Travis County Commissioners Court
November 10, 2009,
Item 26
Number 20, consider and take appropriate action on authorization to maintain -- during the annual meeting of the purchasing board, which -- I'm sorry, what did I say?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> yeah, 26.
during the annual meeting we suggested since we've never done a market salary survey of the purchasing agent position, it would be good to do one.
during that meeting I committed to get with our hrmd personnel and see if they could do one for us.
as I indicated in the backup memo that I sent to judge perkins, if they could, it would take four to six weeks to complete this, and I did tell the board and Commissioner Huber and I are the members on the board that the court would have to authorize that.
i did chat with them, and what we're looking at is really just doing the market salary survey of the position of purchasing agent, not who is in the position.
and so I think it ought to be done if we have a slow period in hrmd, this may be it.
so we're asking the court to bless that.
any comments?
i chatted with todd to get the information and the estimate of time that it would take, and he's available if there are questions or, todd, if you would like to give comments, we would be happy to receive them.
>> those comments are exactly in context of our conversation.
i still think the time period is approximately correct and the last time we looked at this position was approximately four years ago.
that's the last e-mail communication I could find on it.
>> okay.
hasn't been looked at since.
>> have we ever did a market share survey on appointed officials of the county in the past?
>> yes.
yes, we have.
>> when?
and on who?
>> this is certainly one that we did do, but it hasn't been something that we've done recently.
>> linda did one like
>> [inaudible].
>> on this particular it was done approximately four years ago.
>> on this particular title?
i've been rationing with this trying to remember what happened and I just don't recall it.
>> obviously the outcome of that research was a little before my time, but I could certainly look it up and get back to you.
>> I would like to see that.
>> okay.
>> and in this position here, of course, the purchasing board I guess determined the amount of salary the person has or is making for this particular position?
we're talking about the purchasing agent.
and I guess that is something that happens.
and, of course, it's been a lot of market salary surveys that's been going on, but there's not been any money available to fund them.
so my concern is is this going to go into the same -- into the same category of all the other employees that we have asked market salary surveys to be conducted on, and yet no money attributed.
>> well, if you would like us to conduct the analysis, we would be happy to conduct the analysis and provide the information to the purchasing board.
how they implement that information or what they do with it is obviously beyond our control.
>> what is the intended use by the board of this information?
is it to consider a pay increase?
>> no.
>> it's to consider what her salary is compared to the other purchasing agents around the state.
in the past I think that the purchasing agent has compared her salary to other positions at the county and elsewhere.
like executive managers and assistant city managers, and our county judge suggested that a better comparison would be comparing her to other purchasing agents in Texas.
cities, counties, et cetera.
now, the purchasing board has zero staff.
it does have the authority, though, to budget for this work to be done outside.
and the Commissioners court, I've been advised, has to approve the budget -- that for the purchasing department.
and it seemed to me that an easier thing to do would be simply to get hrmd to do the analysis for me.
my understanding was that last time an informal comparison was made, but I don't know that that information was requested by the board or used by the board.
i was not on the board.
but during our discussions, what was clear was we were comparing apples to oranges and not apples to apples.
apples to apples would be comparing the salary our purchasing agent to the salaries of other purchasing agents in cities and counties throughout Texas.
and the board sort of unanimously agreed to do that.
i said I don't know whether hrmd has the time to do that is correct butly check and get back with you and that's why I chatted with todd first.
so I think -- my understanding this has never been formally done and presented too the board in a manner the board could use it.
as a new member of the board my thought was it's time to get it done.
so unfortunately no matter what we do with our employees, the purchasing board has complete discretionary authority over the purchasing department's budget, plus the purchasing agent's salary.
but they have always cooperated with us, and they treat their staff members the same way we treat county employees and treat purchasing agents sort of how we treat executives and others at the county.
>> so I guess to what you just said, it appears that whatever decision the board makes -- and I guess the board is comprised of what?
>> three district judges and two members of the Commissioners court.
>> okay, two members of the Commissioner court.
and I guess majority rules.
i guess when you vote on stuff you have an odd number there so I guess majority rules.
my concern is that is if the survey comes back and suggests whatever, I don't know what it's going to suggest.
you said there was a survey four or five years ago, I don't believe it, but if it's discretion of the board to award an increase or something like that, I mean regardless, as you stated, regardless of what we think as a court, the Travis County Commissioners court, it doesn't matter.
i mean whatever the board decides, that's it.
i'm just looking at this -- looking at it as when the other groups, positions, came before the court for market salary survey, we allow the market salary survey, but we made sure that before that market survey was conducted that there was not going to be any money attached.
but we could say that no money attached because we are the body that determines that it will be no money attached.
here a survey is going to be conducted, and if the body that oversees the purchasing agents does not say there won't be any money attached, then it may not be any money attached.
i'm just saying we can do things from the Commissioners court looking at other situations that are not appointees where we lose our control as a court on what happens as far as the salary -- not only the salary, but the increase in the salary is dictated.
this is outside of the domain of Travis County Commissioners court.
and that would be some of my concern.
would be just that.
>> but it's outside our jurisdiction by law.
>> I understand.
>> and the market salary survey for this one position would be used the same way that we use other market salary surveys.
the board is not sitting there trying to increase the salary of the purchasing agent, but the board would like to be informed.
and in my view, the problem is we have been responding without independent information.
information has been generated, but I don't know that it's been the apples to apples comparison that we need.
and the other thing is if we don't do this ourselves, my guess is if the board thinks it's important, they will simply figure out another way to get it done and funded and my theory we will spend a lot more money doing it that way than anything else.
>> I just hope the board is -- I mean these judges are Travis County judges.
>> and the two members of the Commissioners court are Travis County Commissioners.
Commissioner Huber and I would like to have something to fight with.
>> [laughter]
>> so far we've had -- in other words, I hope we understand that we are in tough times and when this court decided -- I'm saying the judges, I'm not talking about you.
you all are here, you see this every day.
but if the judges are under the impression -- and I don't know what they are thinking, I can't speak for them.
>> we need a market salary survey.
>> I think ultimately it's request for information.
they are looking to make and decision and they want the information on hand in order to make it.
so ultimately I think the motion is just a motion to obtain information and provide it back to the court.
>> it's judges perkins, dietz and livingston and Commissioner Huber and me.
we want to do the right thing and we think we have, but we feel a whole lot better if we had the information.
and the apples to apples comparison isn't from and as far as I know has not been there.
the informal information was probably received, filed away and probably not considered thereafter.
>> it would be good to see what this earlier four and a half-year-old salary survey revealed and then, of course, we'll know what this reveals also.
as far as doing it and treating everybody the same, per se.
>> I'm sure that the information that was obtained back in 2005 is -- is still there and we would be happy to provide the court with a copy of it.
>> it would be good to have it.
>> judge?
>> yes.
>> I wanted to ask, well, maybe just to get some clarification on this.
for the employees over which we have authority, we have decided as a -- as a body not to do the market salary surveys at this time because we don't feel that we could fund them irrespective of what they say in this current budget climate.
but my understanding of this motion is that it's substantively different from that stated policy because of, one, the auditor's office is completing independent of this body -- I'm sorry, purchasing.
sorry.
that the purchasing agent --
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> the auditor's office is as well.
but the purchasing agent is completely independent of this body statutorily, and the body the purchasing board is asking for this for informational purposes and it does not come at this point with a request for funding, based on the information that's derived.
>> they set the budget.
by law we're required to fund it.
i raise the issue what does a market salary survey show.
and I think we all sort of concluded we really don't have an up to date one.
we need one.
and then I said well, let's at least get one.
now, to be honest, we have been lucky in that the elected officials at the county who have employees under their control and not ours have always followed our lead.
so there's nothing intended here to indicate that they plan to stop doing that.
but it's one thing for me to be in there asking questions without information or Commissioner Huber asking questions without information; it's another thing to start off with the information and ask questions after that.
the day will come when we'll be considering salary increases.
that may not be 2011.
but it's easier for us to go ahead and get the information now so when that day comes, we at least will know how our purchasing agent compares to the purchasing agents of other cities and counties in Texas, and that's really the only thing I'm looking for.
>> how long do market salary surveys stay fresh?
>> well, typically they would stay fresh approximately one year or so.
that's how a particular market moves in a given area.
i suspect that a lot of the salaries within this area have stayed relatively flat for the last 12 to 18 months, if all the data I'm reading is correct.
>> okay.
>> that is sort of my question, would we get a good group picture in this downturn of economy.
>> that's how we get a true picture of how the market is today.
that's all you can ever get from a market study.
>> but you think it stayed flat this the last 12 to 18 months, which would be prior to the economic downturn.
>> I think that's approximately correct, yes.
>> well, if you come back and you find out that comparatively across the state or whoever you are going to compare this position with as far as doing your market salary survey, and let's say that it's lower than what is being actually paid for this position at this time, then what?
>> if what we are paying is lower?
to understand your question --
>> in other words, if you come back and you compare comparatively, and of course in the comparison analogy you bring back and say, well, this position -- in other words, purchasing agent, you make a lot more than other purchasing agents in the state.
>> so you're saying if Travis County position is above market currently?
>> exactly.
what happens then?
>> the same thing that would happen any other way.
at this point it's just a request for information, which the purchasing board --
>> just a request for information.
>> which means the purchasing board would use that to make whatever decision they were going to make in regard to the salary for this position.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion?
move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion of the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
good job, mr.
osmond.
let's move to something real easy.
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
