Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 41
And the compensation number 41.
41 is to receive report from the compensation committee and take appropriate action.
and this is our last item before executive session, isn't it, miss porter?
>> yes.
>> miss porter, you always perk up when I ask is this the last item?
>> [ laughter ]
>> this is the item that we received the first part of the report on some weeks ago, right?
three weeks ago or four?
>> good afternoon.
>> by the way, we remember each and every word of what we heard before, so no reason to repeat that.
>> yes, sir.
I thought as much.
sherri fleming, county executive for health and human services and veteran service, but I am here today wearing my hat of vice-chair of the compensation committee.
our chair, jim collins, is here with us, and members of our committee are here.
so I do want to acknowledge them.
a lot of great work.
we visited with you on July 12th, so in the interest of time we won't go over the parts that we've gone over before, but we will say that we were here on July 12th and so any county employees particularly, but members of the public as well who would like to see the first part of this presentation could go back to our website and see that first part of the presentation on July 12th.
we stopped at strategy area 4, and just as a reminder, part of the committee's work was to recommend, develop and recommend a new compensation philosophy.
we then went to a compensation strategy and we summarized that strategy into the basic -- the four areas of that strategy, so we had gotten to just about strategy area four, which thankfully for me is probably the easiest one to discuss.
and that is the one related to employee mobility.
so strategy area four addressed employee mobility.
and the key issues and questions that the committee grappled with under employee mobility has to do with the trend toward employees moving across the pay range as a result of performance rather than across the board increases.
movement through the pay scale often depends on the typeijxa of job performed.
so some of the questions were what is the difference between horizontal and vertical mobility?
should the county reward experienced performance or both?
and should the county continue to use career ladders?
and I will tell you and probably tell you a couple of times this afternoon that I think the committee feels like the work on career ladders is still work that needs to be done.
there are some departments who are very passionate about their need for a career ladders and we found that to give that subject matter its due in terms of discussion, we had to move on to other areas.
so I can't tell you we'll have a definitive answer as it relates to career ladders.
but two components of mobility, vertical progression basically is concerned with how employees move up and down the pay scale.
so then we think about things like promotions and demotions.
so when we're talking about vertical progression, we're talking about up and down the scale.
horizontal progression has to did with how employees move across the pay scale.
and generally performance-based pay, salary adjustments and other related increases along those lines specifically career ladders as well, tend to affect horizontal progression.
so the recommendations for strategy in that area, commit -- I think you will see it reflected in the policies we're going to talk about in a minute, wanted to see sort of a less emphasis on moving horizontally by across the board increases and looking more intently at performance-based pay.
and again, we acknowledge that career ladders, yet another way that we move hor san tally on the pay scale is an area that we still need to do some work.
so as a result of the strategies that we have outlined, there are some recommended policy changes that are necessitated by the strategies.
rather than starting from scratch, we actually opted to revise the current classification and compensation policy document so the references to policy changes are actual recommendations to change the current compensation policy document.
the first changes are classification related.
the committee recommends the court consider adding the ad hoc reclassification request policy.
certain hrmd has been doing ad hoc reclassification requests, but they are not specifically outlined in the current policy.
so we are recommending that we have a specific policy that guides that.
also after working with affected departments and our offices, the committee recommends that the director of the hrmd department should be authorized to make changes to existing job descriptions without resubmitting them to court.
often times these changes tend to be minor changes to job descriptions, and so the committee felt like as long as the human resources department continued to include departments in those minor changes to job descriptions, that the hrmd director should have that authority to make those changes.
>> do you think there is agreement on what a minor change is?
versus one that is more significant?
>> I believe we had a lot of discussion about that.
I think that when we're talking about minor changes and I'll let todd respond as well.
it could be anywhere from a grammatical change to a change whereby the job description may have -- there may have been an intentional change that should have occurred, but then somebody pulls it out and says it didn't happen, so we need to fix it.
so that's what I would suggest, but --
>> I'm pretty sure --ed to osbourne, presentation manager.
I'm pretty sure if there was a agreement over what was a relatively minor change, if hrmd and a department disagreed on a proposed change, that we would come back to the court for guidance?
I'm not sure that this is something that the hrmd director is going to do without agreement from the departments themselves.
>> so what if there's agreement between the court and the hrmd director or the department?
>> I guess in any recommended policy change, would we try our best to describe what a minor change is?
>> well, we certainly could?
>> because we could try to reach agreement there.
it makes sense to me.
as long as we agree on what represents a minor change and what really is more significant.
>> okay.
>> I think when you get into the baseline qualifications for positions, I think most managers, department heads, will see those c3anges as a pretty significant changes.
but I agree we could certainly work with hrmd and the committee to see if we can't help with that.
on terms of horizontal progression, the committee recommends returning to more of a performance-based model, but in talking about performance based compensation versus across the board increases, we are recommending some policy changes with regard to performance-based pay, keeping in mind that the Commissioners' court will determine any amount of performance based pay percentage increase for employees who meet departmental standards.
so -- I can't see where we are.
okay.
so in terms of performance based pay, we have a few eligibility criteria recommendations.
that would be that performance-based pay increases be given to all qualified regular employees who have not already received a performance-based pay increase in the current fiscal year, have not received a perform pay increase based on a mobility action in the previous six months.
and that would be a promotion or a demotion or mobility action.
have a performance appraisal completed within the 12 month preceding the award and have obtained a level of job performance that meets all and exceeds some of the department or offices' performance standards.
so we're recommending that this baseline criteria be added to the policy.
and of course, any criteria that the court might offer at the time that performance based pay would certainly be added to that criteria.
>> there was robust discussion within its committee about career ladders.
there are departments very passionate about their need for career ladders.
I think the other concern regarding career ladders is the practice we've had over the previous years that they have not been funded in the budget process or it has been a requirement that departments internally fund their career ladders.
the committee agrees it needs more work and we -- it's going to be a tough thing to figure out.
in terms of hiring and mobility recommendations, we wanted to also make some recommendations related to pay greater than 10 percent above midpoint because these are non-routine personnel actions and in some cases departments have bona fide reasons why these recommendations come forward.
so it was the interest of the committee and of hrmd to put some base criteria ahead of the hiring process so that departments could meet some key criteria before the decisions about pay above 10% above midpoint, before those decisions were necessary to be made.
and so we wanted departments to be able to look at and make the case that they require a specialized skill.
or that they have identified that there is a shortage of qualified applicants for a particular position.
or that there's some other extraordinary circumstance that exists that might warrant offering a candidate 10% above midpoint.
and of course, that -- those criteria that would be reviewed with the hrmd staff prior to making the hiring decision.
more changes to hiring and mobility, employs in in departments reporting to the Commissioners' court must meet the minute mull qualifications in their official job descriptions.
and then if an appointed official hires an employee that does not meet the minimum qualifications in the official job description, the employee will be paid at the minimum of the assigned pay grade.
and we believe that these recommendations speak to what we've had over the previous years, the green circled issue where we have staff in positions and they are paid at some rate that is below the actual entry point of the pay grade.
ad hoc salary adjustments, existing employees may be given a salary adjustment with permanent salary savings at the discretion of the department head.
ad hoc salary adjustments must be within the department or the office's budgetary limits as verified by the planning and budget office and salary adjustments greater than 10% must be approved by the Commissioners' court as a non-routine personnel item.
>> so ad hoc, what we have seen in our non-routine action items on Tuesday have been ad hoc salary adjustments basically.
>> you see both.
>> you've seen some routine and you've seen some non-routine.
when you see it as a non-routine item, typically it's because that salary adjustment put the person more than 10% beyond the midpoint.
>> okay.
>> but there's also a number of salary adjustments that are bond personnel amendments that are routine, so you do see them on a weekly.
probably the important thing to point out here is that at the moment there is no policy that would restrict somebody from giving -- I'm just going to give a number here, a 20% salary adjustment to somebody, as long as it didn't put them beyond 10% above midpoint, that goes on as a routine item.
that's a pretty large adjustment.
so what we wanted to do was to put a barrier on those types of salary adjustments that are being conducted other than just where the person is at in the pay range.
and give you all an opportunity to pull that one off and take a special look at it as a non-routine item.
>> so we ought to look at the percentage of the increase plus the relationship of the percentage to midpoint?
>> I think it's probably most important to look at the percentage.
I'm not entirely sure that the percentage from midpoint is a key driver.
somebody is two percent away from 10% above midpoint and they get a three percent increase?
I don't think that's necessarily something that should be a huge factor in your decision.
>> and I want to respond to that also.
right now if you're at 10% above midpoint, then every salary adjustment you get basically would be a non-rue tune item, even a two percent, three percent, something that should be very routine just because you're at 10 percent above midpoint.
again they have lots of people that have been here a long time.
it's not really any more non-routine.
whereas we could have somebody come in at the minimum and get a 30% increase and it doesn't take them to 30 percent above midpoint.
>> personally I've seen where we've had salary recommendations that were several hundred -- just a couple hundred dollars over that midpoint plus 10%.
and that would make it non-routine.
so I think the idea behind this is to not necessarily have that midpoint plus 10% as the trigger for the non-routine.
that there are other factors that are up of as much concern or as much interest that they should be brought before the court for approval.
>> so rounding out that hiring and mobility recommendations, also to make -- we have recommended a change to the promotion policy to mirror the demotion policy.
current demotion policy sets a reduction of -- well, no, I'm saying it's backwards.
the current promotion policy indicates a five percent per pay grade --
>> no, you had it right the first time.
>> okay.
>> [ laughter ] okay.
so what we want to do is to have the promotion policy mirror the demotion policy.
so if an employee is demoted, the policy states that their salary would be reduced by five percent per pay grade.
and currently there's no parameter such as that for the promotion policy.
and todd, did you want to say any more about that?
okay.
just make sure I got it right.
>> we had a demotion on the non-routine today.
right?
sheriff's office?
and I think -- that was like a 10% voluntary demotion, I guess.
somebody accepting a lower job for personal reasons basically.
>> right.
>> but it was 10%, I think.
so this right here, five percent per grade, would be the standard?
>> five percent per grade is the standard for demotions.
>> is the standard.
okay.
what does that mean?
>> so you would assume that if -- without seeing that item you would assume by a 10% reduction that that employee move down the pay scale two pay grades.
but there isn't a standard for promotion.
>> before demotions that has been our practice?
and we want to make it our policy plus adopt a policy for promotions that mirrors that?
>> to make it more consistent.
right now you get a promotion and not a pay increase?
possible.
>> that's late afternoon humor there, todd.
>> and we appreciate that more than you know, judge.
I tell you what.
>> okay.
and moving on to the committee's recommendation -- other committee recommendations related to temperature assignments, temperature assignment is when an employee is assigned to perform all or part of the duties of another job for less than 60 days and the duties are at a higher level than the employee's current position.
and the committee's recommendation that is during the temporary sienlt that assignment that the employee would z-a five% increase.
however under the conditions of an interim assignment, and we have defined that as when an employee serves in an interim position for longer than 60 days, his or her salary will be temporarily adjusted to at least the minimum entry salary of the interim position.
>> nonexempt employees who are scheduled to be on call will be paid for two hours of work for each of those scheduled on call days, whether or not they are called back to work.
shift differential is provided to employees who work evening and night shifts.
criteria for the use of shift differential is outlined in this recommendation.
>> so are we -- is that clear understanding of when a person really has been directed to be on call?
>> yes.
>> is there written documentation of that?
>> the departments who have staff who are required to be on call have procedures that outline that.
>> and there's written documentation of -- okay.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> because when the weather gets real bad and there are serious road problems, I know we have quite a few road maintenance employees on call, right?
>> that's correct.
>> but if I wonder whether john doe is on call, there would be some documentation of that, some written documentation.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> the remember that in the sheriff's office years and years ago.
and we were told that the law required that if employees were directed to do certain work above and beyond eight-hour shift, they were officially on duty during that time.
not excluding lunch.
and that the county had no choice but to pay them.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> they actually sign up for it.
>> okay.
>> there's also a revision of the Travis County classification and compensation system that we discussed in one of the earlier strategies.
having to do with replacement of the job banding methodology with an approach bated on external analysis of market competitors and internal analysis of equity within the Travis County organization.
we are also recommending that a comprehensive market study be completed every four years.
benchmark studies in the intervening years.
classified scales, that we go to a bifurcated classified scale in that we would have an executive scale and a non-executive scale.
that they be reviewed during the years in which the comprehensive study takes place.
the classified scales will remain open range scales.
we're also recommending internal equity analysis and a point factor system for determining internal job worth will be developed and recommended for adoption.
external equity analysis, the geographic market used in the external analysis expands as jobs become more complex and the impact on the organization is greater.
and you heard during the -- during the strategy discussion where we would look at our senior positions on a more national scope, for example, whereby some of our non-executive we might limit more to local or regional markets.
>> the implementation of classification and compensation studies.
for jobs that are upgraded, incumbents should receive a five percent increase for each grade moved, not to exceed midpoint of the new pay grade.
for jobs that are downgraded, incumbents should receive no decrease in pay.
when salary schedules are adjusted, employees will receive a salary adjustment in a like amount.
recommendations related to elected or appointed officials, inclusion into the human resources process, elected and appointed officials may popt out of the county's official classification system.
if they do they are responsible for maintaining their own classification systems. Elected or appointed officials may request reinstatement to the official classification system through notification to the Commissioners' court and hrmd.
they will work with hrmd to determine placement of positions within the official classification system.
the committee also recommends that the decision to opt in must be made during the annual budget process.
>> this implies that if the elected official decides to opt in, the Commissioners' court would automatically grant that request.
>> well, I think that's the reason why we settled on having it occur during the budget process because I don't know that we made that assumption.
jim, do you want to speak to that?
>> judge, I don't believe that assumption is made by the recommended policy change itself, and it certainly would not be an accurate assumption legally.
you the court always has the option of saying to any given elected official, you cannot opt in.
in which case you have to simply statutorily set the number of positions and saltries that will be paid to those positions.
but if they opt in, what we were trying to deal with on the committee and the recommendation is because there are new elected officials that do not take office at the time the budget is set, that if you have an elected official who doesn't opt in and you set their budget accordingly, they're not part of your pay system, and then a new elected official comes in in January and says I want to opt in, that has ramifications on the budget which you've adopted for the whole year.
so what we were trying to do is address the idea that you can opt in, you can opt out, but you can only do it at budget time, whether you're a new elected official or not an new elected official.
so if an elected official is in, if an office is in, new elected official takes office, they can opt out.
in which case you set their employees' salaries and the number of positions and you do it in a way that is either budget neutral or lowers the amount that you spend on their budget.
but they can't opt in in January, there by forcing you to pay more than the opt-out system.
>> what's the timing?
>> it's really just a timing issue.
>> it's a timing issue.
>> you're protect sod that if an official is in or out they have to make that decision at budget time so you can adjust your budget accordingly.
>> okay.
>> timing issue.
>> currently we have really only two offices that are outside the system.
they maintain their own classification system.
>> okay.
>> okay.
and then I guess our -- almost our final recommendation, the Commissioners' court shall reconvene the compensation committee each year during the annual budget process for the purpose of making recommendations regarding compensation related items for the upcoming year.
you heard earlier in the strategies our recommendation for a total compensation approach, which would imply some gyration of the compensation committee dha tha is working all the time.
but at a minimum the committee committed -- and since they're not here --
>> [ laughter ] at a minimum, though, we felt strongly that the work that we've done over the last two years makes us uniquely positioned to be of assistance to the court in looking at compensation related matters just prior to the budget each year.
so we are hoping that you will accept that recommendation and at a minimum allow us to recon seen for that purpose.
so in terms of next steps, we plan to have an internet page with the documents and a comment link for staff.
we have been working with i.t.
and they are prepared to put all of our documents in the presentation that you all have had over these last few weeks.
up on the intranet for the employees to be able to read at their leisure and send questions to us.
we expect to have sort of an executive summary because we do have some rather lengthy documents.
if we receive questions from staff we hope to work with i.t.
to have those questions and answers posted on that intranet page so that when employees go to that page, they'll be able to see the questions that have been asked and what those answers are.
we also hope to have a speaker's bureau so that if departments would like any member of the compensation committee to come and talk about the work that we've done that we would be available to do that.
and then the committee has also indicated a willingness to make itself available for an employee hearing with the committee so that the committee could -- so that employees could come and engage with the committee on any specific questions that they might have.
and then our final slide, we just wanted to say that after two years of work, we feel we are at the beginning.
we're certainly not at the end.
I can tell you that it was a pleasure for me personally.
this is a hard working committee and it was not an easy subject.
and certainly evidenced by the complexity of the documents and information that we have presented to you.
but I think that this is an outstanding start.
we look forward to your approval of our recommendations at some point in the future.
and then we get to move to career ladders or wherever else you would like us to go.
so parts of it will be doing it if it has the report?
>> I believe we had a very specific charge, so I guess our chair will determine whether we had legal authority to go forward after another appointment.
but we can discuss that on another day.
>> okay.
>> if I may, judge, I'm here to present a minority report.
but before I present the minority report, the thing I want to emphasize is I do not -- I hope that in no way does my minority position detract from the majority position that this committee has come out with.
the document that has been presented to you, the three documents, the philosophy, the strategy, and the policy, are in my opinion excellent documents.
they are not word for word what I would have written had I been writing them, which is probably a good thing.
but they represent in almost every case a unanimous feeling of the committee that this was the best thing to recommend.
and I heartily recommend that you adopt the policy that the compensation committee has presented before you.
I'll have a couple of comments about how I think you should proceed from a legal perspective, but those are separate comments and not in my capacity here presenting in minority report.
my minority report consists merely of the single recommendation that you add a section to the policy, something like what I have placed before you.
I will confess right up front that this document was presented as an amendment to the policy during the committee hearing.
it was unanimously rejected with only (indiscernible).
I felt strongly that this type of section was important and here's why.
I was here when the previous policy was adopted.
and I had some input into how that policy was formulated.
and in my opinion there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the old policy.
in fact, it was really a pretty good policy.
the problem came about that year by year, step by step, that policy got warped into something where I think I'm speaking for the committee when I say that the committee fairly unanimously felt that there were certain strong unfairnesses about the policy as it existed at the time we began our work.
the compensation policy as it existed at the time we began our work.
and I can speak from only anecdotally from what I hear from employees and that is that there are tremendous long, loud and frankly big objections that the policy as it exists right now before you adopt this one, if you do, contains within it certain things that simply are unfair.
those things in my opinion came about because the policy was not funded consistently with the philosophy of the policy.
it was not consistent with the philosophy of the policy.
now, at one very important level that's not a bad thing.
I've heard the judge say this and I agree with this.
this Commissioners' court on behalf of this county, on behalf of the citizens and on behalf of the employees of this county have spent a lot of money on Travis County employees, on their salaries and on their benefits.
in that regard, in terms of the amount of money that is spent, there's not any fundamental unfairness.
the problem has been that one year that money is spent a certain way, the next year it's spent a different way, the next year it's spent a different way.
and from the outside it looks like the decision about how to spend the money each year is made based upon who happens that year to be the most articulate and zealous advocate for their way that they want the money spent.
the result has been that we have not spent it consistently and we have not kept track of the parts of the policy we didn't fund from year to year, and therefore there was never an effort to make up something that we didn't do because we didn't have the money the year before.
now, the problem didn't exist if we live in a nirvana situation where there's enough money to fund everything in the policy, every year we fund it and we move on and the policy stays intact, it doesn't get warped.
but that nirvana, in the 30 years that I've worked for the county, has never existed.
and I would suspect if I work for the county another 100 years, we would never see that happen.
so the court has to make decisions each year about what do you fund, in what amounts, what parts of the policy do you fund and how do you -- how do you spread out the money that you have available to fund the policy?
the existing policy contains no guidance whatsoever to the Commissioners' court for how you make those funding decisions.
so it becomes an ad hoc decision every year.
and frankly, for many years there have been different and inconsistent decisions made.
every one of them good hearted, every one of them genuine effort to fund the things that seem like they needed funding that year, but all made without the benefit of anything in the policy that gives you the court a guideline.
why is that guideline important?
the most important reason that I see that the guideline is important is so that you the Commissioners when someone comes to you and says don't fund this this year, fund this this year, something else, something different.
and I was making my case on that.
rather than having to compete against only the other people who are making cases that year for what should be funded, you have to ask them, explain to me why we should vary from the policy guidelines that we adopted.
explain that.
so they are forced to test whatever they're advocating for against the policy that was made not during the heat of battle, but after cold deliberation.
the policy that I've set before you...
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> so that you do not leave something so far behind in the policy that the policy gets out of whack and people look at it and say this is no longer fair.
if you don't have that in this policy, then within three or four years, the incredibly good and very hard work that this committee has done will have been wasted.
not through anyone's fault except for the mistake of not including these policy guidelines on the day that you adopt the policy.
so my minority report is merely a recommendation that you look at these, give it consideration, and consider whether or not you want to -- to move in the direction that jim collins recommends or the direction that every other member of your compensation committee recommended.
>> why was it that the committee was not interested in a prioritization of funding?
because I -- I see at first blush merit in this, in my years here both before being on the Commissioners court and being on the Commissioners court I have two issues take couple over and over again, which are basically examples of the same issue, which is if you do -- if you move piece a, without considering pieces b, c, d, e and f, rest assured pieces b, c, d, e and f will come back the next year and say you moved piece a and now I'm completely out of whack.
or the other twin issue, if you move all of the pieces equally in an across the board, you are simply kicking the ball down the road without actually fixing the internal equities.
>> well, let me try to answer your question, then I want to let the presentation committee make their response, but I would like to have an opportunity to answer your question.
I heard in presenting this, I understood to have heard two arguments against it.
one was that it took away the options of the Commissioners court to make this year by year decision about what you thought was important to fund that year.
my response to that was yes, to a certain extent, that's the idea.
not so much that it would take away your options because all it ever takes it three votes.
>> creates rebuttable -- presumes that you are going to do it this way unless you choose to do it the other way.
>> what it does is to take away the pressure from you to change it to the loudest advocate, whatever is being advocating that year.
the other thing was this would leave options open then this committee and the professionals that you have who make recommendations about compensation and budget will be able to make good recommendations on a year to year basis.
my response to that was this committee is going to change, this is an incredibly complex document.
already, one member of this committee has changed.
one very significant member of this committee has changed.
whoever replaces him is going to be somebody who has never looked at the compensation policy before they take its position.
over the course of a few years, I submit that many members of this committee will change.
so it won't be long that you will be having a committee meeting once a year to make these recommendations to you that will not be the same people who developed and synthesized this policy and understand how it makes sense.
understand what the philosophical consistency of that is.
the second thing is, the idea that you are professionals, that you have hired to make recommendations to you about your budget and about compensation will make good recommendations to you, I have to -- I have to tell you straight up, the -- the two leaders of those two professional groups, I have great confidence in.
but one of the things that I said during argument on this was either one of them may get hit by a bus crossing the street tomorrow and I don't know who will replace them.
as it turns out, one of them didn't get hit by a bus, he took a job with the city of mckinney and he's gone.
so I don't know who is going to replace him.
leroy has temporarily and I truss leroy, but leroy could get hit by a bus.
realizings that you have a policy that depends on the good graces of somebody who you don't know it's going to be in the future --
>> the majority -- what's the majority say with regard to setting up a prioritization of funding?
>> I think we have hit on the problems with having the vote.
because it came down to yes or no.
I think -- you know, forgive me, I don't want to speak for the committee, but my take on where we landed, I think the committee was very much in support of having this included in the policy if it were criteria for the compensation committee to -- to review compensation recommendations for the coming budget year.
I think where we got to the stalemate was having it as part of the policy and presuming that it was going to be, you know, an all or nothing sort of thing.
the other thing was the concern that this one policy -- one portion of the policy would hold up the whole thing, you know, so would we get stuck on this -- you know, because you could have as many people in this room, in this county, different priorities about which one should be first.
which group should be funded first and we could spin on that issue for days and days and days and so the committee did not want to see the policy hamstrung by one portion of the policy.
we were very much in support of having this criteria be our, you know, charge if you will on how you would look at the compensation recommendations that we would ultimately make to the group.
>> a group of us looked at the list and tried very hard to come to the agreement on the priority of the things in the list.
quickly realized it would probably be different from year to year.
greg powell from the union was one of the people looking at it.
and, for instance, if -- if we recommended to you that the market salary study result should always be funded first, if that happened and there wasn't enough money to completely fund the market salary survey, then that would still be the item next year if compensation money is available.
so those people that were not going to go anywhere in the market salary survey, wouldn't have gotten an increase the first year that would have been increased the second year because the compensation money would be going to complete the market salary study.
so -- so I think most of us agree there is some merit to having a list, but when it comes to setting the priority it was very, very difficult, would vary from year to year depending on what the economic situation of the county is.
>> I want to concur with that.
I was an auditor last year.
they graciously allowed me to come and participate in every meeting and the committee could not come to a consensus on what the priorities would be for a long-term type of projection because it probably is going to vary from year to year.
as we're saying, you know, how are we going to let some new p.b.o.
director or p.b.o.
county executive coming in, but who is to say the one that was here now can set the priorities from -- for 10 years from now.
there could be varying priorities from year to year.
so the compromise was, that I think was also voted unanimously except for mr. Collins here, was that the committee would reconvene every year and also make a recommendation, yes, hrmd would make a recommendation in conjunction with p.b.o., but also the committee would supplement that with the recommendation of their own based on what they are seeing out there.
so that was how that part of the policy got in there.
it's that we want to kind of tell ya what we think, but we realize things change from year to year.
with respect to the court, that's what y'all get paid for to make the hard decisions on where do we really need to spend the money.
that's the compromise that I believe was made is that the committee would reconvene.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> recommended because you --
>> [indiscernible] convened
>> [indiscernible] every year, why not convene the compensation committee at the same time so that when you are looking at benefits, you are looking at compensation, which is also part of your benefits and that way we all could look at it each year instead of -- we were really fixed on not fixing ourselves into the order in which these eight items come up each year.
they vary on what's happening economically, if you had all of the money to fund the market this year, you don't know the next year, then what, it was such a difficult decision for us, let's make it each year with the committee convening at the same time, looking at benefits, if you want to add or reduce those benefits, would be in conjunction and probably hopefully before preliminary budget totals we could get everything in there at that time.
>> so is it a fair extrapolation from what I'm hearing across the board that -- that there was a desire to have funding priorities, but a recognition that they -- that they were -- that they were changeable?
so assuming that the compensation committee was going to be reconvened every year, we wouldn't need guidelines with regard to priorities.
I mean, if we don't reconvene the compensation committee every year, then we're back to jump ball.
>> then you are back to everybody promoting as articulately as they can --
>> [multiple voices]
>> just like you have a recommendation from the benefits committee.
>> I think the other idea is that the compensation committee has a responsibility to remember what they recommended the year before.
so we would -- there's the accountability in not getting involved in that jump ball that we come together, we make a recommendation and that we're accountable for that recommendation in budgets going forward.
>> so reference is made to our next steps.
we add this to our list of things to consider, jim, by the way.
>> everybody on this committee is incredibly experienced and incredibly smart.
and I remain unpersuaded
>> [laughter]
>> [indiscernible]
>> -- consider this option.
>> who will put together the executive summary?
the intent is for us to share that with other employees who don't care to read the full report.
>> yes.
as a matter of fact all of these documents will go up and so the -- so the presentation committee will convert for an executive summary committee most likely with a lot of help from todd, I'm sure.
so that will be our next work in progress.
>> do we need a one pager that sets forth the various actions that need to be taken so we can agendize that and let the court down that list and either approve of it or not.
>> judge, if I may insert one thing.
>> sorry I have to keep up with you jim.
>> I keep moving around.
you -- you will consider this policy and you will decide whether to aadopt it or whether to adopt it with changes or whether or not to adopt any policy changes at all.
if you decide to adopt the recommended changes or any other changes, then what will need to happen is that you should make a tentative vote that you want whatever policy changes you have selected to make.
allow the county attorney's office to go through that because what this document has not been reviewed for legal consistency.
that I don't -- I was on the committee, I know everything that was adopted.
I don't think there's anything illegal about it.
but I know for certain, I think the committee members know, also, that there are places where a word is used one way and a different word is used in a different time for the same thing.
things like that that we did not as a committee want to take time to fix because it would have involved months more meetings.
but those things need to be looked at and fixed.
before you make a final vote for adoption, you should make a tentative vote, send your preferred options to the county attorney's office, let us yet them in final order to be adopted as part of the county code and bring that back to you.
it shouldn't take long.
but that's a step that you will need in there in your adoption process.
>> I'm assuming along with that legal editing we would also be looking at editing for appropriate code format for uploading it?
>> absolutely.
and unless you select this, I promise we won't put it in.
>> the report capes a whole lot of -- contains a whole lot of recommendations, though.
>> the recommended policy changes, yes, sir.
we do have a document that has the policy with the changes inserted.
I'm looking at you.
so you could see the -- the current policy and the exact location where these recommendations that we made, where they would live.
so I don't know if that helps.
>> legislatively formatted copy?
>> if it's not it will be when you see it, judge.
>> old language plus the new language recommended by the committee, is that what I'm hearing?
>> we can do that.
>> well, what I had in mind was simpler, really just the list of specific actions that would summarize policy recommendations.
>> okay.
>> now, if we were to -- individually to go back through this, my guess is it would take us a few months.
I figure the committee can come up with that in a couple of weeks.
get it to us and we can act on it.
jim is saying a motion to proceed means legal come up with the -- with a document that contains these pom policy changes, right?
>> yes, sir, before you take a final vote adopting any policy changes I'm simply recommending make a tentative vote to decide what changes you want, let legal go through them and make sure that we have consistent formatting, wording, the kinds of things that legal is good at doing fairly quickly.
>> yeah, they all make sense to me.
if they were all on a shorter document we could compare them and really make a more informed decision, I think.
>> that is very doable, judge.
>> so as we were advised during the discussion of the parking policy changes, we do not want to delay action on this, Commissioner Eckhardt.
we want to move expeditiously.
>> this committee has only been meeting for two years, we've been meeting for four
>> [laughter]
>> let's plan to have a document before us in two weeks that we can act on.
we tied Commissioner Eckhardt to the parking policy, let's tie me to this one.
how is that, two weeks?
>> sounds like a stake for burning.
>> jim, put your recommendations on the back burner or just the back page.
>> just the back page, please, not the back burner.
>> [laughter]
>> thanks so much,.
>> two weeks, two weeks from today is September 2nd, 7th?
>> 6th?
>> September 6th, okay.
now, does that bring us to our one executive session item, ms. Porter?
>> it does.
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.
