Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 6B
6 b, consider and take appropriate action on the following items for human resources management department.
we approved a on the consent motion.
b non-routine request from the Travis County constable precinct three office for a variance to Travis County code chapter s10.0295, peace officer pay scale.
good morning.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, judge, good morning, Commissioners.
we are requesting for -- for
>> [indiscernible] slot 10 to be promoted from deputy constable, grade 61, step 5, to a lateral 62, step 5.
the issue is he does have a small break of three weeks.
from precinct 2 to precinct 3.
>> why don't we take this one at a time, okay.
for the first one, the -- the various is based on the requirement that the service be continuous.
and in this case, though, there's a three-week break?
>> yes, sir, three-week break.
>> between service at precinct 2 and 3.
>> precinct 2 and 3.
>> but it was all at Travis County.
>> correct, sir.
>> otherwise the -- all of the requirements are met.
>> yes, sir, correct.
>> and the -- the -- there is funding for this increase in the --
>> confirmed funding, yes, sir.
>> in the budget?
anything from hrmd?
>> no.
I think that's a pretty good summary of the situation.
it's basically just -- just brought to your attention because it is not within the letter of the policy.
I would argue that it's within the spirit of the policy.
the only problem that we might have is that we worry about what precedent it would set in other types of actions and of course it's unknown what precedent it would set if this is a one-time action or if the court wishes to -- to perhaps give us some guidance on what would be an acceptable break in service for this type of request.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> go ahead.
>> I was going to say as I recall, we've had a similar situation already.
in the last year or so.
and my question is do -- is there a problem -- is there a problem in the way we communicate, educate or administer the existing policy that we ended up having to review this?
ordeal with issues like this?
do we need to look at -- at something?
>> it's a difficult question to answer.
the policy has been a long standing policy.
I'm sure that all of the constable's offices are aware of what the policy is.
how that gets communicated within those offices to the officers themselves, it's very difficult for me to say.
certain amount of education that's got to go on as the offices themselves speak to the officers within those offices.
so that I don't know.
>> it's good to be before the court.
I think in this case this -- this -- this had the officer had known the situation, been better had he waited and done a transfer.
but he had stopped at one and then came out to precinct 3 and so there was this three-week break in service.
yet he still had all of his insurance, everything, stayed in effect.
it's just a matter of that three-week break.
should have been handled probably as a transfer as best as I can understand coming back, but it wasn't.
when we entered this in automatically, it wouldn't take it.
we were able to meet with todd and we understand the situation in the future we hope there won't be an issue like this.
>> what is the policy on a three-week break or whatever break in service and you still retain your benefits as far as health insurance and a -- other benefits outside of the pay situation?
what is that policy?
talking about hrmd.
>> I'm sure that you maintain the benefits because he was carrying over --
>> right, carrying over.
go ahead.
in other words we're going to deal with policy.
we need to be consistent across the board.
I'm just trying to still get the -- go ahead, I didn't mean to cut you off.
go ahead.
>> when the employee terminated, at that point his insurance, I'm sure, would carry over and I apologize, on the benefits portion of our policy, I'm sure that the -- that the insurance probably carried over through the end of the month.
since it was only a three-week break I'm sure his insurance stayed in effect.
>> there are -- there are many ramifications to a break in service, it's not just the promotion policy.
it's also the longevity, retirement policy --
>> leave as well.
>> a leave component.
what distinguishes this particular circumstance that we should make this exception?
I haven't heard yet what about this circumstance makes it so unique that we should make an exception?
or conversely, what is not unique and therefore we should dump the policy?
>> um ...
>> because it sounds to me, perhaps I need to know more about the circumstances of this particular individual, because it sounds to me like they quit one job, could have had the option to take a job anywhere, found an opportunity with constable 3 and therefore took that job.
which is a limit break in service for which this policy speaks directly to.
>> correct.
>> it was unclear at the time because I wasn't in the position, how he had resigned from -- from precinct 2 much.
it didn't come -- we didn't see it until of course we were trying to -- to promote him through the policy.
when we noticed that there was a three-week lapse in break and it wasn't -- it wasn't a transfer.
which is what it should have been.
or my assumption should have been it should have been a transfer.
I haven't spoken to the deputy directly.
I went to the supervisor as to -- as to how to proceed and we said well let's proceed as normal.
as far as -- as far as -- he's a deputy, he's a great deputy.
someone we want to retain.
we want to show, you know, appreciation towards him and let him know we're coming to Commissioners court to see if they can accept this, if they can't well, you know, we'll take that as well.
but we would prefer if you at least consider and say hey, you know, he's -- he's been in law enforcement over 20 years.
worked for the county before in precinct 5.
overall he's a good deputy.
we want to retain him and do not necessarily for us what's -- what we believe is right doesn't necessarily for y'all it may not be --
>> it's difficult for me, I should say, because we do have a pops pay scale which is built to retain deputies in that longevity and that institutional knowledge.
this particular policy is -- is also to promote longevity and people staying with us.
but there was a legitimate break in service.
I haven't yet heard -- I have heard some speculation as to why, you know -- why the wherefores of what was going on back when he had the break in service.
I don't know for sure this wasn't just a regular break in service, looking for other opportunities, an opportunity come up with constable 3, which is a completely separate office and so rather than going into, you know, a.p.d.
or private security or d.p.s., he chose to go with constable 3, which would be a legitimate break in service.
>> Commissioner, if I could address that and I -- I wasn't here at the time this all has happened.
that's something we should have checked on but I haven't.
I can find that answer out for you.
when we were submitting, he had reached the time in service we thought, it's already been funded, we thought this was just going to be a normal routine deal, until they kicked it back.
as we've got to searching, we realized what had happened because of that three week break then that threw him out of the loop.
>> uh-huh.
>> and I believe that he was under the impression at the time that this was kind of a -- kind of a standard move, so I don't really know how to answer that, but I do know this about this particular officer that's in this.
he's our lead deputy, he handles outline of our writs and excellent and this is a guy that -- that is really fulfilling the role as a senior deputy already, although he's not in that position just by his mere experience in -- and abilities and his history with Travis County.
and so when this came up, and we looked at the three week break, they thought this is the set of circumstances.
having looked back in the past with what the court has done, there has been a way to adjust, doesn't specifically answer your question, i, too, am willing to find that out for you on --
>> my specific question -- I hear you.
I've been away for a week otherwise I might have sent an e-mail asking for this beforehand, I apologize for that.
but what I will need to know is what fact scenario is unique to this deputy that warrants us making an exception to the rule or in the alternative, what are we seeing institutionally that argues us for us to change the rule for everyone.
>> bring that back next week.
>> okay.
>> sort of describe the reasons for the severance, whether it was a -- like a termination and rehire or whether it was interpreted as a transfer, total number of years with Travis County, we see here 20 careers of -- 20 years of service in law enforcement and various degrees, master, peace officer's license.
reasons that justify supporting the action and I guess hrmd pros and cons if we can see that.
one week long enough?
>> absolutely.
>> absolutely.
>> okay.
>> even quicker than that.
I understand what you're getting at.
we'll have those answers for you.
>> okay.
there was another one.
>> yes, sir.
>> slot 33.
deputy same thing, pops -- lateral promotion from step 61 -- the norm is 61 -- pay grade 61 step 1 to pay grade 62 step 1.
we are wanting to bring him in at 62 step 3.
senior deputy.
he has the qualifications.
the reason that we're wanting to bring him up to step 3 he initially was brought in at a step 1, we had to go back and find out why.
he was missing, he did not have -- he did not have his intermediate certificate.
he -- he received all of his certificates last year, his intermediate, his advanced.
ands master's.
at this point we were trying to -- at that time I was trying to promote him to a -- to a step 3.
the system does not allow us to promote to a higher step.
we did speak to hrmd and they did say that it's not in the policy, but it's -- it's the norm from what I understand.
again, being in this position again I know that and I did not understand why it wouldn't let me do that.
but we're trying to bring him up at a higher step.
he has the qualifications for it.
>> slightly different scenario here.
there's no question about whether or not the officer should be promoted.
I don't think that's in dispute.
the question is upon promotion what should be the proper pay level.
Travis County practice, a very long standing practice, anybody on the pops scale when they get promoted they promote to the like step.
so if you are on step 1, you promote to step 2.
if you are on step 2, you promote to step 2.
oddly enough within the policy itself that language is not there.
it's just something that has been so long standing it's just something that's so obvious and familiar to the departments who operate under the system that everybody is aware of it.
should it be specifically written down in a policy?
probably.
that's something that we'll certainly look to change going forward.
but just a matter of long standing practice and if the court allows an exception here, we could certainly deal with it.
>> what language is in the policy?
>> excuse me?
>> what language is in the policy?
what does the policy say?
>> hold on just a second.
>> the policy says a deputy constable is eligible to compete for promotions, a senior deputy constable after completion of two years of continuous service, as a regular deputy constable of Travis County.
receives a performance evaluation showing the deputy exceeds standards for the most recent two years of continuous service and successful completion of a written examination administered by each respective constable for his or her office.
>> so the requested action would be consistent with the written policy for -- but not with the actual practice, is that what I'm hearing?
>> I would say it's consistent with the absence of the policy, yes.
>> because it's consistent with the practice.
>> it's inconsistent with the practice.
>> inconsistent.
>> it's inconsistent with the practice.
my concern is this would lead to considerable wage inflation in promotions inside the pops pay scale if we allow people the pops, that other steps on the pops pay scale as promotion.
because already what we're -- what is being requested here in the promotion is an almost 13% pay increase.
what would be -- what would be the pay increase for the promotion from step 1 to step 1?
>> step 1 to step 1, roughly 7.2%.
>> so it's a considerable difference if -- if -- I am concerned about wage inflation inside the pops pay scale if we allow this -- if we allow promotions that pop to different steps within the pay grade.
>> if I can address this particular one is that -- that the deputy in question here, this is again I'm working from the past and trying to get caught up and now am in the position that they have me in out there, I'm kind of over the command staff, the sergeant over the operations and also I'm -- I've kind of inherited this and work hand in hand with our office manager.
this particular officer was hired and was told that he was being brought in at the entry level, step 3.
and that's what he thought he was at for the last year and a half, two years.
and so -- so again, when -- when jose was trying to enter this in, it kicked it out and said no he's a step 1 so we had to go back and revisit.
we thought he came in as a 3.
he's actually a 1.
we looked at it.
there was one course that he was required to take to get that internet certificate.
well, at the time that he came over, he didn't have that course, it wasn't offered.
as soon as he took the course, he not only got his intermediate, but he got his advanced and his master's because he has a b.a.
degree in criminal justice.
so on the same day he received everything that he needed plus and he has numerous years of experience and so -- so we believed he thought he had an understanding that he was coming in at the step 3.
but it's not and so now that he's breached the requirement for the senior level deputy status --
>> who can make him get that understanding?
I keep hearing understanding.
I keep hearing that but I'm not understanding who initiated it to make the person understand.
>> well, that's where we're at a loss Commissioner because --
>> because that's a loss -- I'm at a loss.
in other words if you tell me something and I understand it, I understand it.
but if you say something to me and later it wasn't no understanding between us, then who has to take the burden of the misunderstanding?
because this is really what we're talking about a misunderstanding somewhere in this whole scenario.
in my -- as far as what I'm hearing and what I'm listening to today and if I'm incorrect then you correct me.
but it appears that they had been misunderstanding for whatever reason.
and, you know -- so go ahead.
I don't mean to cut you off.
I'm following what you're saying.
>> well, I think that --
>> I'm sorry.
>> looks like there is push back from the court and one reason is that we don't have specifics listed in the backup.
>> okay.
>> we need the pros and cons so we can carefully consider this prior to the Tuesday meeting.
so if we're going to take a week, we may as well start taking it right now.
the other thing is that I think p.b.o.
should take a look at this and tell us what the fiscal impact would be.
the department can pick up the amount this year.
but the question is what's the fiscal impact in future budgets.
so if we could get that in writing.
that's part of the backup for the other information.
and I'm sort of rushing on because we're coming back, we may as well get all of it and a chance to look at it before Tuesday, right?
>> I want to add, judge, that when we look at any kind of promotions we look at permanent ongoing ability for them to handle this fiscal year and on.
when todd asked me, yeah, they could do this in perpetuitity if that's what they want.
they don't have the ability to give other people promotions because they're deciding this is where they're going to allocate their resources, but this is ongoing.
>> put that in writing.
>> we have a similar issue coming up with constable 2 if you choose to have salaries at this level for your constables it means that you will have fewer warm bodies.
>> unless the court picks up the difference.
>> yeah.
>> yeah.
>> that's what it amounts to.
we may as well know what that difference would be.
>> let's get all of the facts.
>> yeah.
typically the difference is not zero.
>> right.
>> I'm not clear.
I'm just not clear.
>> if you all can put your heads together, give us something in writing, if you impose, if you self-imposed a dead line of say 5:00 Thursday, for the backup, that will give us an opportunity to carefully review it prior to Tuesday.
>> I appreciate your deciding, we need to do that for you.
>> because we do have a similar issue in another matter that involves a constable for precinct 2.
but you all understand what we are looking for, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> the other thing is on some of this, if there have been representations, then we need to know when they were made, who made them, if the employer relied on them, I mean, was your testimony that this employee thought he was at step 3.
>> yeah.
>> and discovered he in fact was only at step 1.
>> misunderstanding.
>> so we're trying to right that.
the backup indicates there might well be inequity for people at step 2 if they were passed over by this employee who has moved to step 3.
so if the department would address that for us, also.
looks like we're going to need another week.
>> that's fine, we can do that.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all for bringing it to our attention, appreciate you, thank you.
>> so we'll bring b back, right, court?
>> yes, sir.
>> 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.
