Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 1, 2011,
Item 11
But item 11, consider and take appropriate action regarding executive managers and the following human resources management department items. A, adding pay grades 33, 34 and 35 to the classified pay structure.
b, approving the revised job descriptions, job titles, duties and grading.
c, establishing a salary review and pay adjustment schedule to bring the following departments in line with the market: planning and budget, health and human services, transportation and natural resources, emergency services, justice and public safety, administrative operations, and information and telecommunications systems. We want to do that here or do we -- that can also be taken into executive session.
and what I think we might want to do, since we're going to go into executive session on number -- the second executive session item this afternoon when judge Biscoe returns.
want to to do this here or do it later?
>> we're at 11:22.
we could start the discussion.
>> okay.
and then d, there is establishing a performance review schedule.
and e, other related items.
>> miss blank enship, one concern I know that the court has is with regard to how these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 items relate to our -- our -- how they relate to the context of doing the rank and file compensation review.
can you give us an overview of the schedule of expected outcomes of that?
>> sure.
bob, do you want to give the schedule with the market salary surveys that we're doing?
>> yes.
February is the data we are receiving taq's this month and it's also the font that we're doing our matching and our outside external data analysis.
March we'll go back out to the departments and make sure that we understand the operations correctly.
receive any information related to the classifications and any input that was provided in the memorandum that we've been asking people to send us.
just making sure that we properly understood the job in any issues that the departments may have and have department at discussions in March.
in April we'll come back with the preliminary placements and recommendations for classifications in grades and then in may we will finish up the costing and go back out to the departments to reach consensus on the recommendations.
the goal of the project is to be finished approximately the end of may, perhaps the first week in June.
>> with regard to the compensation committee, they're supposed to be coming back with the policy recommendation in late March, early April?
>> we would expect that the compensation committee would be done with their work and have a proposal for the court.
probably would need to have a work session to go over the various pieces of the compensation policy.
it is quite long and detailed.
and we would like to see that enacted hopefully, actually in the spring prior to the market salary survey data coming to you for consideration.
>> I think that late March, early April is probably a very good estimate.
>> would the addition of pay grades 33, 34 and 35 in any way impact or presuppose or have any sort of jumping the gun with regard to the compensation committee's recommendations to the Commissioners' court?
>> definitely not in regard to the compensation committee recommendations.
my personal belief is that this is a step that's going to be necessary at some point this year.
now, whether it gets done today or it gets done at a later date is going to depend to a great deal upon what decision you make in regard to the executive managers.
obviously if none of the executive managers were to move into grades 33 or 34, there would be no immediate needs to add these grades to the pay scale, but I do believe that at some point this year that we will need to take this step.
>> and we do know again that we have executive managers and some of their direct reports in grade 32.
so it's kind of an unwieldy structure as it is.
you probably need to add at least two grades.
we recommended also a 35 just to have it for growing purposes.
and again, the i.t.
position we have not given market data yet, so we've not got the job description completed, so we do not have that scope of that work done.
so we may need 35 once we get the i.t.
person, that job description done.
>> the compensation committee in the past have sometimes recommended things that, quote, necessarily haven't agreed on.
basically -- depending on the financial climate and the economic climate of what's happening right now, we see a whole lot of things happening at the state level.
I think in a previous item deece came before us and he talked about a lot of things as far as legislative things that are happening at the state capitol for some of these unfunded mandates.
a whole bunch of other things.
we really don't know what climate, of what we're going to get into until a lot of things are einalized.
so again, I hear what you're saying as far as compensations are concerned, but you said March.
I guess -- did you say March?
>> the compensation committee will come forward probably late March.
>> and we look at that during the course of the year as we go through this process.
but again, we're going to have tore have been, very mindful and careful of what's going on at the state level.
so very careful.
I’m just laying out that air of caution to what we do.
>> I think that's always -- I believe it's incorporated in the policy.
and we want it even more strongly put into policy within the budgetary constraints that we have.
within our ability to pay, these are our guidelines.
>> yeah, it's some tough situation outs there right now, period.
>> and being on the committee I think I can speak for it in this respect.
I think the compensation committee is fully aware that they are making recommendations, but the ultimate decision obviously lies with the court.
>> okay.
>> they understand that.
>> I want to make sure that that's publicly understood from my perspective.
but anyway, thank you.
>> with regard to 11-a, there would be no obligation on our part to utilize these pay grades, it's just in recognition that we are seeing -- we are seeing within our current top out pay grade that we are going above midpoint in order to accommodate what we know are job titles that are -- that marketwise should be at a higher pay grade.
is that an appropriate --
>> mamping them to the -- matching them to the market they would be in a higher pay grade.
where we're at in that scale with some of our people, that again has to do with the adjustments that we're talking about.
some of them are in fact below midpoint in grade 32, but that's kind after different kettle of fish.
when we match them to the market they should be in 33 or 34.
and I do want to add that even if we create 33, 34 and 35, that does not mean we have to place anyone in them.
if we were to take the recommendation that we made at the work session, still everyone is within the grade 33 or 34.
so they don't have to be moved.
even if we created 33, 34 and 35, took the recommendations from todd's group, everybody is still within their grade.
so that doesn't obviously means somebody needs a salary adjustment to come up to the minimum.
that's not the case.
everybody would be within the grade.
>>
>> but it does give us some flexibility within our current budgetary and compensation rules to deal with what the market information is providing.
>> correct.
>> do you anticipate that we would make the same change to the rank and file?
>>
>> can you clarify?
>> going by your language, do we need to add pay grades to the rank and file pay structure so that --
>> well, that is the rank and file pay structure that we're talking about.
this is the classified pay structure.
so what we would expect to see when we do the market survey is that some jobs may move grades.
they may go up.
typically they don't go down even if the market says that.
but we would expect to see some of them move grades.
not all, just some of them move grades.
but that wouldn't cause us to add more grades.
we already have the grades for the rank and file people.
it's just we don't have enough at the top.
>> you kind of conceptual lies taz a string and when you pull the top of the string everything else goes up with it.
that's what we're dealing with here.
we've run out of room at the top of the string and need more room to pull on it.
>> it adds more strings.
it doesn't -- it's all the same scale.
it's not that the executives are on a different scale.
they're all on the same scale.
we might see some people move grades, depends on what the market tells us.
or we might recommend that they move grades depending on what market is telling us.
>> I don't know what metaphor will exhibit this, but my understanding is that the pay grade structure currently goes from one to 32, correct?
>> correct.
>> and that in the bottom pay grades we don't have anyone because the market has moved.
>> that is correct.
currently in pay grades 1 through 4 we have absolutely no employees.
those pay grades are what we call retired.
there's nobody in those.
all of our employees reside within five through 32 at the moment.
>> so our pay grade is here, the market is here, but we've just compressed.
so to add the pay grades would decompress our structure?
>> it would give us actually two fewer grade than we had when we originally created the structure.
right now we have what, four, five tier grades?
>> we have four retired.
we'd be adding three.
we would have one less.
>>
>> any other comments?
a motion?
>> I move addition of the pay grades?
>> second.
>> all in favor?
opposed?
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> two-two.
we'll have to wait on that one then.
b?
>> the court was presented job descriptions and they were added to the backup.
I will say that the revised job descriptions do have the grading, including 33 and 34 that would need to be changed to 32.
but we're asking that the court approve the job descriptions with the exception of grading, I suppose.
>> did we address the title issue?
>> the title that was put on these were county executives for health and human services county executive for transportation and natural resources, planning and budget, etcetera.
>> and I believe that county executive only applies to the county judge.
so what was the other alternative?
>> there was a discussion of chief executive.
there was a discussion of executive director and there was a discussion of keeping it as executive manager.
>> I think chief executive fully describes the role and the job of the executive managers.
executive managers, I guess the only reason that it doesn't work is because other people -- other people's interpretation of the title.
and so -- but to me county executive is the county judge.
and so if we're going to do that, then certainly the chief executive is more -- is fairer to me.
but in addition to that, I still have -- we don't have a job description for executive manager for administrative operations, do we?
>> we do not have a revised job description for the executive manager.
we have the one that was put in on 10-1 of 2009.
>> and that is the one that I feel very uncomfortable about.
I just don't think it's fair of us to eliminate a position that rounds out the leadership of executive managers who help the county court, the Commissioners' court in carrying out our duties.
and the executive manager's report to the Commissioners' court.
and so the Commissioners' court evaluates them and makes recommendations for pay increases and etcetera, etcetera.
they are our employees.
and so to me it's -- it's not acceptable for us to not have an executive manager for administrative operations.
so to me this is getting ahead of ourselves.
our work is not complete.
>> okay.
might I state that we're not advocating to eliminate that job.
we would like some direction from the court then on what the scope of the job would be, what departments would report to it.
what we don't want to do is be grading jobs with large departments in two different executive manager jobs.
that that really going to puff up the scope of these jobs.
what we would ask is for some direction from the court of the executive manager of administrative operations, what is the scope of the job?
sthald be very help -- that would be very helpful.
one of the reasons we didn't update that job description is there's no incull bent and we don't know what the scope of the job is yes.
if we could get some direction that would be absolutely wonderful.
we are not advocating elimination of that position, we just simply did not update the job description because we don't have the scope yet.
>> sure.
>> in order to continue to be making progress, however, on the market analysis for the executive manager positions, we do need to move forward with the job description for the managers that we do have in order to be fair to them, I believe.
I believe that we can't hold a market analysis of their job hostage while we don't -- while we don't make a decision.
I think that to be fair to all of the rank and file, including the executive managers, we do need to land on a job description of the individuals who are currently holding managerial -- hyman jeerl posts so that we can do -- high managerial posts so that we can do the market analysis.
also so that we can recruit for an i.t.s.
executive director.
so I would --
>> I had a couple of comments too.
first of all, I tend to -- I agree with you on the county executive title.
I think that could be confusing.
but I also believe that the chief executive is such a common term in the private sector that that would be confused and might send misinformation out there as to the role of that individual.
so if we're left with the third of executive director, I guess that's where I would land on that.
also, I wanted to point to you again on the job descriptions -- I wanted to point out again on the job descriptions, and this actually relates -- in some ways to the admin ops position.
I wanted to say that I firmly believe that the master's degree in public administration or business administration should be a required component of each of these, not a preferred.
and I don't believe that a master's in a field directly related to one or more of the functional areas is adequate because we need management expertise.
and if -- I think some of the challenges that we've had in the last year or two are indicators of that high level managerial skills that we need in this county that are not there in as complete a form as we would like to see.
we've got good executive emergency rooms, but if we're going -- we've got good executive managers, but if we're going to move forward I think we should require a master of public administration or an mba.
>> on all of them?
>> on all of them.
>> I agree with you.
>> and I also would say that I think this is not agendaized for the day, but within the next six months that we should come up with a succession plan that identifies leadership internally that will help them track with the appropriate educational skills to support this.
>> now, that I agree with.
I think there should be that master is in public administration required of all of them, but I think that -- and I agree with the county, on the executive director.
I think it just kind of clarifies the role and the relationship between executive managers and the Commissioners' court.
>> may we take these into executive session for legal questions?
>> that's fine.
>> with regard to requirements?
>> that's fine.
>> I also would like to add that I have heard it said that we need to say preferred instead of required to be sure that we get a broad enough pool of applicants.
I would suggest that we may be sending a wrong message to our pool of applicants out there by not requiring an mba or mpa because it indicates that we are serious about our managerial skill levels and we are wanting to attract those people that can bring that.
>> sure.
>> so I think there are two sides to that discussion as well.
>> okay.
so b we'll take into executive session.
c is the establishment of a salary review and pay adjustment schedule.
>> yes.
I made a recommendation to the court that they consider a market adjustment, which of course is within the ability of the pay.
if we could not get a complete market adjustment that we at least look at a schedule to where these particular employees that get reviewed on a regular basis until they are brought up to market.
the employees work directly for the court, so it's up to them to keep coming back until they're at market.
and I -- my suggestion would be to put them on a schedule, employ it's every -- s three months, six months, and we see what's the market, what's the ability to pavement that would give them the reassurance to know the matter would be considered until they are at market, again within the county's ability to pay.
>> I think the other thing that we usually do is we tie the performance review to those adjustments.
so we'll have to be real careful as well to build in the Commissioners' court ability to have those meetings on our timely basis.
>> absolutely.
but there is -- there is a distinct difference between a market adjustment, bringing someone where they should be relative to the market, and that is our current policy within the aict to pay, to pay market, and a performance.
we also have in the policy a pay for performance module that we do have a performance increases.
which I understand have not been paid for the past couple of years.
but the market is definitely separate from the performance piece.
so again, I am completely supportive of pay for performance.
certainly performance has to be reviewed in order to alot that pay, but with regards to bringing things to the market, that is separate and different from performance pay, although I will say I don't -- I think I’ve said this to you before, I don't believe in giving an increase to somebody who has got substandard performance, especially somebody at this level.
>> so with regard to c specifically as distinct from d, which would be the performance review schedule, what would be your recommendation as to an appropriate time period?
I’m going to throw out there boldly that since we haven't established a salary review schedule previously and our last two market analyses, both in 2007 and 2011, indicate that while other lower managers and these managers themselves within their own budgets have moved their employees to track to the best of their budget abilities the market.
we have not as the manager of the managers.
so I would suggest that we have a standing item every three months.
>> three months?
I think three to six months would be appropriate.
somewhere around there.
but we could put that item on every three months, every six months, whatever the court decides, to bring that before you and so that they don't have to keep putting it on the agenda.
because I think that's an uncomfortable thing to an employee to have to do, even somebody at this level.
so I think that review, even if there's no adjustment, even if there's no ability to pay, knowing that that review is coming, I think that would be very important to them.
>> this would also put it in line with what we are doing with the compensation committee and the market salary surveying.
it would on a three month schedule, February, March, April, may, it would put us in may, which is right where we expect to have had input from the compensation committee and be substantially complete with our market salary survey.
so I would move a salary review pay adjustment schedule of every three months.
at least through the budget cycle.
so that would be for the next six months.
>> is there a second?
>> second.
>> all in favor?
all opposed?
>> Commissioner Davis opposed.
no.
>> d, establishing a performance review schedule.
>> this was brought up at the request of the court back in November.
a performance review schedule of the executive managers.
they have not been formally reviewed in quite awhile according to the records that I could come up with.
I am recommending a focal point review time of may and June.
in may I would expect them to do the self evaluation.
get that to the court members.
in June the court would do formal evaluations so that we do have a performance record on an ongoing basis of these employees, hiring employee employees.
so I am recommending focal point review, all of them no matter when they started, self evaluations in may and court evaluations to be completed by the end of June.
>> I think there needs to be an understanding that it really depends on the Commissioners' court schedule.
and sometimes it slips because there are other things on our plate that need to be addressed.
and sometimes they're lengthy.
and so if we slip, then there needs to be an understanding that that's going to happen.
>> sure.
I think that happens with every manager.
but I think it also would be helpful if we had a schedule, then hr could coordinate that that happens.
I think in establishing that coordination with hr helping would help keep on schedule because we would be putting it on the agenda for y'all to look at instead of the court remembering.
>> I also think that we do have to establish it as a priority since we have let it slip for I believe four years now.
I don't believe we've had a performance review of the executive managers since 2007.
and since then we have hired new folks who have never been reviewed.
reviewed by this court.
>> is there a motion?
>> I move that establish a focal point performance review schedule with a may self evaluation and a June court evaluation to occur annually.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
opposed?
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> I had just like to ask how we're going to review our executive managers.
>> well, I think we'll get there.
e, other related items?
>> I don't have any other related items.
>> okay.
thank y'all so much.
>> thank you.
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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
