Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 27
Mr. Eckstein may be headed this way, and while he's headed this way, let's call up number 27, consider and take appropriate action on process to select county executive on planning and budget.
a, vacancy announcement flier, and b, appointment of team to assist with selection.
good morning.
>> I have with me this morning kim Austin smith from h.r., and you do have the recommended flier that h.r.
has drafted for your consideration for the posting of the county executive planning and budget office.
>> I'm sorry, I missed that.
>> I was just saying that -- that I do have with me kim Austin smith here from h.r.
and h.r.
has drafted the advertisement announcement for the county executive planning and budget office.
and we're here to have any input into that advertisement or have the approval to go forward with advertising.
>> before we get Commissioner Eckhardt's motion, that salary range that we have printed, is that in fact the range or is the range a little lower than that 150?
>> the 125 is the minimum.
>> okay.
so it doesn't reflect the truth?
I think we top out about 144, don't we?
>> no, actually the 150 is not quite the mid point.
I think mid point is about 162.
>> but the highest we are paying county executives now is --
>> the current county executives' ceiling currently is 144.
>> I guess I'm -- I don't know that we really ought to hold out that you have a chance to make --
>> more than the current staff.
>> --
>> if in fact you don't.
internal equity would -- tells me it really out to top out at about 144.
but I see your point.
it's just that the reality that we deal with has five or six other persons in the same position, generally speaking, and the highest there is like about 144 and they've been around here quite a few years.
I don't see us paying a new person more than they make.
>> we'll have to come to terms at some point with individuals who have a lower pay scale classification working under these folks who actually make more than they do, of which there are several.
>> uh-huh.
>> so we'll have to -- it might be difficult to recruit someone in to a position where they know they will make less than the people they supervise.
considerably less.
>> we'll have to post that at an appropriate time, but I agree with you, we need to discuss it.
so do we leave this at 150 notwithstanding it probably doesn't represent the truth?
>> I would put it at 144 just to be realistic.
>> any objection to that?
that goes up if we increase the compensation of county executives already here.
but I don't see us -- I'd be hard put to support bringing somebody in at more than a few pennies higher than the current executives here, myself.
it would really have to be a golden candidate.
that person may be out there, but --
>> but I again -- I know that we do need to bring this back as a separate agenda item, but it is difficult that inside these divisions we do have individuals who are making 10 and $15,000 more than $144,000.
to whom these people will be supervising, this person.
>> county executives?
>> yes.
in the budget office -- not in the budget office.
>> not a whole lot, but a handful.
>> there's two that I can think of right off the bat that make between 150 and 160 thousand who are not executives and worked under county executives.
>> all the depend hi medical examiners.
>> I'm not talking about them.
>> but I am.
>> it's nonmedical --
>> the point there's a handful, when we bring that back, I guarantee for each situation there would be a thousand reasons why that's the case.
but I'm willing to do that and go through thousands of reasons.
but I move that we move the -- put the range from 125 to 144.
seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and we can do that after the budget?
I think we talked about doing it last year.
we ought to bring it back.
I don't know that we can make a whole lot of progress on it, but I think we ought to know what the facts are, have that discussion, and if we can make improvements, do it.
if not --
>> we need to come to something because those we directly supervise we keep at a lower salary, but the managers themselves are providing salary increases underneath them that in some instances are -- are greater than the salaries.
facilities management director makes more than the position to whom they report.
i.t.s.
director makes more than the position to whom they would report.
when we elevated somebody in transportation and natural resources to the position of executive director, his raise for vastly greater responsibilities I think was -- how much, Commissioner?
the two of us worked on that, but it was in the hundreds of dollars, I believe.
>> but that did not happen by accident.
the court looked at all the facts and concluded in fact that should be done.
>> yes.
>> unfortunately I was a member of the court then.
>> but it does make recruitment a little tricky.
>> move that we approve the other parts of the flier.
>> second.
>> that would be the flier as a whole.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
b is appointment of team to assist with selection.
last time we the team interviewing the short list for the court to interview.
>> and the recommendation is to have the -- I think it's the group that includes the executive -- county executives plus the county auditor and the purchasing agent, plus the -- diane's recommendation that we add our financial advisor, lad patillo to that group.
>> has lad agreed to serve?
>> I have not specifically asked him, but I would assume he has no objections to serving.
I'll be glad to follow up and confirm that.
>> the county executives, which ones?
>> it's all of the county executives.
let's see --
>> what is referred to as the management team that includes the four county executives, I guess, and mr. Nellis and the auditor and the purchasing agent, the organizational planning team.
>> that's a large group of people.
can you all function efficiently with so many?
then I approve it.
were you about to say yes?
>> of course.
well, I think the reality, judge, is that there will be some time lines that we'll have to work with h.r.
on and inevitably there may be people who are just not available.
and so if the group is authorized with the understanding there may be some of the participants who aren't because of timing able to participate, if the court is okay with that, then we accept this -- accept your direction to get this done.
>> the goal is for the selection team to bring us three or four.
>> that's correct.
to give the top applicants.
and once the top applicants are identified, at least previously when we went through the recruitment for mr. Rhoades, the planning and budget office actually had a time when we actually were able to visit with the candidates, the top candidates, all of the members of the planning and budget office.
>> okay.
you heard the list of the team members.
any discussion of that?
move approval.
>> second.
>> thank you.
>> I thought that was going to die for lack of a second, mr. Nellis.
I was looking for somebody to blame.
discussion on the motion?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
there is mr. Eckstein and company.
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.
