Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 28, 2010,
Item 22
Item 22, consider and take appropriate action regarding executive manager administrative operations, a, posting the pox, b, schedule and process for filing the pending position vacancy, or c, a project including participants, location, date and facilitator of a work session to discuss and deliberate the county organizational structure. Do we have an outline of c? We were talking about a date that might be convenient. Did we land on one?
>> as stated in the backup memo, wee tentatively earmarked october 28th for a potential work session and we're trying to accommodate all of the commissioners court schedules. If that date would not work. I have talked to the proposed facilitator we are hoping to use and he is available on the 28th. He is also available on november 4th or the 11th if we needed to push to the 4th or the 11th. But those dates are available to us should the court decide to go ahead and hold a work session. We would also recommend that the work session be held over at the tac conference room. We will secure that as soon as we lock in a date if that's the court's desire. And then also the executive managers will all chip in and put the bill for the commissioners court's lunch that day.
>> did you mention november 11th?
>> yes. The 28th of october, november 4th, or november 11th are the dates.
>> > the 11th is a holiday.
>> veterans day.
>> and i usually attend --
>> okay. Well, then the 11th would be out.
>> if we do ours on the 10th, that would be moving it back to the monday? We could skip the holiday that way if we wanted -- if we get to the second week of november.
>> i can double-check. All i checked on were thursday availabilities for him and if not we can always see if we can find another facilitator to assist us in the process.
>> would our preference be october 28th?
>> my preference is whenever all five of us can be there.
>> judge, i need to say some things, i guess with those other two items. In other words, a is the posting of the position, of course, b is the scheduling of it and going through the same process. And, of course, we looked at the similar job description as we looked at when we compare item 22 to 50, the job descriptions are basically the same, and i'd like maybe h.r. To maybe bring forth the same presentation that was brought before as far as job description is concerned because that is a part of this process. And also look at the possibility of the posting if that's what the court actually wants to do. My -- my -- my question is still as it always has been, i'm not in favor of any reorganization at all. I think if it's not broke, don't fix it. And i think i've said this over and over and everybody has their opinions about things and i respect the opinions, but also respect mine. It ain't broke so don't fix it. And, of course, when you look at things here, and i'm looking at the backup and i've looked at the different things that have come forth to this court, i may want to go back to some minutes that i think we shared with you of july 29th, 2009, in which i even stated back then, you know, it came up even with creating this organization, support that and i'm still not in support and there's no way in the world i'm going to support it. Again i stated if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And in my opinion, it's not broke. So saying that i maybe want to submit those minutes to the clerk. We got them from the clerk, but i'll definitely share them and give them back to you as part of the record as far as item 22 is concerned. Now, we have heard several things, we've had several things included in this backup. In fact, two organizational chart that we had before, one organizational chart shows the one that came out of the preliminary budget which do show all the executive managers. And then we have another executive organizational chart which takes all of the departments that were under administrative ops and put them under p.b.o., executive manager. And then the document suggests there would be salary savings accordingly. Now, i don't know what that's supposed to mean except that unless we are not going to fill the position. I don't really know what that means. As i've said before and i think i've said it adamantly, even when you hired the executive -- the human resource director, hrmd, i even said at that point that i didn't need to support it. Why didn't the commissioner support it. The reason why i didn't support it because again i think you need to get the head on an organization before you deal with the legs. And, of course, this particular position has been vacant for a long time, over a year. And so i thought that the best thing before we do anything is number one fill the position. Again, if we're not going to do that, we're not going to do it. I did put it on the agenda and i would like to submit all of these things to the clerk, the organizational chart that came out of our preliminary budget. That's how we operate right now. And the one that been suggested by these folks that have organized themselves to bring forth whatever report you guys have come up as far as bringing that report back to the commissioners court. And if you look at that, you compare those two organizational deals, you will see that every department that was under h.r., that was under administrative ops are now up under the p.b.o. Executive manager. So in my sense of things, that's -- as suggested -- appears it's suggested that's reorg. I want to make sure the record is very clear that commissioner davis still do not support a reorganization for travis county because the wheel ain't broke so why fix it. And my position is going to stay the same and nothing anybody can do here to make me change my mind about how i feel about the existing structure. I fully support and endorse the exiting structure and it works and i think it still can work. That's my position and when you mention all those dates, that's all well and good but commissioner davis' mind ain't going to change on reorganization. So i wanted to say that and if we want to go through item 22 which i think we should, i think we need to fill this vacancy as soon as possible and i think it should be put on the same time lines that we have did for the executive manager -- well, chief executive now joe geiselman. Should do the same thing as the chief executive of administrative ops. Starting with hrmd, you have facilities, which is a part of expo center, you have records management. So if all of these departments that are loose, got i.t.s., for example, all of them come up under administrative ops and yet it appears we're placing them all -- if you look at the organizational chart, and i think all of us have a copy of it, of the proposed situation, they all -- all of these particular organizations now come up under p.b.o.
>> i think that was just a proposal. I've seen three or four from different places.
>> i understand, but i'm just letting you know that commissioner davis has continual stayed consistent on this.
>> you would not let me forget that, commissioner davis. I know your position on this item.
>> right, well, so i -- you know --
>> but don't you think there would be some beauty in just meeting and discussing this?
>> i'm just say my position is not going to change.
>> but it's been ten years since we made the change, and it does seem to me that this is probably the best opportunity we will get to think through this again. We may well end up concluding that we should leave things exactly as they are.
>> well, judge, i hear what you are saying --
>> but even if we do that, we may conclude that we may need to make some changes to the job description.
>> i'm going to submit this to the clerk.
>> mr. Hobby.
>> executive manager of emergency services. I would like to if i could clarify. Commissioner davis, maybe you need to clarify for me, there has been no official recommendation from the operational planning team in regards to any organizational chart or any recommendation in regards to --
>> that's not what i have here. This came from cyd grimes. And also email.
>> i'll let her clarify.
>> because when you see stuff like this, it may be misleading, but the bottom line is that commissioner davis still is not going to support any -- if it ain't broke
>> [inaudible].
>> judge, commissioners, just for the record, the executive manager of p.b.o. Has not participated in any discussions regarding what commissioner davis has so i just want to make that point.
>> let me see if i can clarify. Cyd grimes, county purchasing agent. I was not here last tuesday when this item was on the agenda so i sent an email just with my thought that in the interim until we could have a work session because there was a concern that there was no one sort of overseeing or providing leadership to i.t.s., records management, hrmd, that just in the i want room solution, meetly combining those departments, until we could meet on the 28th and have discussions. So commissioner davis, it was not a recommendation from the committee, it was just from me saying here's my thought and a solution until we could see and make a decision.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] i have always stated this that i think we're doing things backwards. We're doing things upside down n my opinion i thought we should have filled the executive manager's slot first and then everything else come after that. But court decided that -- whatever they decided they decided to do it. There are three votes on this court that determine what happens on this court. If three votes are there, that's what happens, that's what happens. Commissioner davis just doesn't support it. I'm just one person on this court, one person, but i would like to be respectful of my opinion just as everybody else is respected on theirs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>> i would like to talk about other ideas at the work session. I'm sure you have a whole lot of other ideas that we ought to hear. The work session will give an informal opportunity for the five of us not only to have our say, with you we'll have an opportunity to listen to the core team and the facilitator and i would think that anybody that believes he or she has good ideas that we ought to hearks we ought to set aside on minute or two, maybe not longer than that, but a minute or two to hear those. And then we can make a decision. That is how we get to the next base from here, i think.
>> well, that means -- well, let me ask this -- let me go ahead and make a motion for item number 22 because it's 22 a and b. And 22 a and b of course is looking at not only the posting of the position for administrative ops, but also the processing of this, the timeline. Similar to that of which we experienced for chief executor johanne lochard who we just -- for chief executor joe gieselman and we also approve the same similar posting a little bit ago. So i'm probing that particular motion, making that particular motion at this point. That's my motion, 22 a and b.
>> so what would that do to c? It would render c unnecessary?
>> i don't know about c. I didn't put it on the agenda. Weigh put on the agenda is a and b.
>> commissioner davis moves approval of 22 a and bs there a second?
>> i would normally second it except that i don't want to forego all the group of us meeting and having a really good discussion, honest discussion about what the future organization is going to look like. But i do think that we -- when we decided to go with five executive managers in these particular areas, it was to relieve the court from having to get involved in those daily operations and all of those five areas. And it was supposed to relieve us so that we could address county wide issues. And i don't know that i want to go back and get involved in the daily operations of any one of those areas. And so just for that reason, i won't second your motion, commissioner.
>> i understand. And i'm -- i understand, commissioner. But if --
>> let commissioner gomez finish her second and then we'll give you the opportunity.
>> inch it's very valuable if all fnve of us were there. Because i value your opinion and i want to hear it. I want to hear it again when the time is right for each of the discussions. And i know you can be pretty powerful in your opinion and so i would appreciate if you would be there.
>> let me say this. There's six executive managers. We have one that's void right now. In fact, we end up creating a new executive manager slot when we came up with e.m.s. Danny hobby, i guess. He's considered i guess an executive manager. So what i'm trying to say, we need to fill a void. The organizational structure was working just perfect. I didn't see any flaws in it under this particular -- if you looked at the job description under joe gieselman's example it listed out all those departments that were up under him and of course it's the time thing for administrative ops, listing those four critical departments that were up under him -- up under administrative ops. And all the other departments that up under executive managers. I have no gripe about the organizational structure as it exists right now. And to me it works perfect. It's a smooth operating machine. And i don't want to mess with it. My stand will still go back to what i said before, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
>> is there a second to commissioner davis' motion? That motion dies for lack of a second. I move that we implement 22 c. That we have october 28th as our first date, that if it is not workable we move to november 4th. If it's not workable we move to november 10. In addition to what is listed in c, part of the motion is that each of us will give an appropriate job description some thought prior to the work session and bring those ideas to the meeting either in memory or in writing. And that's my way of saying if we could be in a position to discuss that, i think we would be better off in and the time would be more productive.
>> second.
>> is there a second to that motion?
>> judge could also ask as a part of that to include those departments that were listed in the memo, facilities, hrmd, records management, its and then an assistant county attorney as a part of the group that brings to the court some recommendations with some pros and cons.
>> if this passes, the 14 would be invited -- the core team would be invited and would be asked to bring whatever ideas they had.
>> thank you.
>> my motion s there a second? Seconded by commissioner gomez. Any discussion on the motion? We hope to get this done in half a day, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> i don't know about that.
>> [ laughter ] i don't know that we can do that.
>> [ laughter ]
>> that's why i said hope. But if it takes a little longer than that, so be it. And if we need to chip in to -- on the refreshments as individuals, let court members know.
>> i think we'll cover it, judge.
>> okay. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show commissioners eckhardt, gomez, huber and yours truly voting in favor.
>> commissioner davis voting no with these particular comments, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The organizational structure is not broken. Thank you.
>> thank y'all very much.
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, September 28, 2010 3:37 PM
