Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 11
>> now, 11 he is to consider and take appropriate action on the following items for human resources management department: a, proposed routine personnel amendments.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
b, non-routine request for justice of peace precinct three personnel action under Travis County code s 10.03002, general overview for determining pay policy.
here is my issue with this.
board members.
the last time an issue came before us regarding a jp office accessing the juvenile case management fund, and other budget issues, I was left with the impression that a majority of the court wanted the j.p.'s to get together to access the -- the juvenile case manager fund, one, and, two, that we expected j.p.
personnel to make roughly the same salaries.
this would go counter to that.
and that is why in my view this is a non-routine item today.
based on the backup that I have seen, from p.b.o., this person would make roughly $6,000 more than others who work in the other j.p.
offices and perform similar duties and responsibilities.
and another concern that I have is that if we approve this, it seems to me that we set ourselves up for a $6,000 pay increase for other clerks in j.p.
offices that make roughly the same amount of money so that's really three issues.
one accessing the juvenile case management funds in the past, we said we wanted the j.p.'s to get together on it.
secondly those that perform similar due to the responsibilities in j.p.
offices would make roughly the same amount of money.
and, three, is -- is that if we approve this I think that -- that the other clerks in the offices who perform similar duties and responsibilities will -- will probably justifiably request $6,000 pay increases.
if we do this, we really ought to do so knowingly.
first two, sort of run against my good government grain and the third one there is if we do that knowingly, I don't know how we reject requests for -- for similar increases for employees in j.p.
offices who perform similar duties and responsibilities.
that's my take on it and why -- in my view, why this is non-routine.
judge d?
>> judge Biscoe, if I may, I don't know where you get the figure $6,000 more from.
my proposal is to take the least paid of the current juvenile case managers, whom I hired six months ago, who has performed outstandingly, in the past six months, who has more experience, more credentials, than the other three case managers, and put him but $1,500 more per year above the other two highest paid ones.
my information is that the case managers in precinct 1 and precinct 4 are paid at level 6.
my proposal, I'm sorry, the case manager in precinct 2 is paid at midpoint.
so midpoint is higher than level 6 but one step.
and my proposal is merely to place my case manager, instead of excuse me in last place, based on his performance which is excellent, at 10% above midpoint, which is just one step, $1,500 per year above -- balfour the other two case managers.
I provided each of you with a spreadsheet that shows that -- that mr. Garriado, who again has six months of performance behind him in the office, again outstanding performers, has a master's in social work, licensed as a licensed condemn casey dependency counselor and he -- chemical dependency counselor and relevant experience as a case.
we were very, very fortunate where he came from another county where he worked with the j.p.
courts there, it has been my experience as a manager to always hire someone in, if you will, give him a probationary period because you never can tell from a resume or a piece of paper what the performance is going to be.
so I brought him in at the level at that time when I brought him in, was at a level that was -- that was I believe just two steps above what I had paid my former incumbent who left because the salary was too low to tell you the truth.
but again after six months of performance, my recommendation is merely just to use my discretion as a manager within your salary guidelines to pay him at 10% above mid point, which again is not $6,000 more than anyone, it's merely $1,500 more than two other case managers and again he, I believe, is -- is deserving and worthy of that -- of that pay.
>> but it's the 7,000 increase, judge dee.
mrs.
ramirez's memo says that the increase would be from $36,212 to $43,585.
>> let me address that, if I may.
>> well -- ms. Dee, if you will let me finish, okay, like I let you finish a few minutes ago.
I don't have independent facts to work on.
I have the fact that were provided as part of the backup.
that came from ms. Ramirez.
but I also have a recollection of the last knock down drag out that we had when precinct 1 came in with what I considered to be a similar request.
a majority of this court voted that day really one to access the juvenile case management fund required the approval of the j.p.'s and I don't see that in the backup.
and the other thing is that we expect the clerks to make roughly the same money.
you are saying this person will not make more than the others in the j.p.
offices?
>> not $6,000 more.
>> well, let me refresh your memory serve.
the dragout that we had before was not over a juvenile case manager.
it was over a senior planner position.
my only concern was not that judge williams could hire a senior planner in her office, but to use the juvenile case manager fund for something that was not a juvenile case manager.
she does have a juvenile case manager on her staff, stephanie touchstone on the information here.
let me again give you the history of this.
judge gonzalez and I began this program about two years ago.
at that time, since it was a brand new program and moneys had not come out of the fund, we were strongly encouraged when we developed the position to keep the salary low.
there were five j.p.
offices potentially that would have case managers.
our revenue was under $250,000 a year.
even though we had reserves built up, when I worked with h.r.
and p.b.o.
in developing the first job description, which I wrote, we were strongly encouraged to bring this job in at base -- a level 1, which is -- on this sheet now is up to about $32,000 a year.
I hired my very first case manager for $32,000.
judge gonzalez hired a social worker.
he paid her a little more and rightfully so.
I don't know if that was at level 1 or level 3.
so he lost his case manager in a year.
I lost my case manager in a year.
why?
because our salaries were low.
meanwhile, we had two new judges coming in, judge williams and judge bass.
so when they went out to hire their case managers, they paid him more.
because the market really we were underpaying our staff.
so to speak.
so when I rehired mr. Garriado last March, they were doing their hire.
so in actuality, I already had him on board and they had already hired people in higher than he, even though if you look at his resume and experience levels, he should have been hired in higher.
so blame me, judge, for being ultra conservative and paying him too little when I brought him in.
so, yes, sir, the disparity between him looks very high now.
it is a big bump.
but he deserves every penny of it, sir.
-- he is again, compared to the other incumbents that we have, well placed.
I want to make mention that the j.p.'s we are going to begin maybe a little late, to talk about the fund and to bring recommendations back to the court on how we see the fund being managed.
I tried, only we visited with the court a few months ago, to see if we had any resources from planning and budget or from mr. Jeffrey's office to help us.
those were not forthcoming, on my own, with my leadership, I have organized a strategic planning session.
they are going to begin this Friday.
they are going to continue for three Fridays.
after that the j.p.'s will come back to you as a group with a consensus on our recommendations to you on how we can sustain this vital program.
>> did you and the y's ask the court to consult with y'all before accessing the juvenile case management fund?
at our last discussion?
>> I don't understand the question, sir.
if you would --
>> did you and the other j.p.'s ask the court when we were considering the precinct 1 request to consult with the j.p.'s before accessing the juvenile case management fund?
>> well, sir, we access the fund every year when we put our budget request in.
these are existing budgeted positions.
under the county guidelines here, it says that existing employees may be moved along a pay range with permanent salary savings at the manager's discretion.
you get up to 10% movement along midpoint.
the problem again --
>> did you all ask the court to consult with you before accessing that fund, yes or no?
>> yes, sir.
this was on your agenda two weeks ago to discuss getting funds out of the July juvenile case manager for a routine personal.
>> : we actually voted according to deanna's backup, we approved accessing the jcm fund for these positions in March.
>> there's no question that we wanted to fund case managers from this fund.
>> that is correct.
>> there is --
>> [multiple voices]
>> four currently --
>> there's a question, though, of how do you access that fund to increase salaries for one particular j.p.
that's the context in which the question surfaced before.
and my understanding is that the j.p.'s left me with the impression that they wanted to provide input to the court on that occasion.
and what I'm saying is if we -- if we don't follow that, that's fine with me.
but we just have to know in the future that's what we do.
in that case, we use that to deny in part the precinct 1 request.
>> that's because the money wasn't in their budget.
this money is available in the budget already.
>> the senior planner position is not a case manager.
it's a senior planner position.
>> I understand.
>> this is the money --
>> none of the j.p.'s are in disagreement that we want to use the fund for juvenile case managers.
judge williams is here.
if we can find a way to get more case managers into our source, she's asking for more resources, I think that is an issue that we're going to try to come together with showing how we can sustain the fund.
right in our our expenses -- right now our expenses exceed our revenue or have the possibility to do that.
which means that we will begin going into our reserve, which is healthy.
the city of Austin employs nine case managers.
their fund is more vital than ours --
>> hold on.
there's a whole lot of other facts that we can discuss.
to me the bottom line is that -- our action, left me with the impression, that the intention was for us to consider the j.p.
offices at roughly the same time and consider them roughly the same.
if you all are working on a plan, rather than acting on this specific request, why don't we act on the plan when it's brought back and apply the plan to all of the j.p.'s?
would be my question.
judge williams and then ms. Ramirez and then Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> thank you, judge Biscoe.
let's see.
first, let me say that I support judge dee's request for an increase in light of I think that all of the j.p.'s ought to be able to independently run their office, that's been my premise at all times.
so in line with that, that's why I'm here.
to say that I support that and we need to take the jcm fund out of this enshrouded mystique that we seem to have put this in and let folks run their offices, first of all, yes, there is some confusion, that's what I left from the last big go-round earlier on is that it seemed like any decisions on the jcm fund should be impacted by all five j.p.'s, I fought against that vehemently.
I do see the difference in what the judge is saying and what you are saying, too, Commissioner Eckhardt, is that she actually saved money, but still there was this mystique about just because it was jcm funding that there should not be ability for us to access that fund without our five people weighing in.
I think we're getting away from that.
I hope we are.
I am here this morning to say please let us do that and take care of our business as we see fit based upon the needs of our constituency and as long as we are within the law and p.b.o.
is most certainly going to make sure that we do that.
I trust them.
so I want to weigh in on that side and say I think also judge, Commissioners, that in light of that, what you are saying, right now 36 to 43, you are saying the difference is 6 and what she's saying is the average jcm right now is weighing in at around 38,000.
so you are talking about the difference in coming from 38 or 39 up to 43.
with a master's individual.
but you are also keeping an argument of mine probably sometime in the future which is going to say I want more, too.
so I'm not here to say that right now.
but I understand what you all are thinking of I -- I'm also here to correct some figures saying my juvenile case manager has more than 4.5 years, but in fact has in excess of 10 years of juvenile case manager.
we could get into that detail.
this is not forum for that.
I just want to set the record straight and say I am in support of judge deek giving a comparable salary to an individual who shows by credentials and by work that that, along our pay scale that we have these cases set in, that's he's due that.
I think also that if someone else, I think judge bass, for instance, a person came out of his clerk pool and -- I'm sure she's been dealing with juveniles for years, I'm sure that's why she's there, I'm sheer she's going to be able to do a good job.
she comes out of the clerk pool and she does not have a master's degree of that sort.
so in light of that, I think somewhere there might be some disparity in wages, but not disparity in the sense that it would be offensive or illegal.
I would say that.
now, in the long run, should there be someone making a $15,000 span between the offices, I would submit no.
I would think in the long run p.b.o., I think is here to make sure that that happens when brought to your attention.
so -- so if that makes any sense, I think that we ought to get back to doing this independently.
let each elected official run their office.
>> [indiscernible] that we have.
I think that we need to take the jcm funding out of the enshrouded mystique that it has.
the upcoming meetings talk about how we access the reserves, however, I would like to make it clear that it's not the same thing as coming up with the plan.
I have been arguing that until I am blue in the face, but this is another matter.
how do we access the reserves so that everybody can say that we are getting a piece of the apple and we're part of the decision making process.
in the end if judge evans -- judge evans downtown with very few schools, that makes sense, judge evans doesn't need one.
that's his call.
in the meanwhile, all five of us coming together in a series of workshops over the next three weeks, I think that's going to say it all.
my bottom line, we need to run our office according to the needs that are within the law.
>> how does the court keep from getting set up for higher and higher increases?
>> well, first of all, there are public -- public hearings that -- that does -- do so.
again, your p.b.o.
office is going to alwaysing there making sure that that doesn't happen.
I think the parity and -- the parity and pay issue ought to come with credentials and
>> [indiscernible] service.
here's the glitch.
if I say that my guy also should get 43, the question is well if I've got experience and I think all of the county employment programs say commensurate experience with degree, then why should you fight that?
that becomes my bottom line.
you can call it, she can call it, but why should my fellow j.p.'s call it.
that's what I'm saying.
>> well, I argued -- I argued for that independence myself because I believe it promotes creativity.
>> absolutely.
>> I was outvoted on that.
3-2.
and so -- which is why we're having this discussion today.
>> absolutely.
>> this gentleman may be the best county employee in the world, but I have the context of that last discussion that we had.
I think that's important.
>> I do, too.
>> ms. Ramirez.
>> I'm just here to answer questions.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> all of these positions are on paid grade 14, todd?
>> yes.
>> all of them are within the budget parameters?
including this requested salary increase?
>> correct.
>> is this in any way from the -- from our budget parameters, is it in any way different from the pay differential in our own offices for our pay grade 16 employees?
>> I don't know offhand, ma'am.
>> my point being this is within the budget rules, it is the same thing that each of us do with our employees as well.
>> but our employees make up roughly the same amount, whether they have been here two years or 20.
that's part of the problem.
>> I think that if --
>> so we were treating j.p.'s the same way, I thought.
>> my point is all of these positions are still on pay grade 14 within our own budget rules.
and I -- I agree with both of the judges, that if it's within the budget rules and you are appropriately utilizing salary savings in order to retain a valued employee, I think that we should stay out of it.
>> if we apply that across the board, it's fine with me.
>> that is what I'm advocating.
>> the two times that we've looked at it, we did not do it the first time.
we're doing it this time.
>> the other circumstance was materially different, it was a request to add money to a j.p.'s budget that wasn't already there.
this money is already in the j.p.
3 budget.
>> this money is in the j.p.
3 budget because we put it there.
if we had voted to transfer money last time it would have been in the j.p.
1 budget, also.
we are the people who decide what money is put into what budgets.
and I approved the transfer two weeks ago because I had done a similar thing for other departments, salary saving, if the department can use it, fine.
but at that point we didn't really vote on how the money would be used.
we voted on whether the money would be transferred from salary savings, temporary salary savings in precinct 3 to another line item in precinct 3, which I supported.
thinking that at one point we would discuss how the money would be used because there would be a specific request, which is why we're here today.
anyway, I'm -- I think that the -- as a matter of policy, we need to address it and try to come to terms on it.
I would -- I prefer that we let the j.p.'s get together, if they're going to look at what their clerks make and the standards that we will use, I prefer that we do that.
or that we tell elected officials, we want you to use your creativity as best you can.
when you come with a budget request, we will look at them on a case-by-case basis and either vote them up or down.
we seem to be doing both of them right now.
so I'm suggesting that we do one or the other.
in the meantime -- but I'm -- I mean, I think we spent enough time on this item.
I know it's been agonizing for judge steeg.
>> I move approval of b of whatever agenda item this is.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioners Huber and Gomez.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber voting in favor.
those opposed?
show Commissioner Davis and yours truly.
thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Nellis, should we go with the -- with the broaddus?
>> 20 minutes.
>> go ahead and bring that up.
>> 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.
