Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 25
25 is to consider and take appropriate action on proposed compensation policy changes from the compensation committee and related issues, including, a, recommended policy language restricting raises upon reclassification to no higher than the midpoint of the new range and alternative suggestions if appropriate, and b, recommend a performance review system in support of the recommendation to adopt a performance-based pay system.
>> essentially during the work session that you had last week there was discussion, but no action taken to direct the compensation committee to reevaluate they're recommendation on the implementation procedure for market salary survey.
so this item today, I believe, was placed on the agenda to give the court the opportunity if you desire to request that the compensation committee reevaluate they're recommendation and come back to the court in the future with potentially a revised recommendation.
>> move approval as of 2-a.
that's what you just described, right?
>> that's correct.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
on b my thinking is that we would go to some major employer that has what in our view is a good, productive performance evaluation system and see how it is operated so we can pull the good from that and hopefully bring it to Travis County.
and because I think the down side of our last pay system was in my view the number of disgruntled employees who thought they had not been treated fairly.
so I think what we ought to do is put in place a system designed to bring about fair treatment, and I guess apparent fair treatment to the extent that that's possible, because I did notice on the court an inclintonmation to move more towards performance pay rather than colas which we did in recent history.
>> judge, I think you brought up a good point.
I don't really disagree with a lot of this, however, we have two different set of employees here with Travis County as far as the classified rank and file, but we also have those particular folks that are on our pops scale.
and of course, I know the compensation committee has been made up of several representatives.
in fact, even with the ascme representative, which I think they have done a great job.
and -- but of course, there has been I think maybe a void of looking at the total representation as far as what's on the committee.
and it's been brought to my attention that some of the -- the way you look at things as far as getting promotions, it's a little different under the pops situation than it is under the rank and file.
I don't object to looking at performance-based pay, but I do think that the necessary input from all parties need to be at the table.
and I don't know if -- as far as representatives are concerned, so that's kind of where I'm at.
I'm just wondering when, I guess, at some time will the other leg of the other representatives from the unions -- of course we have scsme, like I said, that's doing a great job, but he's a part of the committee.
and absent of the persons that pops situation.
I don't know if that should be separate.
>> is that performance pay?
>> it's a little different for those folks is how they get promoted and things like that.
>> the civil service in view of --
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> right.
so how do they -- but as far as -- but as far as getting the monies all coming out of the same pot, that's what I'm saying.
so since it does come out of the same pot on how we pay our employees, at some stage of this, and I don't know when.
I guess, judge, you help us determine that, the court, as far as how they -- how the representatives not only for rank and file, which is represented -- which is very -- how does the other person get involved as far as getting money from the same pot in the future.
I don't know how we want to address that.
>> I think we ought to wait and see what the committee bring back.
I'm hoping we can find one or two large workplaces that have in place what we would consider to be valid and good pay for performance systems so we can learn from them rather than start from scratch, but then tailor our own.
I'm not saying we would adopt theirs in toto, but we would learn from them by doing the best and then giving it the old Travis County coloring and move from there.
>> and again, I just think -- I don't know what will come back.
it may be a mixture of performance based pay.
I don't really know what the city of Austin -- I think that was also discussed with us, looking at a model from the city of Austin as far as performance-based pay.
even looking at that, I would like to get away as much as possible from subjectivity and that midline supervision area, judge, that mid level supervisors, sometimes subjectivity gets into this thing.
and when it happens and it's kind of flawed things.
so I'm concerned about it's almost like taking the input and shoving it in a computer or something that's not subject to anything else of what goes in and what comes out.
but I'm trying to make sure that whatever we do, it may have to be a mixture of both, whether you have cola and also performance based pay.
I don't really know the true answer.
but I think as far as them coming back to us at some time so they can help us a little bit as far as what we see, as far as compensation for the county employees.
>> my goal is to avoid just a whole lot of work that may be unnecessary.
if it's really been used in other places to success.
and I'm thinking that that's doable.
>> judge, I have a quick question.
>> okay.
>> and also other members of the court.
is it your intention then that the -- whatever pay for performance plan is recommending out of hr and the comp committee has to be fully designed and implementable before we could go ahead and approve this portion of the policy documents.
is that the basic question?
>> I think that if by directing that this be done, we are implying that we will approve pay for performance if we can put in place what we believe to be a fair and objective system.
so I think I'm sort of hedging on the ultimate question of what are you approving, but I'm going to approve pay for performance if we can come up with the right system, I think.
it would help to get input from county employees, not necessarily all of them.
if I were a county employee I would wonder about the specifics of the system as much as the funt funding because I would want to think if my performance is good, then I stand a good chance of getting pay based on that performance, merit pay.
>> I understand that.
>> I'm sort of hedging.
>> and a quick comment on Commissioner Davis' concerns.
the pops scale, which obviously law enforcement are on, is a step plan which is a little bit different than the open range plan that our classified employees are on.
and the step plan is not really designed to be a performance based system.
it is more of a longs jeffty type system where you go -- longevity type system where you go from one step after a certain amount of time and if the court has the funds to fund it, then the people typically move up to the next step.
I don't want to step on the sheriff's toes here and speak or the civil service commission or how they implement their particular plan.
but it is a slielgt different approach to compensation that's used for the employees.
>> I understand that.
I didn't say it was.
I wasn't really referring to performance based pay, but I want to make sure that whatever their concerns are are placed on the table also.
because even if it's a step process -- I'm not talking about the process itself, but what I'm talking about is the funding possibilities, if there's some things that need to be in place.
in orders, I just thought they need a place at the table since we're talking about money that comes out of the same pot.
>> and I know that hrmd would love to speak to the court about what we perceive the law enforcement pay position to be relative to the market.
I'm sure that the law enforcement association may have a slightly different view of that.
and I'm sure the sheriffs would love to weigh in and it's a conversation that we do look forward to.
>> I just wanted to mix apples with apples and as far as reaching your hand into the same bucket.
so as far as compensation is concerned.
he just want to make sure that that's a possibility.
now, I don't know where the court is, but I think the judge brought up good points along with everyone else.
when you look at the committee you don't see the equity representation, and I know rank and file is definitely different from civil service.
believe me, I i understand that.
however, when you are dipping the straw into the same container, of course, it's just -- I just want to point that out.
that was my point.
just bringing the point up.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I'm a big supporter of performance based pay systems. And I've worked in the private sector where those were employed.
if I may be so bold to compare them to groundwater districts, they're only as good as they are structured and funded.
and when I say funded I don't necessarily mean by cost as much as I mean by time.
and if we're going to look at this, which I think we should very most proceed fowppedly, I think -- for fondly, I think that one of the things that should be considered is the -- well, as you pointed out last discussion, judge, the measurements and the documentation of it is critical to the success of performance based pay system.
so I think when we're looking at best practices out there that the time involved for documentation afortd are afortd rism r.
and measurement should be a consideration.
I know an upper level manager right now who spends about two-thirds of his year doing performance evaluations for his department.
that may be -- well be overkill, but it can be massive the amount of time.
so we need to know if we've got a balance there.
I think -- to me I don't think the whole system needs to be laid out for us before we approve it, but I think we should look at some of those key components.
and be prepared to have some good discussions about that.
>> everything crystal clear?
move approval of b.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
we're looking at three, four, five weeks?
what time frame?
this year?
>> the committee has tomorrow and the next three Wednesdays scheduled, so we would not expect to have it back on the agenda until the fifth week after this.
>> okay.
sounds good.
>> thank you.
>> now, I suggest we take the tecolote item into executive session.
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.
