Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, December 7, 2010,
Item 11
11 is discuss and take appropriate action on budget amendments.
any discussion?
>> yes, judge.
the a 3 is the backfill of a position in p.b.o.
of course, and I understand that this person, it's almost like creating a f.t.e.
in a 3 because we are backfilling it and, of course, this other person that's supposed to go to work on befit and we discussed there wouldn't be any new creation of ftes as far as f.y.
11 and I’m concerned about that.
>> I think we approved this position months ago.
it just hasn't been filled.
am I right on that?
>> that's right, judge.
there was a large reserve set because we weren't really quite sure for this year, there were two positions in it.
one was for i.t.s.
which you arrived a couple weeks ago.
the second is for p.b.o.
and that is a business analyst to work with the system and I think to get the kind of analysis and the benefit from budget, it absolutely is critical.
>> susan came to me on a number of occasions and repeatedly asked, you know, as they were adding the h.r.
related positions, the i.t.
related position, the purchasing positions, and my response was I wanted to wait until the absolute last minute recognizing that there would be a need eventually, partly because I wanted to make for sure of the system that was -- we were getting so that we could get a qualified individual that had hopefully some experience with that system.
so that's why I waited as long as I did.
>> and I guess my concern, though, is as I stated earlier, that this person would have to be accountable to befit.
and, of course, they wouldn't be because they would be having two --
>> actually they are going to be working in the rusk building during the --
>> I understand, but they will still be assigned to befit but it's not a permanent situation, it's a temporary solution.
and, of course, I’m trying to make sure that what we do is a permanent situation under one umbrella.
that is under befit.
if we need to go out and get someone to fill the slots, that's one thing, but where we actually are creating a backfill slot because it hasn't been filled in p.b.o.
and releasing the person from p.b.o.
to work up under befit which is something that I can't discuss this earlier, I can't really agree with.
>> just to remind the court, in f.y.
11, these two positions that we're talking be were in the berate nerve.
in f.y.
10 and he came and asked for the ability to fill several position both in purchasing and the auditor office and you approved those as part of the f.y.
10 budget process and those positions have been filled and that's who has been working on this project.
i.t.s.
and p.b.o.
are sort of at the end of the train.
they didn't ask for those positions earlier in the project because they were more related to us knowing what system we were going to implement and so they waited until we were at the point of picking the system.
so to be fair, they are asking for them at the right time too.
>> and Commissioner, they are not different than the positions that were added back in f.y.
10, and they -- in those particular departments.
>> well, but my position and my argument remains the same as I stated earlier.
and, of course, I guess we need to separate the vote, judge.
>> let me withdraw that vote and let me move approval of a 1 and a 2, which would be all the rest of this excluding a 3.
>> exactly.
I appreciate that.
>> and Commissioner Gomez, are you seconding that new motion?
>> uh-huh.
>> it's okay to withdraw your second for the last motion.
>> sure.
>> on the last motion I movedapproval on all of them.
this new motion covers a 1 and 2 which is all of the budget transfers except those realtd to the $68,074 set forth in a 3 which has several components there.
any more discussion on this motion covering a 1 and a 2?
>> no.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now I move approval of a 3.
my understanding was at some point p.b.o.
would come and ask for an analyst to work on the befit initiative for p.b.o.
so I have known it was coming at some point and it's just that it's here now.
>> I’ll second that too.
>> any more discussion of that, Commissioner Davis?
>> just the fact that wasn't the discussion we had yesterday per se on this and it just -- it's just really defeating the purpose in my opinion and it should come under befit exactly.
I think we need to be accountable to these folks.
however, that's not the case so I’m not going to support this because it is creating a f.t.e.
and I think it's what we tried to not keep from doing at this point.
so I can't support this.
>> this person will work with the befit team.
>> yes, they will.
>> except the person really is assigned to p.b.o.
because --
>> what they will be -- they will be the subject matter expert.
so they will learn the system, they will be the expert on the system, but they will also be the p.b.o.
subject matter expert.
and so when the system is up and -- first of all, they will help populate the tables and work on getting it up ready to go like everyone will.
and then once it's up, then they will be the ones that make sure that it works for budget, they will answer the questions for people in budget.
they will, you know, work on putting reports together and things like that.
so -- and there will be -- because it's such a big program, there will be a lot of cohesiveness with everyone working on the project.
I don't see it -- I don't see our working like this for several years and everyone just scattering and not working together.
we're going to have to work together in groups much we don't know exactly how that's going to work out because we haven't done it yet.
>> the key thing is that person has got to be a person who understands the budget process.
not only are we planning to implement that at the end, but we have to be able to deal with budget prep with a new system when we don't have -- you know, the process that we will need to do the budget the next couple years countywide to prepare that budget with a new system in place.
also we will be looking at things like some of the policy changes that we are talking about, we've got to be able to do some of those things.
one big question is are we going to change how we categorize.
any person from p.b.o.
is integral to that particular type of work that has to be done on this project.
I don't know if that helps, but what that person is doing.
>> this is one of my responsibilities together within this case, rodney the same as I’ve talked with h.r.
that we need to come up with a model where when we manage that individual's performance, that how they perform under project is taken into account, into their performance management or performance evaluation by that manager.
so I think we can manage this if we talk and decide how we're going to make this work.
>>
>> [inaudible] sticking point being, it's still a sticking point today and it still sticks.
so I laid it out.
and it's still the same way.
ain't nothing changed.
thanks.
>> when they work on the project.
>> all in favor?
show Commissioners Gomez, Huber oh, Eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor.
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, December 7, 2010 1:33 PM
