Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 22
22, consider and take appropriate action or proposed organizational changes for transportation and natural resources and facilities management departments and strategic planning division.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners, steve manila and carol joseph from t.n.r.
>> good morning.
>> in August I came to court after meeting with your other county executives and we -- county executives unanimously agreed that it would be a good idea to bring to you all an option for long-term management of facilities management, which at the time was under the interim leadership of danny hobby and danny had been doing it about nine months about that time.
and what I presented to you you thought about for a week and the following week you went ahead and approved facilities to come up underneath t.n.r., and with the understanding that I would do an assessment, carol and I would complete an internal assessment and then come back to you with some recommendations in 60 to 90 days.
at the time, we were looking at three alternatives.
one was to have two independent agencies reporting to me.
the other one was to merge the two into one organization reporting to me.
or the third was to have an outside consultant take a look at both organizations and come up with their own recommendation.
and also at that time members of the court had asked to us keep in mind a few things.
one is they did not want facilities to be splintered.
in other words, the entire department would come over to t.n.r.
and we wouldn't leave any element behind, and that is the case.
what the issue with a lot of facilities staff now though is that they don't want their -- their organization broken up and merged with t.n.r.
and they have their reasons for that.
another issue was we needed to be fair about our assessment.
and carol and i, we tried to be as fair as we could, although I don't think there's any way we can make everybody happy.
the bottom line, though, is that in our recommendations to you and in reorganization, there will be no loss of jobs and no one is going to lose any of their pay that they are currently making.
and that, to me, I felt was a huge goal to try to achieve.
the third thing you wanted us to look for was if there's cost savings involved with this because I did mention that I felt like we could achieve some cost savings.
and as presented to you today, no, I would say we're not going to see cost savings if we complete the reorganization as I'm going to recommend; however, over time I think that there are cost savings to be had through attrition.
as people move on to other jobs or retire, we would take a very close look at whether or not we want to backfill that position.
and the changes that we are going to recommend today, they are -- some of them responsibilities are increasing, some of them are decreasing.
we would want hrmd to look at everything and advice if there are adjustments to be made and if there are adjustments in salary we would handle that internally.
essentially a cost neutral position right now.
so with that, I am recommending to you that we do proceed with a merger of the two departments, and within your backup you do have multiple sheets showing the different organizational structures for the different divisions within the departments and also the overall management team.
if you would like me to walk you through it, I think the best way to do it is go to the last exhibit, i, I think it is, that is the top layer of management, and then we can drill down in each subsequent organizational chart.
>> well, I think I looked at that.
I looked at all of the material that I got.
one of the impressions that I really got from all of the different scenarios that were shown as to departments was that this was going to be just a huge, huge department.
if you are going to merge facilities.
but I don't recall, in my opinion, my memory, I don't recall asking for a merger.
I recall asking for an assessment.
>> right.
>> and it wasn't me alone, it was the court.
because one member of the court does not give direction.
>> right.
>> and so -- so I don't recall that.
and in looking at the minutes, it seems like, you know, an assessment is not what I got.
>> uh-huh.
>> and so I remember thinking that the possibility was to move facilities over as a department simply to report to you because we, notice, it's nice to have people report to different people so that we know where we are.
but this fails my expectation totally.
and I think where the other thing was that -- I'm not sure how fair this has been when we leave people out of, you know, giving their opinion as to what they believe should happen.
last time I looked, this is a democratic country, and people are allowed to give their opinions and to participate in decisions that are going to affect them.
and certainly affect the work that they do.
and I don't think I need to tell you, but facilities has just done a fantastic job for the Travis County taxpayers.
one of the things I think we need to realize along with facilities is that our customers are the taxpayers.
and -- and so -- and it's not each other, although we have to collaborate so that we can get work done, but the ultimate goal is to serve the taxpayers.
and also in looking through the -- the merge that I got, that I looked at, I don't know how savings can be achieved by having a bureaucracy of this -- of this size.
and I don't particularly -- I'm not particularly in favor of bureaucracy nor am I in favor of autocratic leadership.
and it is not fun to be in and I think that -- I was recalling in days past, years past we used to have a lot of fun here in county government, and we kind of -- I think we kind of respected each other and we worked together.
we didn't always agree, but I think that we -- we certainly worked together for the taxpayers.
I think this kind of leadership and this kind of bureaucracy, I think it's going to curb the creativity that facilities certainly had in terms of saving money for county taxpayers.
if you'll recall, I don't know if you are here or not, but we organized facilities when we had the cjc fiasco.
and in order to help us avoid those kinds of fiascos again, but I think this would curb that and I think customer feedback.
it is very essential that I feel the right to call someone on your staff without having to go through you.
or to go through, you know, the top management and then filters down before I can hear from somebody about a project that I have questions about.
so I don't like that part of it either.
certainly I don't think it would be a healthy place to work in and heaven knows we sat up the county clinic in order to help people with stress so we can all be just a little healthier and provide better services.
the communication is all one way.
and there's really no feedback in this kind of an organization except to point out people's mistakes.
instead of providing them encouragement in working together to be creative and to give customers feedback.
it's also unilateral decision making and I don't have any appreciation of that whatsoever.
I don't think we've done that with our staff and I would certainly hope that we could -- hopefully modeling the kind of behavior we expect from folks.
so to me this whole thank I think has been set up to demolish facilities and I don't appreciate that at all.
this one idea was about doing an assessment to see where it really belongs, but I certainly do not believe it needs to be merged.
and so -- and I don't think it will save money actually in the long run.
how is this huge department going to then fit into 700 lavaca?
those offices have already been set out, remodeled, the building was remodeled, and now we're going to remodel the remodeling in order to make room for more folks, for a huge t.n.r.
department?
I just don't -- I just don't see the value of this approach.
>> okay.
thank you, Commissioner.
>> I've had a chance to look at this and I think everyone knows my position, it's no big secret.
as far as the reorganization was concerned, I didn't support it.
what I wanted to do early on when we lost our executive manager of administrative ops was, number one, to get an executive -- not an executive manager, was to hire an executive director.
let those particular departments stay intact where they were.
in my opinion they were functioning then.
of course, things happen and things change and of course department heads or executive managers and you have to report to the Commissioners court and, of course, whatever the majority of the court vote on is the way it is.
however, I -- I -- it was different options that you listed, but one was to -- one of the option that you indicated was to leave it as stand alone as it was before.
of course, when it did come before the court, one of the things that -- when it was under danny hobby, and I'm saying fmd, it operated as it does -- as it has in the past, intact, stand alone.
and, of course, your department has several stand-alone operations in it.
and, of course, I think it would be better function for it to stand alone as it is, and I can't see any way that what you are suggesting would help the matter.
in my opinion, if we need to separate fmd or let it stand alone, if that needs to happen to keep it intact, maybe it needs to come from under you.
but, of course, we'll have to land somewhere.
and since it has landed, court say let the fmd go from danny hobby ban danny hobby had a lot of things on his plate and what I voted on was for it to come up under you, but not to disintegrate it and that's basically what it appears is happening here.
and I've had a chance to review and I've had a long relationship with f.m.d.
since I've been here.
so I'm talking about experience in relation with dealing with folks and knowing that they got the job down and do it effectively and efficiently and I can't see myself divorcing from something that works.
now that is correct is an option under your particular recommendation.
your recommendation was to merge.
well, but one of the options was for it to stand alone.
so I'm -- you know, I don't know what the will of the court is going to do, but I'm going to stand firm, stand very firm on it standing alone as is intact in place because it works.
so that's my -- what my situation is on it.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
>> thank you.
>> that reminds me just one more comment that I need to name.
that yeah, instead of keeping facilities management and the other departments that were under administrative operations, that was why they served everybody, and now instead we're trying to figure out where else we're going to put them under so it creates a huge department somewhere else.
and -- but aside from that, it looks like we have also made the decision to just go ahead and do away with the administrative operations executive manager, basically leaving county government without any hispanic inclusion in the management of this county.
and so I think we need to maybe get back to where we were from some years ago.
>> I will need to take another week.
at the appropriate time I'll request the professional courtesy.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I applaud these efforts of both of you.
thank you so much for looking at this so deeply.
I think that this is a -- a sound approach to utilizing the talents that are currently in f.m.d.
to their greatest advantage.
facilities management has been in a ambiguous state with regard to its management since late 2009.
I don't think this court has done a kindness to the talented folks inside facilities management in leaving them in a ambiguous management state for all that time.
f.m.d.
reported directly to the Commissioners court for more than a year, then reported to danny hobby for about nine months, and has now reported to steve manila for about three months?
>> uh-huh.
>> there are some tremendously talented people in facilities.
you all deserve to have your talents utilized to their greatest advantage and integrated into the whole of -- of the county's work.
I don't believe we have integrated the talent into the whole of the county's work.
for some time pre-dating 2009, frankly.
we are a blessedly flat management structure.
I don't fear the size of t.n.r.
with this 25% increase because I know that our corporate culture is to be able to pick up the phone and reach below any of our executive directors to their managers.
I've had that experience with facilities.
I've had that experience with planning and budget, with i.t.s.
even with the various service lines in the county that don't report to the county.
court administration, the district and county judges.
we are lucky in that sense.
we are a relatively small government with only 4,000 employees, 4,000 to 5,000 employees.
so I am confident that this proposal won't change that very laudible aspect of Travis County government.
yesterday, without mr. Manila's input, I had two of his directors and one of his managers in office briefing me on stuff and I don't believe steve felt the need to be there.
similarly just yesterday I had someone from facilities in my office giving me his candid opinion as well as emails from individuals giving me their candid opinion, and I think that is the strength of our organization.
I don't see that changing because we give the folks currently in f.m.d.
a management structure that they can count on that gives them cover to speak truth to power and an environment where they can really shine.
>> Commissioner?
any comments?
>> I think that steve has put a whole lot of work in this and I appreciate the time that you've taken.
I would just say, and I'm still contemplating it, I think that we are moving fast in our growth in Travis County and just because something worked 20 years ago doesn't necessarily mean it's the most efficient use in the structure for taxpayer dollars now.
so an assessment has been real important to me in seeing if we do indeed have the profile of this department as we need.
I have not had any conversations relative to this reorganization so I have no idea what steve -- what your thinking was on this from your own assessment standpoint for this organizational structure that you are proposing.
I do think that -- I'm a strong proponent in believing that the talents of our senior management and not trying to micromanage their decision making.
so I'm actually glad you postponed this a week, judge, because I think I would like a little more time to think about it too.
>> f.m.d.
has 170 employees?
>> yes.
>> and t.n.r.
has how many?
>> about 400.
>> so if I were to ask to see a copy of the assessment, would there be a document that I could look at?
>> no, the backup is our comments on what we observed and what we believe is the correct way to go.
>> do we know about how much an outside consultant would charge to assist with the assessment?
>> I'm thinking that -- carol and I usually spend 100 hours on this and if you were to bring someone in and they were instructed to start from scratch, easily 200 hours and the type of folks we would want looking at both organizations would be not the technician levels, it would be the principals of the firm who have to deal with the subject matter in their own arenas.
I'm thinking 50 to 800 grand and six to eight months depending on how long it would take to get a consultant on board.
>> I would feel more comfortable with that if I thought it was fair and equal and neutral.
and kept the taxpayers' interests in mind and not our own.
>> I would not object to that.
it's one alternative and I won't be here next week, by the way, judge.
I'm out of office all week.
>> [laughter]
>> in my experience -- judge, I'm sorry.
you were through with your time, I'm sorry.
>> I would suggest we have you get with the associate department, miss blankenship, see if she had any input.
it seems to me we ought to try to ballpark that figure.
I mean, I think that the assessment is critical, and it may be that we need to get somebody who can spend full time on it for whatever time is necessary to do it for us, but we need to know what it will cost.
>> sure.
>> in my view.
>> uh-huh.
>> so I mean should I chat with hrmd?
>> that would be fine.
I think there's some groups out there that have done this sort of thing and they are still in business and they are small companies and I think they came from the comptroller's office in Texas -- of Texas.
they helped us in '94 get through the whole thing and I think they did a pretty good job.
>> what's magical about next Tuesday, do we want to take two weeks?
next Tuesday is the 29thment following that is December 6th?
>> yes.
>> what if we take two weeks and hustle up some options with cost estimates now that it's -- not that we necessarily have to go down that road, but I think we need an informed decision and part of that would be basically who is available and what the cost would be.
>> well, it will be all right if I look as well to find some folks.
>> sure.
>> thanks.
>> with that, I'm not sure -- now, there are a lot of options that are in the backup, the exhibits.
>> uh-huh.
>> did you prioritize them?
I know exhibit I is the one you focused on.
is that the merge they are.
>> that's the management team and organizational chart if you flip back in you you will see the structure that's underneath them.
>> they are all descriptive of a single suggestion.
>> uh-huh, right.
>> but again you have departments in your shop that are basically stand alone.
you look at the parks department, they are intertwined, but it's a separate entity.
they kind of do -- you oversee it.
what I'm trying to suggest, I think, is that if you are going to do it for one, you need to do it for everybody.
and, of course, I have looked at the cost savings over the years that this department has saved the taxpayers of Travis County a lot of money, m-o-n-e-y, money.
that's why I'm kind of firm in what I -- as far as my position is concerned is because of that relationship and also the money and things of that nature.
so -- so basically I would like to make sure that you get it as far as what my position is in this overall
>> [indiscernible] thing are posed big time.
and I didn't want any part of that.
>> I understand, Commissioner.
I stand by my recommendation, but I'll do what the court wants me to do.
>> exactly.
well, you have three -- you have five bosses up here and three of them are going to say something to you whether you like it or not.
you may like it, you may not.
I don't know.
but that's what the will of the court is is the majority of the court.
we have to live with that, all of us do.
>> that's right, Commissioner.
I just -- my end game is to bring close tour this as quick as we can no matter how it happens, just bring some closure to it.
>> if we were to ask you to put together a sort of list of pros and cons for leaving t.n.r.
as a separate department, cow get that done for us in -- could you get that done for us in --
>> we could, judge.
tonight's the backup, but we can extract it in bullet form so it's easier for you to see what we're thinking.
>> yeah, it would help me to see it.
>> sure.
>> in a separate statement of some sort.
>> that's fine.
>> judge, you said keeping t.n.r.
do you mean facilities?
>> facilities.
I'm sorry.
>> I understand.
>> it was a time I pronounced them outright rather than using -- anything else?
we appreciate you all's hard work, dedication, et cetera.
>> thank you very much.
>> two weeks from now we'll have it back to on.
now, we gave -- I was advised some of the district judges might want to come over on the other open court item, and so I gave them 1:45 this afternoon thinking it would be the best time for them.
that's item number 6.
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.
