Travis County Commissioners Court
November 17, 2009,
Item 28
Number 28 is discuss and take appropriate action on issues regarding county organizational design and human resources management department, hrmd, including, a, duties and job description of interim direct of hrmd; b, reporting assignment for interim director of hrmd; c, recommendation from the organizational planning team of job duties and a job description for the permanent director of hrmd and timetable for such work; and d, membership of the organizational planning team.
good morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
sherri fleming, executive manager for health and human services.
we sit before you as the organizational planning team that you appointed and you asked us to bring back to you after last week's discussion a proposed list of tasks for an interim director of hrmd, so that has been provided in your backup.
there are about six really broad macro tasks that we've listed.
we're happy to go over those individually or if not that's okay as well.
basically what we were looking at was sort of a short-term assignment, and with the caveat that the interim person would not be considered as the full-time h.r.
director and that during the process of looking for an interim, we would also be moving the process forward for looking for a full-time human resources management director.
also in your backup is a -- the beginnings of a position announcement with some specific qualification and experience delineated.
we don't see this as all inclusive.
there might be things the court wants us to add but it gives an opportunity to address specific qualification you would like to consider in selecting someone was an interim for hrmd.
>> for the interim appointment, we're looking at a description of duties on page 1.
>> yes.
>> and --
>> and on page 2, more of a job announcement.
so there's language describing specific qualifications.
such as high level corporate public sector experience, ten years of senior h.r.
experience.
demonstrate familiarity with human resources best practices.
so we consider these to be sort of the beginnings of a job posting or announcement, if you will.
>> talk to me about the masters degree requirement.
>> well, we believe that in -- in a position of this nature, a master's degree certainly is preferred.
it demonstrates that person's working at the highest level of qualifications in that particular field, so we believe the master's degree will bring to you, you know, just an added level of academic qualifications in addition to hopefully the ten years of experience plus.
and we believe that folks who are in positions such as this for an organization the size of Travis County, I think you will find generally will have that higher degree.
>> so we've got a short statement of duties and responsibilities.
>> yes.
>> and I guess one would pick up the troubleshooter requirement.
>> yes.
>> and we have some preferred qualifications.
on the second page.
>> yes.
>> all right, now, so do we end up with a job description based on these two or what?
>> well, assuming that there are no additional qualifications that you would like to add or any additional tasks, then certainly we would want to draft this into a -- I guess a more official job description.
>> judge, just so -- point of clarification, one of the things that we really tried to focus our attention on as we were going through the short list of tasks is just to keep it as short as possible with the idea that this individual would be here for a short period of time.
there would be specific tasks that would be asked of the individual, and then they would roll out as we bring in the permanent.
and so I think we started out we had a list of about 30, 35 tasks that we had come up with as a group and we had whittled those down to about a half dozen to try to keep it more specific and task oriented.
>> questions?
comments?
you started out with 30 and ended up with six?
>> yes, sir.
>> good job.
>> [laughter] but we pull the best from that 30 list and they are contained in the six duties and responsibilities.
>> that is correct, judge.
>> and there would, of course, be other duties as assigned.
>> that's also correct.
>> at number 7.
>> that's also correct, judge.
>> I think the idea is, again, the duration of the interim appointment, the specific duties, this would -- I think would be enough to keep that individual busy for that period of time.
>> okay.
so if we approve these two lists today, would you plan to work with hrmd between now and next Tuesday and have a basically job description that we can post and get this job posted?
because we voted last week to give ourselves 30 days.
didn't we vote on that?
the recommendation was let's fill it in 30 days, and also during that 30-day period, do additional work on a job description and posting for the permanent position.
>> that's correct.
and that would be our plan, judge.
we see those as the next steps.
>> this is a point of clarification, where are we with regard to the idea that the interim would -- I'm wondering, with regard to the interim aiding us in our search for the permanent, are we phasing that so that the petitioning for the permanent occurs after we get the interim on board or are we expecting to post beforehand?
>> I believe with the onset of the thanksgiving week, I believe that -- that that will be the way it just naturally works out considering some of the natural slowdown that will occur during that period of time.
so I think that once we get this up, we get interested persons in, we will certainly do internally as much work as we can, but really believe we will have that person on board in time for them to help to give us a once over on that job description.
>> that's great.
that's great.
>> with the judge's suggestion of working with hrmd for the full job description, I also was wondering if you have made any or plan to make any additional contacts with outside h.r.
professionals.
i believe this is a constantly changing and improving area and as management practices, et cetera, may not be -- some of them may be new to the county, and I certainly would encourage you in the process of developing the job description to consult with some people on the outside who are professionals in this capacity.
>> well, we look forward to be able to provide the finished job announcement with the description of expected duties to contacts that maybe the court might have, but also those that -- that the members of this team might have in addition to posting.
>> I'm just suggesting in the development of that job description --
>> oh, I see.
>> -- that you at least make some contacts with some outside h.r.
professionals.
i just know bus words in the industry change.
i think it's important since we don't have that level of expertise currently new and fresh in the county to at least bounce this job description off some professionals in the community.
>> and Commissioner, as a point of clarification, are we referring to the interim description?
>> the interim -- well, both.
>> move approval of the job duties and the preferred qualifications.
>> second.
>> and request the team to work with hrmd and outside consultants who are available between now and next Tuesday.
so the court can respond to a recommended job description and posting language Tuesday, November 24th.
>> second.
>> second all of that?
and any other actions consistent with the spirit of this motion?
that do it?
>> I like it.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, hueber and your truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
b is to -- reporting assignment for interim director of hrmd.
you all got any ideas on that?
>> we certainly discussed the whole plethora of options.
certainly there is the option that the interim director would report to the subcommittee that has already been identified by the Commissioners court.
there is certainly opportunity for the interim director to be sheperded by a person, one of the executive managers that you have before you.
we believe that there should be a communication link established with the executive managers regardless to which direction you take.
but I think at this point we do have danny, we submitted in our backup sort of a communication description, and think danny is able to maybe respond to that a little more thoroughly.
>> danny hobby, executive manager for emergency services.
but at this time I'm representing the group, I hope.
we have developed basically this chart, hopefully which you have received, which we think will facilitate and answer some of the questions that were raised last Tuesday in regards to all the various folks that are involved in this process.
and as you can see, there's quite a few.
and so in answer to your question, judge, I think you've got to take this as a whole, but I'll answer it right away that the piece that you are talking about, the interim h.r.
director, would actually fit to where if you continue to have the subcommittee, the hrmd subcommittee, then, of course, that person would continue to answer to you.
but also this person would also work -- if it's hired, would work as an admin head and we would assign on liaison from the planning team.
you'll also see the other groups which we'll get into when you get to the last agenda item today in regards to this topic of how we would fit the other groups in as well, but to answer your question directly, we've come up with what we think is a good connection, communication network of how we can effectively -- whatever if issue may be, be able to stay in contact and communicate with these folks and give them special attention and at times bring them into the team.
we don't feel that it's appropriate at this time to change the team makeup because you're talking about too many individuals that you would be talking about bringing into the team.
but with the interim rumored director, what you would find is that person would connect to the hrmd subcommittee as well as the organizational planning team through a liaison that would be assigned from the team.
>> well, I this I the -- I think this interim appointee should spend close to all of his or her time dealing with hrmd matters.
don't you?
>> yes, sir.
and that was the purpose really for the other groups as well.
they are -- all of them have assigned duties.
and so that would also allow them to continue -- the department heads for admin, they have all their regular duties as well as dealing with this, so we figured a way they could give the proper attention which they should be receiving.
this is why we came up with this network.
>> the interim h.r.
person would not be part of the planning team, but the planning team would at some point designate one of its seven members as the liaison to that interim.
>> that is correct.
>> okay.
>> with that understanding, I move that the interim director report to the hrmd subcommittee, which is Commissioner Gomez and me.
and that we approve the communicational flow chart provided by the team as part of our backup today.
>> judge, there is one correction that needs to be made here and that is there needs to be a line from the admin department heads, there needs to be a line added to the hrmd subcommittee.
because my assumption is that until you designated that the subcommittee does not need to exist, that continues to exist now and that issue currently work with those department heads as well.
>> we'll do that until the court says otherwise.
how's that?
>> second your motion.
>> discussion?
i just think that makes sense, and if it looks like it's awkward or not working as we believe it should, then I think we ought to be flexible enough to bring the matter back and change it.
all right?
so what I'm thinking is at least that frees you all up to work on that business plan that you all talked about as well as helping us find a permanent director of hrmd as well as work on the organizational design.
so you do that as well as your other duties and responsibilities, your plate is pretty full.
right?
>> yes.
>> any discussion of that motion?
Commissioner Gomez and I would basically be the little group that the interim hrmd director would report to, and we would continue our duties and responsibilities as a subcommittee of the court to work with hrmd and report back to the court periodically so if there are questions or concerns, we can deal with those.
>> is there any possibility, I know that we're looking at
>> [indiscernible] and on whole bunch of other things here, but a big concern I have is since admin ops is not at the table, and I think they should be, other executive managers are, it seems like it's upside down, but at any rate, is there any attempt to -- administrational operations as it is currently structured in and those are some of the concerns I have because it is a functional -- it is a functional structure at this time.
but I'm concerned what direction are we going in as far as reorganizing and if that is the case, I think it's more important for admin ops to be at the table if that is something that the court is considering, which I don't know.
but anyway, that's just my point.
>> why don't we deal with b, then we'll return to that.
let's deal with b and then we'll call up d, which is the organizational -- so on b, any discussion of that motion?
questions?
comments?
all in favor.
shows Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, hueber and yours truly voting in favor appear Commissioner Davis no.
d is member of the organizational planning team, that team that sits before us is the one that the court has already approved.
d gives us an opportunity to decide whether or not we want to modify that team.
last time the question came up of whether we should add joe harlow and roger el khoury to the team, I think I expressed some reservations about that.
i have since chatted with both of them as well as some members of the team, and roger and joe seem to be fairly comfortable if we authorize our county auditor to serve as a liaison between those two department heads and the team and provide them every opportunity for input, and when issues come up involving those two departments, then they be consulted and allowed to provide input, which should be the case anyway.
but we formalize this but -- we think this will work.
and if we find out that it is not working, then I think we ought to reserve the flexibility to change things.
i mean, we're putting this in place to enable us to function at optimal efficiency, and, you know, remain results oriented.
but if we find along the way that that is not the case, then I don't think we ought to have any hesitation about coming back and making necessary modifications.
>> judge, those two departments are countywide service areas like my own.
i've worked very close with both department directors for a long, long time.
i -- they are -- they have technical people reporting to them like my own, so I feel that I can represent their interests and I know what they are thinking, and you are exactly right, there will be times when they will want to come in, talk to -- if there was a point at which I felt that my interest conflicted with theirs, I would tell them immediately come back to the court and just do something else.
>> let's add steve to that to.
steve is the third department head under administrative operations.
if we add him with joe and --
>> and I will meet with them.
as I said, these are people -- good relationships and work together all the time.
so I'm more than happy to do that.
and very -- I mean I'm committed to the services of those departments.
>> judge --
>> [multiple voices]
>> about what's going on here.
i've had conversations also with those individuals and, of course, that's what they are willing to do, it's just fine with me.
i'm not going to knock it, but I am going to knock what I perceive as far as administrative ops not really having representation on this deal here.
and especially if there may be a possibility, which I do not know, where the court is going to end up going as far as organizational as far as reops phasing out administrative ops, that's a whole different ball of wax which I don't really know.
and if it is that intent, I just think they ought to be at the table.
again, I don't really know where the court is going on this, but I just oppose what's happening here.
and like I said, my opinion is upside down.
but that's just me saying it.
you know, I basically see it the way I see it and echo that effect.
but anyway, I can live with whatever the court decides to do on this, and I'm just -- just let it be said that I said what I said today.
>> Commissioner Davis, let me express those department heads are very appreciative of their representation because they are important.
they appreciate that.
>> move that we leave the composition of the organizational team as it is.
that we appoint our county auditor to serve as liaison between the team and mr.
el khoury and mr.
harlow and mr.
broburg, with the intention to provide maximum opportunity to the team's work.
and that if it looks like this is not working as we planned for it to, then the matter be brought back to the court for further action.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
c is reorganization -- recommendation from the organizational planning team of job duties and job description for the permanent director of hrmd and timetable for such work.
based on all that I've heard today, we need to carry c over for a week or two.
>> judge, what we might ask is Commissioners court provide the opportunity for the planning team to review the job description over the next 30 to 45 days.
and work with hrmd as appropriate to review that job description and bring that back to you for the full-time hrmd director.
if that is acceptable.
>> 30 sound -- your recommendation is 30, isn't it?
30 sounds like a good time.
>> okay.
if,.
>> ms.
porter, what's about four weeks from today?
december --
>> 15th.
>> does that sound pretty good?
>> yes, sir.
>> if we -- I can informally touch base with the team, and if it looks like more time is needed instead of putting it back on the 15th and postponing it, we will hold off until a week or two later if it looks like that's what we need.
however, most of you pick up the pace during the holiday season.
>> absolutely.
>> so I think December 15th would be fine.
>> you bet.
>> 30 days or sooner, right, judge?
>> anything else regarding -- I don't think we need to take action on c other than no action today.
and we'll look to having it back on around December 15th and if we need another week or to, we'll do that.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> judge, the
>> [inaudible] and they need to be at another presentation before the city of Austin I think.
at 2:00 p.m.
today.
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 17, 2009 1:40 PM
