Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 7
7.
consider and take appropriate action on the proposed Travis County equal employment opportunity plan.
>> good morning, judge, dana hevvs employment specialist for h.r.
I do have some additional documents I want to reference.
start off, I am here to discuss the proposed equal opportunity plan.
first, the purpose of the plan.
an equal opportunity plan is a workforce report, comparing an employer's workforce to the community labor force to determine utilization of the labor force and it's used to identify and provide -- or equal employment opportunities for men and women regardless of gender, race, or national origin.
particularly important is that federal grantlations require recipients to maintain and submit -- or submit an eeo plan to the granting federal agency to ensure the grantees are providing equal employment opportunity.
the one I just handed to you is a document showing the responsibilities.
Travis County generally falls into the last two category where is the state and local government private entities receiving a grant of either 25,000 -- between 25,000 and 500,000 dollars or is receiving over $500,000, and you see as you are scrolling across, does the recipient need to develop an eeo plan?
and in both cases the answer is yes.
in some cases where is the grant is below 500,000 but above 25,000, just having an eeo plan on file is required.
whereas in a grant where they are getting over $500,000, they need to submit the eeo plan and several of our departments are receiving these grants.
>> do they look at the cumulative amount throughout, for instance, Travis County, what the total that Travis County would get regardless of what department it's in?
do the individual agencies look at the cumulative amount or do we?
>> or does anybody -- like whoever is requiring the eeoc, do they look at the cumulative amount for Travis County or just departmental?
>> they look at separate, departmental.
h grant is considered a separate part.
however, a as far as the eeop is concerned, they do look at the entire entity.
they want us to compare our employment statistics as a county to the community labors statistics.
not necessarily individual departments.
>> but if they look at our eeoc plan, then we should have a reflection of the community in every category?
>> yes, and I am getting to that, but, yes, that's the --
>> okay.
>> the basis.
>> if you look at your eeo plan -- referring back to hand out -- on page 2 is the application they have to fill out -- you referred to the eeo plan -- the data analysis consists of a workforce analysis chart which is on page 7 of your plan.
; and this is our workforce broken-down into eeo job categories and each category is broken-down according to gender, race, and national origin.
the data on this plan, I believe the man that you have says 2009 data.
it is actually 2010 data.
I ran it the first time in 2009 and then ran it again in 2010.
probably the next question that might pop into your mind is why don't we have 2011 data.
I can provide that data.
I was waiting, hoping that the next set of data would be out by the census bureau before I ran the 2011 report.
the next set of data is a community labor statistics, and it's on page 9, and this is the data that I do get from the census bureau.
the most recent data for these community labor statistics is based on the year 2000 census.
I was hopeful that with the new census of 2010 census, we would have more up to date data.
it hasn't happened yet.
I check it periodically.
it is fairly detailed, though, breaking down job categories.
>> when do we expect to receive it?
>> I did a back search of where I got the -- when they released this particular data, the year 2000 data, they released it in late 2002 and early 2003.
I am guessing that they will probably release it about the same time, hopefully that their data calculation, their methods, tech have improve and maybe it will be a sooner.
>> we are looking at about a year?
>> about a year.
yes, sir.
>> I understand -- I understand that that's the most logical source, but is there another one we can use in the interim?
that's a long time to wait.
>> it's required -- the agency is required that you use the census data.
>> even if it is ten years old?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> the utilization analysis is on page 12, if you thumb over to the utilization analysis.
this is the percentage of the employees in each category cross classified by race and sex to the corresponding percentages of workers in the job market.
it is 83 percent utilization analysis and why we use 80%, the agencies, the federal government allows us to pick from one of three ways of calculating.
the first way is the any difference rule, where you are considered to be underutilizing if there is any difference between your percentage of use compared to the community labor statistics.
it's also the most stringent and it recognizes any difference.
the second way is the two standard deviation rule.
sometimes difficult to calculate and particularly in large populations and it's often used in smaller entities.
80 percent rule is the most commonly used, most utilize it indicates underutilization when the percentage is below 80%.
looking at this document on page 2, the utilization analysis, you can see that the majority -- in the majority of the eeo categories, gender and race divisions are well represented in Travis County.
however, in the yellow -- highlighted in the yellow are categories where we are underutilizing.
as a caveat to those highlighted categories, the office of federal contract compliance does grant some understanding and forgiveness when an employer identifies an underutilization and small populations and when I say small populations, when the community labor statistics offer less than 3% of that population.
in other words, if you look at -- if you look at the document on page 12, the utilization analysis and say -- look at admin support and then in the sixth column, you will see that we are underutilizing american indians, alaskan natives.
however, the community layers statistics only offer that there is only .9% american indian, alaskan native possible employees and admin support and we are in competition with the state.
we are in competition with the city of Austin and private entities for that limited number of possible employees.
so when you look at that, that -- that really eliminates almost 15 of those underutilized categories, which makes our majority of utilization significant, quite large.
any questions?
>> I am not sure I caught that point.
that last sentence there.
>> well, there is over -- there is 70 categories of utilization.
>> all right.
>> there is categories of eeo and ten gender race categories.
the majority of the categories we are well represented.
in the -- in the instances where there is underutilization, 15 of those categories, the population by the community labor statistics is under 3% and there is some forgiveness when the population of the community is so small that it would be very difficult to utilize in competition with everyone else.
>> when you say population, you mean population, not the number in a certain occupation?
>> yes.
I mean the population, the number in that -- that perform that certain occupation, for example, in the community labor statistics under admin support, if you look under the males column, the community statistics offer that there is .9% of males in the american indian alaskan native category that can perform admin support.
we are in competition with the rest of Travis County for that .9%.
so there is some forgiveness in regards to our underutilization in those categories.
>> but, for instance n skilled craft, since we have no women in skilled craft, with we score badly in every category for skilled craft?
even though I recognize it is only 8.7% of the community labor, still, as we we have 0 in skilled crafts.
>> skilled crafts, to give you an idea of jobs in Travis County that are skilled crafts positions, this is automotive mechanic, carpenter, electrician, hvac, refrigerator mechanic, locksmith, painter, plumber, traditionally not female roles or positions.
how to address that would be significant outreach to possible roots that would provide that and finding a qualified applicant.
>> and perhaps through our workforce development efforts because we are working on those types of skilled crafts, workforce opportunities for folks?
>> right.
training -- outside training and also internal training.
if there are employeeses employees thatperhaps want to mt category, that would be a possibility.
any further questions on that?
>> overall Travis County is committed to hiring and promoting the best qualified applicant for position, regardless of race, national origin or gender, but some possible ways to address underutilization is, again, outreach and communication of county job opportunities to underutilized groups in an effort to find qualified applicants and internal and external training of employees for other positions that may internally fill some of these underutilized positions.
any questions?
>> there is -- generally speaking, there are broad categories of proactive steps that might be taken.
we do a good job in the report as setting those out.
ultimately the question is, what is Travis County doing specifically.
so, I mean, do we have an action plan that shows specifically what we do to try to ensure equal employment opportunity?
and that we close the gap in some of the areas we find underutilization.
>> as is identified, there is a plan pending, going out and going to job fairs in certain areas to reach those underutilized groups.
>> well that be presented to the court for approval at some point?
>> they will be.
>> because a couple of groups were contacting me and looking more at population and the percentage of Travis County workforce compared to their percent of the population.
so if we look at the number in a certain occupation, typically that number is dramatically smaller, right?
>> right.
right.
>> okay.
our goal is to be -- is to proactively take steps necessary to ensure equal employment opportunity where we identify underutilization, we try to express that to the extent that we can?
>> exactly.
exactly.
again, that is forthcoming, the action plan, to address some of these areas.
>> as far as what is before us today, it is just the analysis?
>> the plan itself, yes.
>> and then the action plan itself will go to the county attorney's office through their labor attorneys and whatnot.
so the only thing before us right now is the analysis that will form the basis of action plan that will come back later?
>> yes.
and, again, the request is approval of this plan in order for our separate departments to do -- to have something to submit.
I know this is one that will be on the agenda either next week or the week following that.
it requires submission of an eeo plan.
they are receiving a grant that is above $500,000.
>> so is there like a page that the court would sign to evidence approval of the plan?
>> we have a plan to approve on record, whether that's a or whether that's just a motion by the court in an attachment.
>> I wish we had something signed so we had a date on there so when it is circulated, whoever sees it sees the date that it was approved and executed.
>> usually the cover will have that.
>> I am trying to wrap my brains exactly what we are doing.
one other way to look at it, we are amending our current plan with the updated statistics and then we will come back with a freshened action plan?
>> I am seeing it as approval of this plan.
yes, we have a plan.
it is very old.
approval of this plan, whether it is an amendment to a certain point or not --
>> this would replace everything you have done before.
>> yes, everything we have done before and the action plan would be forth coming.
>> our goal would be to up date this eeo plan periodically?
>> yes.
>> and we do --
>> go ahead.
>> we do know that based on information we are supposed to receive from the census in about a year from now, we will need to update this to update the occupation information?
>> right, and under some of the grants particularly one under the department of justice, they require the eeo plan to be updated every two years no matter what.
so, you know, different agencies have different requirements but that seems to be the titus window of updates that we are facing.
>> dr. Kim, your plan for Travis County?
>> yes, sir.
I have a question of this agent.
I had a backup.
and I have lots of questions.
I mentioned this morning right here discrimination right here and they are more to coincidence to explain -- explain -- I have the paper.
this paper is not perfect.
I really appreciate you are diane blankenship.
>> I am dana.
>> I really appreciate you.
in an effort to keep our Travis County good but especially you -- on 32, you said on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, different status in disability or national origin.
it is not enough.
you had this before.
you must include constitution and the city rights of 1974.
you have to put it there.
I have this discrimination experience right here in Travis County and with Travis County and those who come to the college and court of appeals and the supreme court, I contacted the governor of the workforce commission of t, all of the agencies, even Texas legislators, they use this, hey, we have this committee to you, blah blah, they didn't say this.
they just terminated, fired and they are saying that we didn't do this.
you have to put it constitution and also human rights acts of 1974.
you must.
if you don't put it, this is useless.
and, also --
>> okay.
this language -- dr. Kim, this language will pick up that specific statute and all of the others that address that issue?
>> this one, this paper --
>> this picks up all of them.
those are federal requirements.
this is a broad statement that says our goal, our plan is to comply.
>> no, what I am saying.
>> right, ms. Hess?
>> that's correct.
>> we didn't try to list each specific statute that comes into play.
we are trying to comply with all of them because of federal requirements if aaddress employment discrimination.
>> but if we do not put constitution and the civil rights of 1974, they violate the constitution.
they violate the civil rights of 1974.
>> you don't have to mention them specifically for them to apply as a matter of fact, they would apply whether we had no document at all.
>> how can you in the court as Travis County even put this in general and the Travis County attorney, they dismissed my complaint over discrimination.
they -- I said right here, this discrimination.
I told you since October 19 of 2000 today -- 2010 and also --
>> dr. Kim, this goes to ensuring that applicants for employment of Travis County are treated fairly.
it has nothing to do with cases in the court system or what acc did.
>> I did not say acc specifically, if we do not put in the constitution the civil rights of 1974, all of the employers continue violations.
>> have are you applied for a job in Travis County?
>> I am sorry?
>> have you applied for a job at Travis County?
>> that is not the issue right here.
>> then thank you for your comments.
>> I have more.
>> no, no, sir, you are not on target here.
we will take this item into executive session when we go this afternoon under consultation with attorney.
okay.
and our -- I think our goal ought to be approve the plan today unless legally we ought to delay it but there is legal advice we ought to receive before we do that.
not to cut you off ms. Hess but I think you are done.
>> I am.
>> this is one we talked about for quite some time.
we circulated in some people in the community to get an interest -- I didn't receive much feedback but everybody seemed to be happy we are working toward a plan.
>> okay.
>> I will give you a response if you want to in writing, dr. Kim, to address this issue and why it is not on point on this glim no, I say the place.
>> dr. Kim.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you very much.
we are moving on.
>> you will not allow me to ask a question.
>> we allowed you and you were off on another matter.
>> not another matter.
I have a question, what place, where is --
>> you are done.
>> I am done?
>> yes, sir.
you are done on this item.
thank you very much.
>> I did not finish it.
>> thank you very much.
we appreciate your input.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed the items that we announced.
we to come in item 7, the matter involving the Travis County equal opportunity plan, and I think where we're headed is to move adoption of the proposal before us but indicate our intersection to bring the matter about in -- intention to bring the matter back in about a month to address some outstanding legal issues.
that's the motion.
is that where we are headed?
>> I thought we were going to have the county attorney's office review it first and come back in a month and then we'll adopt it.
>> not to approve it today?
>> no.
>> withdraw the motion.
is there a motion?
>> I move that we, I guess, send the proposed eeoc plan to the county attorney's office and come back in a month with adoption.
>> I thought we were going to adopt an interim, spend the month coming up if a final.
>> no, because there were several things that had to be addressed first to make sure that we cover everything.
>> I guess my view would be we ought to go ahead and adopt what we have before us because we've been talking about it for so long.
if we take another month to perfect it.
shift grants that we pursue the proposal would clearly meet.
others would not because of different other regulations.
and so we should take a month or whatever time is necessary, less if possible, to deal with some of the other issues.
but it seems to me that what we have before us is -- imperfect as it may be, we ought to go ahead and approve it.
>> and I would say that whichever alternative would be fine from a legal perspective.
we feel it would be helpful if we took a look at it and the court was thinking in terms of there being changes to it as appropriate once you've had a good look.
>> it would give a chance to sit down with hrmd between now and the bring-back date to work through whatever issues there are.
>> but to still get an interim in place immediately that improves upon what we have.
>> that's what I would say.
the thinking it went to some of the lawyers, but that was an interim director of hrmd who is no longer with us.
so in fact that consultation did take place -- it didn't?
>> no, sir.
it is my impression that no one had looked at it from our office.
prior to this week.
>> let's get my motion on whether it's voted up or down.
I think we ought to approve what's before us today and indicate our intention to revisit to perfect as soon as possible.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
>> whichever direction you want to go is fine.
barbara reiterates whatever discussion is fine with her.
as a good lawyer should.
discussion on the motion?
>> we cannot assess at this point whether or not that is a good policy or not.
>> absolutely.
>> because we have not reviewed it.
>> right.
you know, maybe this will goad us into making sure we revisit this item as soon as possible but no later than four or five weeks.
is that okay?
any more discussion?
I mean I hate to be without it.
if we don't to action today, I think we ought to try to get it back next week.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you, miss hess.
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.
