversations with managers and Commissioner Huber and I sort of caucusing on this, it seemed clear to us that we need to hire a director of cumulative resources, and where we sort of reached disagreement was on whether we should try to fill the position permanently or on an interim basis.
so there are two questions.
one is whether it's time to fill the position of director of human resources, and two, if so, do we want to fill it on an interim basis or permanent basis, and what we requested was a listing of problems and cons which is part of the backup.
and I have kind of -- I started at one place, I'm sort of at a 51-49 position right now.
but I do think it's critical for us to go ahead and act on it.
either on an interim basis or a permanent basis.
so -- is that an accurate description of sort of where we are?
>> I think so.
>> any other comments?
on a?
>> judge, let me ask a question.
since this position was, I guess, declared -- I guess it was in July it was when the termination --
>> September 1, I believe.
>> July, September, whenever.
i don't know, has that been any consideration to just go out and outright post this position out publicly because of the fact that to have all necessary input, in other words, this is September -- you said September.
>> it was September 1 that we basically took action against the two managers and voluntary severence.
i'm looking at those minutes now.
>> I don't know.
i don't have a memory when the actual termination -- I can't remember the exact date when it was asked for them -- the motion was made to -- to -- to clear their desk.
>> that was a month before that.
on September 1 we basically voted to immaterial proceeds involuntary severence.
really about five weeks before then is when we did the motion for leave with pay.
>> okay.
and I guess my point is, as far as a postedness, is this going to be a posting of this position?
in other words, at any time soon?
in other words, since the position was -- was vacated, why wasn't a posting immediately preceding that?
that action.
>> we voted basically to leave it open.
to determine how to proceed is what we were thinking.
now, ms.
fleming in her backup memo suggests that if we fill it on an interim basis, that we also go ahead and post the position permanently, right?
>> yes, sir, that's correct.
i think it's consensus of the management team that if the court were to elect to select an interim, that there be basically a dual process.
that we immediately address the interim issue, but that we also work toward presenting the court with a job description to provide feedback on and basically initiate a process to fill the job on a permanent basis.
>> the managers believe they can do the interim placement in 30 days or less.
>> that is our hope, judge.
i think that -- that the interest there is that if we can't fill the position within 30 days or so, the rationale would be should we shift our attention to the permanent and sort of abandon that strategy.
so that -- that's the reason for that recommendation, that we be able to move on that as quickly as possible, but not that we linger on that place if for some reason we are unable to identify an appropriate interim.
>> I guess my bigger concern, larger concern is that the executive manager who is no longer with the county, it appears-and I think I may have stated before, it appears that we should be filling the executive manager's slot first and then work our way down.
and that's just the way it appears to me.
the structure that's there is definitely intact.
as far as structure is concerned.
of course, the h.r.
director would come under the executive manager of that shop along with the other areas as far as administrative options are concerned.
so I have some real concerns about this, the direction we're going.
>> I think I share that concern with you, Commissioner, and so it kind of makes me lean over to say let's get an interim h.r.
director.
and -- and then the other -- the other rules that would come under having an interim person.
if there was difficulty finding an interim, then I think we have the possibility of having one of the executive managers kind of sit in as an interim over that department.
and right now it's a little bit slow.
after the budget is adopted, everything kind of slows down a little bit, and that's 90 days.
october, November and December.
or, you know, January.
so I think that the interim is -- is the choice that I really think will work better with -- with what we have in place.
and so I mean yeah.
>> may I ask something that I didn't see in the backup, and it dove tails with what you are saying with regard to an executive manager if for some reason we weren't able to find an interim within the 30 days might we lean to a I want rhyme for various reasons, the big session when we go the benefit to having a disinterested third party come in on an interim basis during this time period.
so nothing set in stone, this is a professional with a great deal of experience who can provide us a real window on our organization I think would be beneficial.
but my question is who would the interim report to among the executive manager team?
because I do believe that our structure of h.r.
being under an executive manager is a good one.
so I'm wondering who -- to which executive manager would the interim report to or would that interim report directly to the Commissioners court?
i have a --ly state my preference, which is to have this interim report to an executive manager in order to preserve our structure.
>> we believe that is a question for the Commissioners court.
if that is your preference.
certainly there is an argument for that with respect to the structure.
we have had roger jeffries, executive manager for justice and public safety, and danny hobby, executive manager for emergency services, acting at your direction to assist with a hiring process I think that is underway in hrmd.
so they would be the executive managers at this moment in time who have had the most contact with the hrmd staff.
but I don't know that the organizational planning team with regard to the backup we submitted made a recommendation relative to which executive manager should be chosen.
>> I would see -- I see a benefit to having the interim reporting through at least one executive manager, perhaps two, because I think that bringing somebody in cold to this organization, they could benefit and we could benefit from having an executive manager or possibly two guide them through -- through our corporate culture so that they could be optimally -- so that they could perform at their optimum.
>> the other recommendation from the managers is that the interim director should not be eligible to apply for the permanent position.
>> and I agree with that.
>> as do i.
>> move that we --
>> I was just going to say, I made a couple of calls, having used to been involved that had to be industry but no longer.
i made a couple of calls recently just to ascertain the availability of what's out there that we might be looking at.
i certainly have no idea of any individuals, per se, but I do understand that there are at least several if not many organizations out there that function in providing interim-type h.r.
directors.
and these are high-level retirees from corporate and public sector that really don't want full-time jobs but have a lot of experience in coming in cold and trouble-shooting.
and I asked the question of how quickly could we get those, and the response was probably 30 to 45 days to have someone in place.
that's not a promise, but that was what I heard back from the industry.
>> move that we fill the position of director of human resources on an interim basis, that the person selected should not be eligible to fill the permanent position, and that we ask our organizational team, most of whom are sitting before us -- are we missing somebody?
>> I believe we're all here.
>> all of whom sit before us, so it's just -- this is just a.
interim.
give the team 30 days after posting because there's work to be done after posting.
one is you have to get a job description.
if we do the interim, I guess we could move on the other.
any discussion?
>> would you consider it friendly to add in that this interim would operate under an executive manager?
>> no.
not friendly, but it's certainly another item that we need to decide.
i don't know that I'm against that.
i just don't think it's friendly to this motion.
there are two or three other things that need to be done and we buy ourselves some time.
really no critical need to figure out who this person responds to if it's going take us 30 to 45 days to select him or her, is my only thinking.
i think the other thing is that the organizational team will have several other things to do.
there will need to be another agenda item next week or the week after that dealing with a job description.
it's going to take time to put that together.
get input from the court.
us e-mailing whoever the point person is for the team, trying to get that done so the only way I say no.
>> excuse me, judge.
are you talking job description for interim or permanent is this.
>> I was focusing on interim first.
in the meantime, we need a job description for the permanent too.
if we can get boast done at the same time.
>> I was going to suggest an interim, if we can get it done soon enough would be a valuable participant for the permanent.
>> just a point of clarification.
i didn't hear any motion posting of the permanent position so I'm presuming that's not part of the motion.
but are you part of the -- job description of the interim would be to recruit and prepare for the permanent position?
>> that's my point.
if we want a job description for that, my recommendation would be another agenda item next week if we can get it done that fast.
there are a lot of specific things.
one is for us, and the motion is for us to land on an appointment on an interim basis, and this person selected would not be eligible to fill the position on a permanent basis.
and if we ask our team to expedite this as much as possible, we still think we're looking at 30 to 45 days.
right?
and so my thinking is that if this passes and we do it on an interim basis, we try to get that job description done first.
but it would make sense to either at the same time or immediately thereafter try to get a job description for the permanent director of human resources.
by doing it this way too, we also invite input from -- from others interested in assisting us with a job description like the team in hrmd.
so I was trying to keep it real easy just by landing on interim versus permanent in a.
any more discussion?
who that person should report to, I think we ought to try to come up with the pros and cons on that too.
>> okay.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis voting no.
as a matter of scheduling, will it take us a week for the job description or two weeks?
>> I think we can do it in a week.
>> I think a week.
>> one week we'll have posted as part of that who this person answers to because we may want to put that in the job description, right?
now, if we -- should we give ourselves -- this is sort of more directions than anything else.
should we try to get a job description for the permanent position in, say, 30 days?
>> there is one already written to start with that's not old, notice, as basis to start.
so it's not as though you would start from scratch on that.
it probably needs to be revisited, and I heard some of you say you would like the interim person to look at that as well.
so --
>> well, let's take a look at it and see what input we can get between now and next week and decide next week whether to indicate our intention to let the interim person help with the job description.
i see the interim person as being critical for the selection process.
whether or not that input is critical for preparation of the job description is what I question.
but I don't question it so much that I'm closing the door out.
why don't we plan to visit that next week and have that as one of the little parts of the item.
how's that?
yes, ma'am.
>> judge, Biscoe, it looks like the last revision on human resources management director was 10-1-09.
>> I believe it would have been part of the job descriptions you approved during the summer is my guess.
>> anything else on a that's covered by the item?
on b, I wanted the court to reconfirm Commissioner Gomez and I are serving as a subcommittee to work with hrmd issues.
obviously when there is an interim person brought on board, there will not be any need for us to continue that.
we have not been meeting a whole lot but we've been available and been assistance to the hrmd team.
and I think that we have -- we have felt free to consult with the executive managers or the organizational team as necessary and so if we can continue to do that, I think it would be appropriate.
>> the paperwork has slowed.
>> anything else on that?
on b?
move approval of b.
>> second.
>> Commissioner Gomez and I will keep doing that.
discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis.
>> abstaining.
>> abstaining on that one.
c, Commissioner Huber and I kind of backed into working with our organizational team, not that we would have eagerly have looked forward that to had we known it existed, but this is a little different working with hrmd and I suggest we continue to work with the organizational team kind of being available, stay out of their way when we can and when we should, but being there when we think feedback from the court might be appropriate.
>> I move approval of that.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> like an artificial structure -- architectural structure.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I was just going to say I think that's a very good point to make.
i think that's something that should be one of the first charges of the executive management team was participating of --
>> just -- it just -- you know, I don't know who is in charge.
i know that dan mansewer has been a person in the h.r.
department.
roger el khoury has been with the facilities department and of course -- the its department.
you know, I'm just kind of concerned about that.
and -- and if we're going to -- make sure that the -- that the structure is as it is, and that is that administrative ops and then the departments of underadministrative ops, if we're going to continue to embrace that structure, then it appears to me that we should have representatives of their structure on board as far as a team is concerned.
i -- I see folks here that are up here, but -- but, you know, I'm kind of questioning the team itself.
>> two things that I would say.
one is that this is the team that the court appointed in September so we didn't add anybody or take anybody away.
two is that we did have several conversations, it may get a little delicate when we start talking about executive manager of administrative operations if joe and I'm sure joe and roger el khoury will be quite helpful and roger now sort of serves as executive manager during the agenda setting meetings, but not on this team.
it's kind of delicate, but there are other delicate issues, too.
i guess my question would be whether or not they ought to be a member, one of them ought to be a member of the team, but whether both of them should be available to the team as necessary as different issues are discussed.
anybody have any additional input?
>> are we actually -- this past week discussed those particular issues and that is we feel like that -- that there is a direct communication link that should be, Commissioner Davis, to the -- to the department heads and administrative services.
there's also a communication link, you already have it with a subcommittee, but certainly with this group, as regards to the leadership team of hrmd.
one of the things that we discussed last Thursday was we drew circles around all of the different components that make up the network.
of how all of this should be communicated because it is so very, very important.
admin services was one of those.
what we are discussing, we can bring this back to you next week because we didn't have all of our members here last week.
we want to try to make that connection.
so the options would be to where we would actually assign an executive manager or a member off of the team to one of the blogs, to where we would stay in communication and do as you suggested, judge, of where those folks would be brought in and brought into the team when needed as resources.
but to be connected.
and -- ands you said, it's a delicate thing you don't just have one person, you have many persons, you have many persons in different organizations.
but yet they need to be connected.
and so -- so if you would like, judge, we could finish that discussion, bring a proposal to you that might be of benefit to the groups that you're talking about, Commissioner Davis, as well as to the team.
>> well, joe harlow, you know, its is a very integral part of what we're doing here.
>> but we're not really posted to change organizational team today.
we can post that for next week and do it.
this really was for a subcommittee of the court to work with the current organizational planning team, which is y'all.
>> which were court appointed previously.
>> we will have a subpart of the item next week, Commissioner Davis, to enable us to consider whether to change the membership of the team.
how is that?
>> okie-doke.
>> in addition to that, I think the support staff also can be very helpful with some of the work that needs to be done because we don't want them feeling over there like being left out and not informed about what's happening.
i think they are eager to help.
>> yeah, this is not the time to be shy, I guess.
if you got your feelings, the court wants to hear them.
but I do think it ought to be an item that allows us to consider membership on the organizational team, which we don't have today.
but we do have today, judge and Commissioner Huber, being a subcommittee of the court to work with the team.
next week we'll just look at the makeup of the team.
okay?
>> okay.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber, yours truly voting in favor, Commissioner Davis.
>> abstaining.
>> move that we recess until 1:30 for lunch.
>> second.
>> that's passes by unanimous vote.
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, November 10, 2009 1:40 PM
