Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 22, 2011,
Item 24
>> number 24, consider and take appropriate action regarding the safety of managers and the following human resources management department items. A, adding pay grades 33, 34, 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. This item may be taken into executive session pursuant to government code annotated 551.074, personnel matters.
d, establishing a performance review schedule and e, other related items. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners court.
diane blankenship, todd osborne, manager of compensation.
as you said, we were asked to bring this back today and it was voted on on February 1, but we were asked to bring this back.
so we are here.
we want to start with item number a adding additional pay grades 33, 34 and 35 to the classified pay structure.
in the memo, you'll see that each of our executive managers are now grading out based on the market data higher than our current scale allows us to-he higher than the current 32 grade, which is the high higheston the scale.
as we previously mentioned, we are using the same scale we've used a long time.
grades have been retired but we haven't added to the top of the scale.
so we are recommending we add three grades to the top of the scale.
33, 34 and 35.
again, we're using a 7% progression in between grades, which is the mid point to the mid point and how much we add to the previous mid point to get to the next.
about a 56% range spread which is what we're using at the top grade.
it's a formula we use to calculate the new grades.
we're asking for 33 and 34.
we would -- we're also in the new job descriptions in the new market data we would be asking that you grade some of the executive managers in 33, some in 34 and we would have nobody at this time in 35.
so we would ask you would approve adding grades 33, 34 and 35 to the classified pay scale.
>> okay.
that's a.
>> shall we take them one at a time?
I would move approval of the -- of adding the necessary pay grades.
>> second.
>> so do we add these to the others or replace --
>> we're just adding 33, 34 and 35 and 1 through 4 is retired.
it's still for history purposes part of the scale, but we have retired those.
we have nobody in 1 through 4.
>> any discussion on the motion?
all in favor of that motion?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor, Commissioner Davis voting no.
b is approving the resides job descriptions, job titles and duties and grading.
>> I'm asking rodney to hand out.
there were two different backups because the item was on the work session and previously looked at.
there was some cleanup in between the work session and when this was visited on February 1st.
I want to make sure have you the current copy.
I noticed our new agenda software it looked like the wrong job descriptions so my apologies to the court for that.
we are asking that you approve the new job descriptions.
again, you will see t.n.r., you'll see justice and public safety, health and human services and p.b.o.
lastly-what am I missing?
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I don't know that the executive managers are the decision makers for the county.
they bring the issues to the court and the court takes action.
>> they wouldn't try to supplant the county judge, would they, miss blacken ship?
>> I can assure they won't, sir.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what other names did y'all consider?
>> I believe as presented during hrmd's previous discussion with the court, they had recommended executive director and I think there was some agreement among the executive managers that executive director was a title that was more synonymous with more of a nonprofit organization and from our perspective did not convey the sort of public nature of our job.
it actually causes you to think of another type of organization.
I think there was discussion around managing executive.
something along those lines.
we struggled, as you all are struggling.
so I would be dishonest if I didn't say that.
I think the interest around the county executive title, it would be represented as county executive for our particular areas of expertise.
so in no way would it be merely county executive for Travis County.
it would be county executive for health and human services, for planning and budget, along those lines.
so again, not to say there was an exhaustive search, but there was the one that we were most -- we felt met the discussion points that hr brought to your attention as well as our attention that they were having trouble matching us to other titles, similar titles.
but not to say that that is tha is the be all and end all.
>> maybe if we approve this we could condition it upon the county judge bringing back to court an action to strip them of the new title if we learn that they're out there acting like county judge.
>> [ laughter ]
>> john, reaching back into the old vault, aren't there ag opinions that refer to the county judge as the chief executive officer or the top executive?
>> there are similar related loosely, casually used.
I think the federal government often makes references to the county judge in that kind of vein as well.
whenever they're expecting a signature out of somebody.
>> but there would be -- is there potential for confusion there from a legal perspective?
or are all of those references to the chief executive of the county?
>> I wouldn't think that -- county executive doesn't seem sufficiently descriptive.
you would have to say chief executive.
>> the chief word is pretty key.
>> was there any research done in other large counties in Texas to see if there was a commonality of nomenclature?
>> I think the little bit of research we did, the differences had to do mostly in those areas where there was a county administrator.
so there was a county administrator, there was a deputy or an associate county administrator, so we did not find any matches with executive manager as hrmd has said, but many of the ones that were distinguishable were those that were related to -- where there was a county administrator.
>> okay.
>> one other comment.
>> sure, go ahead.
>> back to the job descriptions.
I'm standing firm on where I believe that we should require as a minimum education experience, a master of public administration or a master's degree in business.
I just firmly believe that out of almost 5,000 employee organization, that at this level of management that those -- an advanced degree like that provides our managers with the skill sets that you don't get on the job in training.
by and large.
you bet natural leaders sometimes that may be able to excel brilliantly without those, but the insurance we need is that our senior level managers bring to us the high level communication skills, the organizational skills, the people skills that come through an educational training program more often than not.
so I feel very strongly we should have that and I also feel like critical to having that is implementing a succession plan internally that helps identify our talented individuals and train them up in preparation for these positions.
>> I go along with the training, but I think the requirement of a master's is probably beyond what we need.
I think at some point experience can be substituted or should be substituted, should be allowed.
we have a preference for a master's, and in my view we have a requirement for a bachelor's and preference for a master's in terms of formal education I think that's sufficient.
at some point I think your demonstrated experience, demonstrated performance should weigh as much or more than a formal post-graduate degree.
I mean, a lot of people just like school, like I did, go to law school.
I hated finishing school.
I was 25 years old, it was time to move on and I hated it.
so not that it's easy, but obtaining those degrees requires certain skills.
performing in the workplace, managing persons getting the job done in my view, all those require a whole lot of different skills that I think you show through demonstrating performance and experience more than anything else.
I wouldn't down grade it, but I think the preference is about as strong as we should go on a formal post-graduate degree.
>> judge, the other thing is --
>> the thing that Commissioner Huber is referring to, I look at us as an example on this Commissioner's court and everyone on this court has a degree, per se.
I guess it gives us a better handle on a lot of things that go on throughout the county, but it just gives us a good background I think of what actually county government does.
and also the relationship with the overall organization.
now, of course, I'm going to vote no against all of this anyway.
I'm not -- I didn't support the reorg at all and I consistently have voted that way.
but in the sense of some type of educational situation, I just think the relationship should be based on some of this and not required that any of us on this Commissioners' court have to have a degree.
the voters determine who gets here and who stays and who goes, but it's just remarkable that the tenure that I've been here, I guess everyone up here basically has some type of degree or some type of education that really did work as far as my observation, work in the best interest of Travis County.
so that's basically what I'm getting to, what is the best interest of Travis County.
so, you know, maybe a degree helps that interest of Travis County.
>> and along the lines that, Commissioner, that you're addressing, the -- as adults, we find a higher -- we find higher education institutions that are enrolling adults and a lot of them have you to document your experiences.
a lot of those experiences are college creditable and have been.
and I think that you have a lot of folks from all backgrounds getting their mba's and getting other master's degrees.
yeah, it takes elbow grease to get it done, but I think the experience is always -- is certainly something new that came along, thank goodness, where experience was valued and was college creditable.
so I think that what we have is probably good for us.
>> if I can address to your points, there are programs, emba programs that if we're serious about this that we could look as part of the succession planning.
we could look at splitting the baby a little bit.
that right now it's not as much a preference, but perhaps in future editions of it, it would be something that's acquired or you must obtain an mba or mpa within two or three years, something along those lines.
there are ways to get into that.
I want to address one thing.
we do have some of our existing executive managers, some have master's and some don't, but the requirement of an mba or mpa, some of them actually have their master's preparation in their functional areas.
so that again would be a double master's degree that we would be asking.
so we need to carefully talk about what we would want and maybe an executive mba or mpa program, which is basically something that's done in a year.
it takes some of your professional experience, it's done on Fridays and Saturdays once or twice a month.
maybe that's something we can do to get that skill level, that skill set y'all would like to see.
>> we've also established some additional contacts with the university of Texas with regard to their mba program and their mtaff program, and perhaps we could spend some more time developing those linkages as we further explore upgrading this preference to a requirement.
I hear what you're saying.
and having -- having a master's of public affairs myself, I've seen the benefits of it in looking at areas in which I don't have technical expertise, but see linkages because of my education.
it trained me to look for those kind of linkages in public organizations, which are a different animal.
they are a different animal from the private sector.
we have to operate differently from the private scter.
we can't -- the mantra it should be run like a business, it's not on the profit mode.
but I understand being reticent at this point to go to a requirement.
>> I would think that if we do our performance evl waitions well, and we see areas in which improvement is needed, we would pinpoint that.
there is training, there is continuing education, then there's a formal master's degree.
>> correct.
>> it would seem to me that in the workplace, continuing education, specific training related to your duties and responsibilities of Travis County, in the long run would serve you better than us insisting that you get a master's degree, either before hire or after employment here.
the other thing is that we talk about upward mobility and us providing advancement opportunities.
they're probably outstanding managers in other parts of a county who work for elected officials or other appointed officials.
I don't know that we do a real good job of providing opportunities to transfer to better positions within the county.
my guess is that we look externally first.
and succession may well be, you know, top managers and appointing the elected officials, collaborating better so that we can identify, you know, outstanding managers who really -- instead of moving on, maybe we just want to move to another job, but remain county employees.
have you to proactively make that happen, though.
>> right.
an organizational viewpoint.
>> so we're kind of -- I don't know that what we're saying is different except in my view the formal requirement doesn't quite get us where we need to go, but I think managers like us really can do a little bit more after we identify individuals who should be better trained or receive more training in specific areas that require, you know, better performance here at the county.
so --
>> I agree with you and I can say that rodney, pbo and hr, we are working on a succession planning and a succession planning program so that we can both identify key positions and also identify people that could grow within the county and offer them a little bit more in the way of opportunity and training.
>> I would like to just add a couple more things.
first of all, I appreciate, respect and admire all of our executive managers, regardless of whether they have a master's degree or not.
I'm not -- this is looking to the future and for the size of the organization that we are.
one of the things that I would like to point out when it relates to a master's degree, I'm not talking about a master's degree in the area of interest.
I'm talking about a management level master's degree.
and I think we need to be really careful with the kinds of size of, that we are that we're not blindsided by what we don't know.
because I would offer up that some of the organizational challenges that we have been struggling with for the last year and a half would be standard educational components of a master's level degree.
so I think that we need to reach outside of our mind thinking.
the sunset commission for txdot just pointed out recently that an engineer does not necessarily a good manager make.
an engineer can make a good manager.
steve is a good manager.
but at the same time their managerial skill sets that climb outside our areas of expertise.
and we are going to be shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't walk down that path in an aggressive way with the size of the organization that we have.
so I don't know.
obviously I'm in minority today, but I would challenge this entire court and senior level management to move in this direction because we are lacking at our most senior level some key components of senior management skills that are outside the usual areas of expertise.
we've got pockets of those outside things in here, but not in a solid way.
and we've got to get there or we're just going to keep spinning our wheels.
>> we were handed today these job descriptions.
>> correct.
those were actually the ones that came to you before.
>> okay.
this is what we've had in the backup or any changes will be minor.
>> they are minor.
>> there is one thing missing here, judge.
and that is the job description for the county executive of administrative operations.
my feeling still remains that -- and belief still remains that we have an incomplete team here, and we need this position because I think what we have tried to do is shovel departments around to make them fit somewhere elsewhere they don't really fit.
and I think that our original plan of administrative operations was a good one.
it was a good recommendation that we followed from the comptroller's office in his study.
when he helped us set up the executive manager process or structure.
and so I really believe that we need to give direction today for the development of that job description.
>> I confess to putting that in because I thought that ought to be included with the others.
so it is there, but we have not prepared a job description, duties and responsibilities for administrative operations.
>> no, sir.
what I asked the court last time --
>> at one time it was.
back in last year (indiscernible), one of the things that did come before the court was job descriptions at that time for joe gieselman.
so for administrative ops as far as the job description.
so it did come before the court.
of course, but that particular job description for administrative ops was not advanced because the will of the court was not there for that job description.
so it's not that the job description was not made available in the past.
he just didn't have the votes to move it forward.
>> what you're speaking of, I did make a prototype administration job descriptions with the departments that are currently under the human resources facilities records management and i.t.
of course, I did ask direction for the court last time if they could tell me what departments they would like under administrative operations, I can certainly revise that job description.
the old job description that was approved in 2009 has not been changed.
it's still out there.
that job description has not been retired.
but again, I've asked direction from the court as far as what departments would be under the job description for administrative operations so I can present a good final product for you.
>> also, i.t.s., what are we calling them now?
i.t.s.
county executive is not among this packet either, but we have a subcommittee that includes joe harlow and Commissioner Huber and I who are working on that and we'll be bringing something back to the Commissioners' court tout suit.
I would move approval of the job descriptions that are before us, recognizing that we do not have all of the county executive positions in this packet.
>> second.
>> so the motion is to approve the ones before us.
>> yes, sir.
>> pretty much.
>> I think there ought to be a second motion to give directions on the other ones because we did more than a month ago indicate leaving out administrative operations, private i.t.s.
too.
but this motion covers the ones that are before us.
>> and this would be a second motion?
>> right ievment going to make a second motion.
>> that would be approve the job descriptions with that new title.
the job titles, duties and grading that are before us, which would leave the master's as a preference.
let's indicate our intention to revisit that later also, all right, the training and continuing education.
any discussion on that motion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis voting no.
I move that we direct staff to work with the appropriate members of the Commissioners' court, other managers to prepare a draft job description, duties, titles, and I guess grading for executive manager of administrative operations and information in telecommunications systems for the court review at the appropriate time in the future.
we could get that within the next three four weeks, that would be good.
>> second.
>> that's soon enough, isn't it?
that gives us time to kind of work on it, work on both of them.
we may decide at that point to merge them then, but we ought to mull over that.
we told him we would revisit that issue.
did we say early this year or January?
>> I thought it was (indiscernible).
>> [ laughter ]
>> any more discussion of that?
>> could I ask one point of clarification?
for the admin ops position, can you tell me the departments you would like under that?
>> is there a subcommittee of the court working on that?
>> no, but I'll work on it.
>> work with Commissioner Gomez and me, and what I have in mind is us coming up with the best draft we can, and presenting that to the court, maybe bring both of them back because if you look at them one at a time you may reach different conclusions than you would if you had both of them before you at the same time.
but if we could target three to four weeks from today to do that, I think it would be good.
all right?
Commissioner Huber?
>> I'm just going to say I'm going to vote no on this because this is organizational development for a 5,000 -- almost 5,000 employee organization by default.
instead of planning.
>> okay.
I'm hoping to the extent we can plan them, I'm hoping we do that.
>> we're developing job descriptions -- job descriptions for senior level managers that we're not even sure how they're interacting and how -- whether or not they're best suited under one or the other.
>> but we're doing it a year and a half later.
it's not like -- it's not like we're rushing into this.
I don't know that we're rushing into it.
now, I'm thinking we come up with some drafts.
at some point we have to prioritize looking at this and making the decision.
and so I'm not -- I'm not suggesting that the drafts we bring back will be automatically approved, but I would think that we move them to the front burner and we move forward as best we can, otherwise -- otherwise these would just languish.
the other thing is that some of the work before us really requires that we get these filled as soon as possible or accept the status quo as being our way of doing it.
that's my thinking on it.
any other discussion?
this would be more direction than anything else anyway, but we would expect a deliverable three, four weeks if this motion passes.
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Huber.
>> no, abstain on that one.
>> Commissioner Huber votes against, Commissioner Davis abstains.
I do think we ought to go into executive session on c.
d is establishing a performance review schedule, and the intent here is to indicate what month we plan to do them in?
>> I would like some type of direction of when you would like to have the executive managers reviewed, if we have a certain season, a month, that would be great and I could make sure we bring it before the court so it doesn't get skipped.
>> did we approve the draft?
>> that has not been approved.
>> performance evaluation form that you brought to us?
>> no, sir, that has not been approve.
>> can we put that back on next week or two weeks from today to bring back the form itself and indicate a time?
>> sure.
>> the other thing we need to do is there are two or three things that are pending that we indicated that we would take like half a day and do them.
so we need to go ahead and get those scheduled.
and they are probably critical and we probably ought to try to get those done during the next two weeks if we can.
can we do that on -- can we say three weeks?
if we actually do it then?
>> yes, sir.
>> that's the 14th, 15th?
>> judge, I have urged in the past and I would like to reurge on this item that we -- at least because of the anomaly of circumstances over the last couple of years that we do performance reviews not only for our county executives, but also for those managers for whom we were their direct report for a substantial part of that two-year period.
>> okay.
we pick up two or three others, right?
>> that would be picking up i.t.s., h.r.
and facilities as well as records management.
am I leaving anybody off?
>> that's four.
>> but they were --
>> john hille is looking anxious.
>> [ laughter ]
>> they were directly reporting to the Commissioners' court for a substantial part of that time, if not correctly directly reporting to Commissioners' court.
>> I agree.
so what's y'all's new name?
>> county executive.
>> that would be the county executive plus department heads that answer to the court.
other related items?
any of those?
>> I think you've taken care of all of them, sir.
>> then we'll come back and if there's action to take on c, we'll take that, okay?
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
