Travis County Commissioners Court

March 27, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 13

View captioned video.

Now, let's call up the compensation item.
an opportunity to have fun this morning.
13. consider and take appropriate action regarding compensation issues, including: a, revised recommendations from hrmd and unresolved issues from departments related to the job analysis project conducted by hrmd during fiscal year 2011-12 and other compensation recommendations; after a, we'll take up b, employees not covered by the market survey, including purchasing office, auditor's office, employees on the peace officer pay scale and elected officials (fy 2013); that's what we indicate there because there is a separate legally required procedure for elected officials.
including timing.
then c is outstanding issues from compensation policy report and general schedule for follow-up action.
ms. Flemming did provide us two or three issues that we need to take up under c, right?
and also under c the -- the interim tax assessor has asked for membership on the compensation committee.
dusty knight represented the tax assessor previously, he stepped either -- I guess he stepped off with retirement.
so the current acting tax assessor wants to be a member.
let's think about that so when we call up c, we'll do that.
ms. Flemming?

>> I was just going to say since you referenced that issue, though, that there may be a couple other little cleanup things that the compensation committee needs to do in reauthorizing the group.
and so we would hope that we would have an opportunity to assemble in some group of the compensation committee and make sure that we take care of all of those things at the same time.

>> is that assemble today or assemble after today?

>> whatever -- whatever the pleasure of the court is, judge.

>> you all are ready to --

>> I'm not sure that we know all of them, judge.
we have a couple of them that we know, I'm not sure that we know all of them because we haven't polled the committee to determine if there are any other changes among the membership.
we have not taken that step yet.

>> okay.

>> let's discuss a.

>> diane perot director of hrmd.
we were directed by the court two weeks ago to go back and work with departments with regards to some of the outstanding issues, that there wasn't resolution on: todd and his team, primarily carlotta have been doing a lot of work with the various departments, reviewing paq's and trying to work out resolutions, we did provide a backup late Friday afternoon.
I do wants to call your attention to page 4, under the department of medical examiner, there is a typo on that.
we did make sure that danny hobby was aware.
in the resolution hrmd recommends a grade 28, not 29 on that.
we are aware of it and made sure they know that.
even since Friday we've had a couple of more resolutions on this.
so I'm going to turn this over to todd.
we feel that the court needs to approve the resolutions that we have come to and also there might be some decision making that needs to be done today.
so I'm going to turn this over to todd.

>> good morning, judge, good morning, Commissioners, todd osborne, compensation manager, hrmd.
to my left, carlotta valdez levy, senior compensation analyst.
diane is exactly right.
two weeks ago, you approved most of the -- what's commonly referred to as the mss study, we certainly appreciate that.
but you also directed us to go back and work with the departments wherever we had some disagreements.
and we said that we would certainly be happy to do that.
I'm happy to say that for the most part we have reached agreement on I want to say almost every issue, but there are a couple that are still outstanding.
and this isn't that unusual.
reasonable people can come to different conclusions from the same set of facts, sometimes it just depends on which point of view you are coming from.
anyway, I want to begin with the items that had an effect on pay grades.
there were four resolutions made with departments that had an impact on the pay grades that were approved back on the 13th.
the first is the intergovernmental relations coordinator.
which we had originally recommended to go to a pay grade 27.
we are now recommending that to go to a pay grade 28 based on reanalysis of the market.
the tax supervisor position has 12 -- has 12 slots, we are working with the tax department, our original recommendation was to go to a pay grade 19 and we are recommending that job to go to a pay grade 20 as a result of the resolution with the department.

>> okay.
should we be looking at the color coded sheets?
the yellow, green and red?

>> these are our backup sheets, so really they are really not part of -- not part of the backup.

>> all right.
because I don't see the first one that you mentioned.
intergovernmental --

>> it's under the resolved.
it's under the resolved issues in the backup.

>> it's on the bottom of page 3, judge.

>> I'm sorry.
yes, it is on the bottom of page 3.

>> okay.
what should I do with these that we -- that we used when we were in the conference room a few days ago?
will that just throw me off.

>> probably will.
I think that he's going to --

>> I wasn't going off of that list, but -- but I think that I will prefer to go off of the backup.

>> why don't we just start with the revolved and we will come directly off of the backup.

>> okay.
that's what I was doing.

>> okay.
you were doing it in different order, so ...

>> you wanted to go off the backup.

>> I think it would be easier for people to follow.

>> are we altogether on what we are using.
starting on page 3, the top of passenger 3.
we're going to start with the resolved issues --

>> bag to page 3 on the back -- going to page 3 the tax assessor collector had an issue with the Texas supervisor, we recommended pay grade 19 working through the department we are now recommending a pay grade 20, we would like to include this in your benchmarking in fy '13.
12 slots affected here.
next job volunteer coordinator.
we reached resolution with the department, essentially this job will remain with the job coordinator for now, we will possibly examine this for reclassification after the project is completed.
essentially this came to us very late and we didn't have time to address it to our satisfaction, probably not to theirs, so we ask for some additional time, not to take up the court's time with this position.
the same is true with the business analyst 1 slot, slot 37, again kind of a late request for review.
we agree that we continue to discuss it, but we didn't want to hold up the project for it.
slot 100 in the tax office, the department had recommended a reclassification from an accountant senior to an accountant lead, which we have concurred with.
and that is -- that is a recommendation for tax.

>> 21?

>> it's pay grade 21, correct.
in the cscd, they had requested that their probation case work managers go from a 19 to 20 to maintain parity with juvenile probation managers, we have agreed to that recommendation, we are aware that cscd may not have the funding to fund this change, but we are also going to go ahead and recommend that the court move the pay grade from a 19 to a 20.
our intergovernmental relations coordinator, we recommended go to a paid grade 27 from a 26.
after reviewing the market data and requiring some additional information, we are now recommending that jobbing to a pay grade 28.
we had three jobs in the medical examiner's office, the chief administrative officer, which we had originally recommended for pay grade 28, we still believe that's the correct pay grade and -- and the department has agreed.
the forensic autopsy tech positions we had originally recommended 13.
the department wanted a 14.
the department has agreed that -- that the market better reflects it in a pay grade 13 and so we are recommending keeping that in place and for the chief forensic autopsy tech, again, we are recommending that the job stay in pay grade 19.
the department wanted a pay grade 20 and again the market does show that the job does play in a pay grade 19 and the department is okay with leaving it there.
in health and human services, the first one was for multiple requests for reclassification of social services program specialists and the department had requested that these be reclassified to a social services program coordinator and a pay grade 18.
after -- after a lot of review and discussion with the department, our recommendation is to keep the positions as social services program specialists, but move the grade from a 16 to a 17.
there was one slot, slot 286, an educational instructional specialist.
that job does need to be reclassified to a social services program specialist, that would go from a 13 to a 17, we agree with that recommend days for reclass, case management coordinator in slot 213, the department requested a reclassification to a -- originally to a planning program project manager.
and our recommendation is that instead of that position, the position that would fit better is a social services program administrator, so we are recommending a reclass to that position in pay grade 21.
also, slot 246 the department had recommended a reclassification two -- two planning -- to planning program project manager.
we had recommended basically keeping it where it was.
the department agrees with that for now and then in the last two positions the department would like some help from hrmd to look at the organization of their social services programs in the future and that's something that we would be happy to do.
slot 12, human resources specialist 1, we had already recommended that job be reclassed to an hr specialist 2.
the department thought it should go up to hr specialist senior.
we didn't agree, we thought it was properly classified as a 2.
the department has agreed with our recommendation.

>> that's 20?

>> correct.

>> ride.

>> correct.
pay grade 20.

>> you didn't say anything about the -- about the social services program administrator, but I think the backup shows that's a 21?

>> that's correct.

>> okay.

>> going down to slot 267.
the market recommends that the planner senior jobbing from a 20 to a 21.
the department originally requested a reclass to a planning manager which would be a pay grade 24 in the proposed solution after the discussion with the department.
we had created a new title of planning project manager in pay grade 23 and the department has agreed this is the best title for this position, so we're asking for a reclass of that position.
there were two planner slots, 205 and 262, the department recommended go to a planner senior after going through the paq's, speaking with the incumbents and doing some desk audits, we agree with that assessment.
we would like those two slots reclassified to a planner senior in pay grade 21.
also in hhs, there was a home repair supervisor position in slot 25.
this is a position that had over time kind of evolved into a hybrid between a home repair supervisor and -- and it position.
within that program, it requires a certain amount of database maintenance and it in programming.
which this incumbent had kind of evolved into that classification.
so we recommended that a new title be created and it would be called a technical home repair supervisor, that job be put in pay grade 19 and that this person be reclassified into that new title.
cost estimator in slot 34, this is a question if the rest of the jobs in engineering moved why didn't this one.
sometimes the market works that way, not necessarily every job will move in current.
they requested we take a second look at it, we did.
we are comfortable leaving that in pay grade 23, the department agreed with our recommendation.
the parking coordinator job slot 3 is a new title.
essentially this is a reclass.
really what the department wanted to know is how do we get to recommending pay grade 12.
we explained that this was a -- this was a market recommendation.
but since it is a new title, we said that we would take a second look at this in fy 13 as part of the benchmarking, for now we're going to recommend it stay in the pay grade 12, the department is okay with that.
the building security guards went from a pay grade 8 to a pay grade 9.
the department really is kind of questions if pay grade 10 was a better place for it.
the market data did show it got close to a 10 but eventually you have got to draw a line somewhere and so we're recommending that that job repain in the pay grade -- remain in 9 for now and we will take a second look at it next year.
the department is okay with that is that how many slots?
for the building --

>> I want to say 18.

>> it just says multiple.

>> the last job in facilities that we want to discuss is the human resources specialist 1, basically you have a department of approximately 180 people, counting temps, the person doing the hr work in that department is an hr specialist 1.
the department wanted us to take a look and see if maybe due to the size of the department scope of the job the job shouldn't necessarily be a special 1 but changed to a specialist 2.
we agreed with that, we are recommending that jobbing from a pay grade 18 to pay grade 20, the department is on board with that.
on the custodians, this wasn't so much a request for a reclass and new grade or anything, this is one where the department discovered that they had despite the move from pay grade 5 to 7, some of their positions at the red line.
they wanted to n if we would consider moving the pay grade maximum for jobs within that pay grade and I explained that we had actually worked on the pay scale itself last year.
we really aren't planning to address the pay scale itself until 2015.
while I don't think that they were thrilled with that answer, I think they were comfortable with it.
I don't think we have a problem on this.

>> is this the result of the $2 across the board increase?

>> it is.
that's why there's still people on the red line --

>>

>> [indiscernible] 14.04 per hour.

>> so the market is catching up.

>> finally, the building services supervisor.
this is one where the department really needed a reclassification, this is somebody who was going to be supervising the security program, the -- the security guard supervisors and security guards.
so it's basically a reclass on the -- from the 15 to a 17.
we agree with that recommendation.
tnr had one.
one human resources specialist senior.
and that job is actually going -- it's actually going to a pay grade 21.
we had --

>> going down to a 20.

>> anyway, the department requested a reclassification to human resources manager, based upon the scope of the job and the way other county departments had situated their hr personnel, we agreed that that recommendation, so that's a reclass to a pay grade 24 for slot 86.
so those are the items that were resolved over the span of two weeks.
and -- and we currently have -- well, I'm going to add one more because it came in late.
there's an hvac refrigerator mechanic slot 75 that facilities wanted us to take a second look at.
after some discussion they've agreed that pay grade 15 is okay for that for now and they want us to keep an eye on it, which we will.

>> that's on the top of page 2, we had it unresolved late Friday, it is resolved as of today.

>> I have a couple of questions.
most of these are increases, grade increases I guess of one or two.
but a few are four or five.
so when we see more than one or two, what should we conclude?

>> you can conclude that the person was in a reclassification, operating at a level that was significantly below where they should have been classified.

>> and the basic job duties and responsibilities would justify the new recommendation.

>> that's correct.

>> if we were to look at these individually.

>> correct.

>> okay.

>> I guess that's because you did do the -- the audits.
that helps to make -- make sure that we're doing comparable comparisons with the -- with those markets.

>> so that leaves us with --

>> well, hold on, why don't we hear from those, if any, for

>> [indiscernible] agreement represented today if they disagree with that.
the so we have just been given a list of -- I guess pages 1 through -- pages 3 through 7.
resolve issues and if you heard your positions mentioned, if you would like to give comments, this is the opportunity.
while ms. Flemming is on the way up, when you said that we would address those issues in the future, some you mean 2013 others later.

>> others could be later, correct.

>> and so what's the plan with the -- regarding future market salary surveys.

>> the plan is the next comprehensive study that we just did, like we just did is going to take place in -- in 2015 and in the intervening years we will do a benchmark study of approximately 75 positions each year to represent essentially our workforce to pull out any troubled classifications or classifications where we suspect due to recruitment or reattention issues or -- retention issues, that we would survey those positions and in the intervening years come back to the court with some possible recommendations, just basic maintenance of our classification and compensation system so that we can catch some of the market movement before it all comes back at one time in 2015.
it's a -- it's a maintenance effort.

>> we plan to --

>> I'm used to thinking in terms of three years, 2015 is --

>> it's four years.

>> will be four years away from when we started.

>> that's correct.

>> that's what the new comp policy is recommending that we do everybody at one time every four years, then we benchmark in the intervening years, that will be item no.
3 talking about the compensation policy, that's what it's recommending.
we plan on that benchmarking process in December of 2013, in about seven months we plan on starting the benchmarking process for -- 2012, I'm sorry, December of 2012.
in addition, so most of the time when we are saying we're going to do this as part of the benchmark, we mean that we're going to start that in December of this year.
there was a couple of positions we talked about specifically in hhs coming back after this is done over the summer to look at.
some of what sherri expressed to us was needing a go-forward not necessarily what was happening in 2011, but really setting upper department on a go-forward basis we thought that p.b.o., hrmd, hhs should work together to look at a possible reorg if that's what she needs for a go forward basis so --

>> ms. Flemming.

>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, sherri flemming, county executive for health and human services.
I just have a few sort of general comments that I think are important to this process overall.
the first is I that we should always strive across hhs or the county to be as equitable as possible.
keeping in mind of course that sometimes equity is in the eye of the beholder.
the other thing that is think is equally as important is the vision that the departments have for their business and going forward.
I think that we are charged not only with doing the business of the court, but we are also charged with having some vision for how that business should be conducted, doing so in the most equitable way, not only for the taxpayers, but also recognizing the tremendous commitment of our employees and the jobs that they do.
and in that vein, who is the best -- the best person, if you will, or the best individuals to determine whether or not a particular change is in the best interest of the business of the department.
so while we appreciate the work period of time hrmd, we do feel like the department's needs and its vision have not been properly represented in this process.
I think that we believe that the recommendations that were sent forward were not sent forward lightly.
and yes we are talking about positions that indicate in your backup that they are resolved but they are resolved in that we had to reach some common ground to ensure that our employees receive some recognition for the work that they are doing and that they be a part of this process.
so I think it's important for us to make that point.
we appreciate the offer from hrmd to continue to look at this process.
however, it does leave our employees short.
it does leave them without recognition for the jobs that they are doing today.
and so finally, I want to thank those employees because throughout this process, many of those employees even realizing the uncertainty of that process have said you know what, tomorrow I'm going to still do my job the same way that I'm doing it today.
so I thank those employees for that because the best that we can do is advocate and display the vision for the department and recognition of the work that the staff is doing and hope that it comes out in their favor.

>> thank you for those comments and I guess the judge hit the nail right on the head I guess when he's asking for persons that -- that need to have input in the process.
as we go forward.
let me say this, though, I think that it's pretty important in my mind that -- I think that I have asked the question before.
at what stage of -- of input as far as the departments are concerned, regardless of -- you just --

>> [indiscernible] hhs and -- but you come forward and you echo something that I think we need to pay strictly -- strong attention to it, it may be similar to the other departments.
my question is though what stage of the process must departments get involved whereby the -- this discussion here today will not be necessary per se in the future if those things can be resolved in making sure that both departments are on the same page.
I don't know exactly how and how far back that -- that may not be the problem.
as far as the timeliness of when you got involved in the process as far as the decisions that are being made here today.
or is it deeper than that, is it something that you have not agreed on as far as what you think the outcome should be based on what?
and the what portion is what I'm trying to get after.
and if there is some what that's left out there, then we need to know what it is.
especially if it comes to what -- what you described.
as far as the services that's being rendered by an individual, but yet the pay doesn't match the service.
that the employee is doing.
so somewhere along the line there's a mismatch.
what I'm trying to do here in my mind is -- is -- facilitate and try to make sure that we come up with the resolution on the mismatch, because that's exactly what I'm hearing.
I've been hearing it.
so from other departments.
so somewhere along the line we've got to resolve that.
maybe not today, but I would like to see what those mismatches are as far as making sure that we have a smoother transition but not only that, make sure that we have a transition where it meets the -- the -- the pay portion of the service that's being rendered by the employee that is providing that service.
now, it may be across the board, I don't know if it's -- in these particular cases, I don't know really know who is, who is not, but it just appears that we do have a mismatch.
I want to know what that mismatch is, if so, how do we get to it to resolve it in a timely manner to make sure that we come up with the resolve.
I hope that you understand what I'm saying.

>> I would like to address.
first of all, I would like to address your question.
the process starts with the employees.
the process starts with the paq and the process starts with the managers reviewing the paq's that each one of their employees is asked to fill out from the very beginning that's where the process starts.
the managers are asked to give a memo to let us know if any areas of concern at the onset.
the process starts for us, we're not here telling anybody what their business is, where their business needs to go.
we compare a job description that hopefully the management has been involved in at the very beginning and a paq that the manager approved to come to us and we compare those two things.
that doesn't start with hrmd deciding what the job should be and doesn't start with hrmd deciding what the people out there are doing.
we are simply comparing what the department has told us the job should be and the department has told us the employee is doing.
some of these things are conciliation, we do not see these people need to be upgraded to a coordinator position.
the coordinator position is very, very simply according to the job description somebody who is coordinating one or more.
some of these people are coordinating a portion.
so we made a conciliation of raising that grade up.
what was is there be no more specialists, how many slots, 12 shots.
there would be no more specialists that job could not be filled anymore, everybody would be a coordinator.
what we are trying to do also is take a look at what you provided us at the beginning, which is the job description, what you provided us in the process, the questionnaire, matched those together.
the market data is the market data.
we don't make that up, we go out and get the data.
we are happy to share that data with anybody.
that's simply the market data.
we do understand that people are going to disagree with us.
we are willing to work with people.
but to say we are trying to tell you how to run your business is a complete misstatement.
we're though the trying to do -- we're not trying to do that.
that's why we asked about doing a reorg, what was expressed to us, I'm trying to set up my business on a go forward basis.
that may not be a lot of reclasses that may be a reorganization, let us work with you in the budget process, we are happy to do that?
any reply to the response, ms. Flemming, then to ms. Dana debeauvoir for county clerk issues.

>> ms. Blankenship and I -- I'm sorry, mrs.
perot and I have had this discussion and it's apparent that we don't agree.
I don't believe that I said that hr is trying to tell us.
I did say who is the best person in the position to know.

>> that is the implication, sherri.

>> well, you know.
at the end of the day, though, I think that we all have our areas of expertise and my request would be that each pump's area of expert -- each person's area of expertise would be valued for what it is.
we value and in fact ask hrmd to review certain positions and give us feedback on what we should do because the department understands that there's not only equity in our department but also equity across the county.
but I do believe that more attention should be paid to the department's needs and that we should look at this more broadly in that frame thing in a way that basically looks like an issue of money, because it's not just about money, it's about recognition for the work that staff is doing.
and so -- so we -- we have agreed to disagree, obviously.
because we are showing this issue as resolved at this moment in time.
but I -- but I would still contend that -- that as a department head I would like to see more attention paid to the needs of department across the board.
ms. Dana debeauvoir speaking of areas of interest.

>> can I ask sherri one question.

>> certainly.

>> how many people are employed in health and human services and veterans services.

>> 200, plus probably another 25, 30.

>> how many positions have been under question, either unresolved --

>> we have one listed in the unresolved section of the backup, then these are 15 positions that we're talking about with, with a change of pay grade of less -- of one, I believe.
the majority is a movement of one pay grade that we are disputing here.

>> the issue is whether the pay grade increase should be two or one?

>> yes.

>>

>> [multiple voices]

>>

>> hrmd is saying that they will do further work after action taken on these, so I guess sometimes next year.

>> we are happy, we actually said we would start over the summer and make it part of the budget process --

>>

>> [multiple voices]

>> any other questions from the court to ms. Flemming.

>> I have just -- I'm not sure if -- if I -- I think that I see where Commissioner Huber is going.
of the 200 plus hr employees, what certainly had a pay grade increase in the market salary survey?

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> then there was an average movement of one to two pay grades across the department.

>> so we are seeing movements and it's positive movements, you just don't think that it's movement enough, given the -- the product that some employees are providing.

>> the -- the employees we're talking about are -- are employees that are in the coming of age problems, so we've had a shift in -- in the program itself.

>> what they are doing is different than today.
what we are trying to articulate is we have a 180-degree change in the ram that facilitates the need for these positions to go from specialists to coordinators.

>> so bringing into -- bringing into the conversation some of our off line conversations about your desires for hr, I mean, for hhs, it does sound like hhs is in some transition for which the paqs and job descriptions may be lagging, is that a fair --

>> I would say that is fair but even today we believe the current specialists are more suited toward the coordinator positions as they are written today.

>> we have had discussion about the -- sort of the mezzanine management level and growing the mezzanine managers to have greater supervisory capacity through providing them the steps, opportunities to have larger and larger scopes of supervision, so it does seem that we may be a department in transition for which the job descriptions have not quite caught up.

>> that's true.
there's also -- I apologize for prolonging this, but there's also the internal relationships that shift just from the market study itself.
so when you look at the shifting of other positions and how they affect that position, we believe our recommendation was sound.

>> ms. Dana debeauvoir.

>> as long as sherri is here, there was one --

>> but I was hoping that the resolved ones would boom we would be able to approve those and go to unresolved.
we are dealing with resolved issues.
so the county judge and I guess the rest of the court suggested that we try to compromise those where it did not appear that we would reach agreement during the two weeks that we had.
that is in fact the case.
however, our work does not stop here.
our work for this year may stop here but there would b% a list of issues after this, it seems to me, so -- so in my view, we ought to commit to work on those issues next year.
ms. Debouvior.

>> first of all, let me say thank you to hrmd for finishing this huge project on market salary survey, let me also thank the court for your investing in our workforce to get this done.
we are so grateful that you did this.
I'm here really as a matter of a policy question and that's about tying the county clerk's office to the tax office for past and future purposes of salary determinations and organizational determinations for the future.
it is because of the similarity of the duties that are performed by the tax office and the county clerk, both offices handle responsibilities that are associated with real property and elections and collect significant revenue for county government and I had submitted to you a chart that shows that both offices are multi-function.
the county clerk isn't one centric service.
what we do is we handle real property deeds with marriage licenses, dba's, you know, all of that having to do with the direct public service.
then I also handle civil, criminal, and probate and Commissioners court clerk of the court plus elections.
now, when the court discussed this comparative issue back in 2000, it was clear that the offices were very similar in being multi-function.
and but the court delayed the taking action on the similarity between the two offices until 2004 and one of the things that seemed to be important to that court then when they did match the salaries of the county clerk and the tax assessor collector together, was that in 2003 the county clerk volunteered to take over election services for all of the jurisdictions in Travis County, very like voter registration offers voter registration services to all of the jurisdictions within Travis County.
so it really is apples to apples comparison, our offices look almost identical in the scope of services provided.
so we -- in 2004, the court voted to put the salaries of the elected officials together.
the discussion in court at that time was a much broader discussion about the structure of the two offices being very similar and that very year we moved the two offices together because of their customer outreach.
we had so many customers we needed to put them in a building where they could easily get to us.
so the similarities between the offices are very obvious.
the one action item that I'm asking today, there is very little difference between our agreement, is that the county clerk's chief deputy also be included and it seems a little common sense, but I actually need a vote on it.
that the county clerk's chief deputy also be included in that policy decision that comparison between the county clerk and the tax assessor collector.
I thought we had decided this way back in 2004.
there seems to be with our new folks some question about that.
I would like for us to settle it.
so that I don't have to keep coming back to you for the clarification.
I would greatly appreciate the recognition that we are multi-function and the scope is very similar with the tax office and I would appreciate your support today.

>> is the job description similar between the two?

>> yes, it is.
it's because -- it's because of the fact of the office, the chief deputy has to cover all of that scope just like the tax office chief deputy has to cover all of the scope of their office.

>> but one elected official may use their chief deputy in different ways, in hr, are the job descriptions sufficiently similar to be in the same grade from a market standpoint.

>> those are two different questions.
from a job description standpoint yes they are very similar.
from market standpoint we have the tax office being a little bit higher, about one pay grade higher.
we would also like during the discussion of this issue we're going to have to land on where the deputy and chief clerk office land as well.

>> why?

>> hold on.

>> one of the resolved issues on pages 3 through 8.

>> no.
this is on page 1.

>> that's what we take up next.
my request is that we deal with the "resolved issues" that are set forth on 3 through 8.
I really thought this would be simpler and faster and that we spent the bulk of our time on unresolved that includes the one that dana just mentioned.
danny, are you about to comment on pages 3 through 8.

>> I was going to comment on unresolved issues.

>> all right.
we'll get to you real soon.

>> carol.

>> well, you could say it was resolved based on the recommendation that was made, but I don't believe it was resolved.
I guess my concern, I have to echo what ms. Flemming said regarding the positions in her department.
but I'm here specifically regarding the veterans services office.

>> is that pages 3 through 8.

>> yes, it is in there.

>> which item is that?
hrmd?

>> excuse me, if I could interject.
it's on page 4, but when todd went down through the page.

>> page what?

>> 4.

>> page 4.

>> the last one.

>> human services and veterans services.

>> okay.

>> and he ---- mitted to really -- to express what he -- what the recommendation on the document meant or said.

>> this says they recommend grade 17.

>> yes.
but originally, they had recommended a -- you know, before there were unresolved issues, the recommendation was the coordinator position at an 18.
and then when they got back together working on resolving the issues, then the position came back as a 17.
and so my concern is obviously it was my understanding that -- that the paq was submitted.
I believe there was a desk audit in this particular area and as you know, veterans itself has -- has grown with all of the different wars that we've had and so forth.
so you can imagine the employee thought they were going to an 18 and then today for whatever reason, I don't know that reason, I haven't had an opportunity to talk to sherri about what happened in between there, but the concern is your process is to review the paq's and then make a recommendation, which they did, and then when they went back over the two weeks, now the position is at 17.
and I guess, you know, I don't know what happened in between there.
but -- but obviously that's a concern because the employees understood it to be at an 18.

>> if I could comment for just a quick second.
the original recommendation, I believe, todd correct me if I'm wrong, was that these positions remain, social service program specialists atmosphere a pay grade 16, which did not move and after extensive desk audits we recommended that they move with the movement of the social service program specialist, the revised recommendation, to pay grade 17.
I don't believe that they were ever in an 18 or a 17.

>> they were requested.

>> yeah.

>> well, this says move to 17 immediately.
and further review of these positions after completion of the mss for possible reorganization.

>> and I'm sorry, I left out one detail.
one critical detail.
we are returning to the title of assistant veterans services officer, which these positions held oh, probably six years ago, something like that.
because we realized that with the evolution of the office and the duties that a specialized title is more appropriate for these positions.
so we pegged those at a 17 for assistant veteran services officers.

>> the recommendation today is a 17, plus additional review.

>> yes.

>> and so is that a good compromise at 11:29 a.m.
today.

>> personally, no.

>> okay.

>> I would view that all of the assistant veterans service officers use the same grade increase as it was initially promoted.
recommended.
I feel that -- that changing the social services specialist, coordinator, back to the veterans assistant services officer position is a good move.
it distinguishes those individuals from a social services type of program.
we're not social services type programmees, ers, we are making a difference before the individuals that their benefits that they receive that they are duly entitled to in turn bringing income revenue back to the county.
those individuals that are maxed out on those particular benefits are individuals that are hopefully in the long run are not going to turn to the basic needs program and receiving the -- assistance there.
I disagree with the level.
I respectfully say thank you for bringing it back to -- as -- as assistant service officers, we should be duly noted.
I'm just not happy with that level when the initial recommendation looked at an 18 across the board then come back desk audit

>> [indiscernible]

>> judge, what originally happened was -- we have three positions that our assistant veterans services officers.
the original hr recommendation was to take one position to level 18 which was not acceptable to the department because we had two similarly situated positions that were the same.
in reviewing, you know, in our asking that these specialists, which is what they were originally titled, be reviewed, they were all taken back to this pay grade 17.
which is what the department has disagreed with.

>> well, here's my problem.
I think this court can receive all of the relevant information and decide whether these three positions ought to be 17 or 18.
I'm not convinced that we really can do that today.
so my recommendation would be for us to start an unresolved issues list that we spend, plan to spend more time on after -- after today.

>> sounds like you want to take your hhs issues off of the resolution compromise list and put it on the unresolved list, is that what I'm hearing?

>> well, our interest was not to penalize the employees for this issue not being resolved.
so we accepted the 17 so that they could move forward and receive some compensation for the positions in the work that they are doing.
so if we're going to pull them off the list to receive their adjustments, then that would not be the recommend recommend -- recommendation of the department because we wouldn't want the employees be penalized.

>> I would say take the amount recommended and we commit to revisit the issue as soon as we can, if we increase that further welcome do it.

>> the department intends to put this issue in the fy '13 budget process.

>> also, I think it's a real good points that you make, judge.
a lot of departments may, I don't know, I'm hearing a lot of different things.
it would be good for me, going into the fy '13, stuff like that, it would be good for us to have in in a timely manner, especially in these unresolved issues.
looks like as we go through here, you hear different episodes of what's going on here, I think the judge made a good point.
I would like to move forward with what we're doing now.
however, I think that we have issues that we need to deal with immediately in fy '13, we need to see it in writing.
I would like to see it in writing.
really, I would like to see it in writing.
timeliness of getting it in writing is going to be real critical because we're getting ready to go through a budget process here.

>> Commissioner Huber?

>> > the positions, not slots, how many positions were reviewed in the market salary survey.

>> how many employees.

>> about 3600.

>> about 3600.

>> we have -- we have how many positions that are -- that are -- let's just put them together.
resolved but still need work or unresolved.
I would say purely unresolved we have about five.
I'm not sure how to answer the second part, resolved but unresolved because I thought they were resolved.

>> let's just call them unresolved.

>> page 3 through 6.

>> we thought we came to a resolution, quite frankly, it's -- I'm new to the county it appears if it didn't go your way it really isn't resolved or if there was some kind of compromise it really isn't quite resolved.

>> the -- I think the answer Commissioner Eckhardt is about 20 to 25.

>> we are actually in pretty good shape.
we just have a little more work to do.

>> yeah, we're talking about 3600 -- 3600 peoples.
slots.

>> most of it is reclassification issues.
it's not necessarily market issues.
that's why we would like the reclassification issues to be addressed year after year as part of the budget process because it's very difficult to do on top of the market salary survey, on top of that.
we have a budget process every year to be looking at reclassifications, reorganizations.

>> where I was headed to, we have really done a lot of good work here.
the greater percentage of it.
there is no perfect solution that everybody is going to be happy with.
but it's a process.
we always continue.
so I think that -- that what the judge is saying is kind of where I am.
we need to -- we need to start where we are now, then keep perfecting this process.

>> Commissioner, I wouldn't disagree with that.
I think that in some cases the terminology of resolved does not truly capture the place where we ended up.
I think that at least for me that's the point we're trying to make.
yes, we need to move on, but there are some key issues here that we need to figure out.

>> that's what I'm saying.
if we need to take those that are resolved and just say they are not completely resolved but we're going to start from here, let's do it.
we can argue about semi man sems all day long, the bottom line is we need a consensus.

>> we are making a huge step forward.

>> are we ready to approve, judge, from pages 3 to 7.

>> let's see what mr. Hobby has for us.

>> I will try to be short.
I was going to make that recommendation as well.
those that are unresolved that we just take more time with that.
I'm completely satisfied with everything that they did.
these two people todd and carlotta couldn't have been greater with my areas, my divisions.
there were some that I did not agree with, some I still don't agree with, the ones that he mentioned.
but I can't do any more than what they have done in regards to their study.
they have allowed me three times to come and protest.
I have worn them out.
at the time for me I used to be a personnel director.
I used to be on the other side of this.
when we ask them to go and do something, they go do it, they ask for people to come in and talk with them that aren't in agreement with it, they go back and look at it again and again, they feel like in their hearts and minds they have done everything that they are supposed to do, that they were charged to do, I accept that.
that doesn't mean I agree with it.
I think that I have some special situations that I this I that I can justify in my mind, but not in their mind because they studied it and did a market study to do it.
when I say that I have resolved and I'm okay with what they have done, I am okay with what they have done.
what I have got to do now is I've got to go look at those positions that I have, for instance the autopsy techs, I've got to say okay I want to make sure that I'm not going to lose those people because we do have high turnover.
regardless of how the study came out, I still have an operational concern.
I still have issues that I need to deal with.
but they allow me and you allow me opportunities of how to resolve that.
that's what I'm going to go do is look at those other three or four alternatives that I have in looking at the positions that I'm still not satisfied through the market study, but that doesn't mean that I'm not satisfied with the job that you did.
that's kind of where I'm at with this, judge.
I wanted you to know that, I need to speak up on behalf of my employees.
there are some things that I'm not satisfied with that I am satisfied with what they did.

>> thank you.

>> thank you, judge.

>> now, todd would like to resolve to compromise.

>> [laughter] if we look at pages 3 through 8, we put an asterisk by the veterans services program specialist to indicate our intention to revisit that and if we do the same thing for the -- for the health and human services, where are those positions that were specialists instead of coordinators?

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> same group, judge.

>> within that --

>> let's just indicate our intention to revisit that later on and try to make progress on pages 3 through 8.
Commissioner Gomez did have a motion, right.

>> yes, I do, from page 3 to 7 is what I have, my backup shows.
it's there a page 8.

>> I'm sorry, 7,.

>> 7.

>> second the motion.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now let's get to the easy ones I guess, the unresolved ones.
which I will callo outstanding.

>> judge, I think -- I think that I'm just going to follow up on what dana had presented.
I do remember that discussion because I was here and I don't understand why it didn't get in the minutes.
but at that discussion, I think it was in 2004, she also brought forth, the budget, an elections administrator and what that would cost us if we -- if we hired an elections administrator instead of the county clerk dealing with the elections.
there was a great amount of savings to the county by her graciously taking on those additional duties.
and that -- that was one of the reasons why -- why we thought that -- that we could compare, make a good comparison, with the way the office is operated and then also the -- the chief deputies and the staff.
to carry out parallel duties.
and so -- so I don't know maybe I need to go back in my files and see if I can find that information but anyway I think that it's in order to -- to ask that -- to ask that the chief deputies be part of the policy to have them operate and be compared

>> [multiple voices]

>> dana here.

>> hrmd did not have a position on this.
we asked the court to decide because what we couldn't find in the minutes that we looked for was where the deputy clerks were aligned.
we felt like we were here to give you the market data.
if you wanted to for internal equity reasons permanently align these we should give that to the court to do.

>> that would be in my position, judge.

>> that would be for connecting the county clerk deputy chief to the tax office deputy chief, does that also connect the district clerk position as well?

>> I don't know.

>> other job duties.
I mean, it sounds like for me the rationale is that their job duties are so similar and their service lines and population served are so similar that I don't think that could be said of the district clerk's chief deputy.
I have no idea what the pay grade should be there, but I rationale would be different.

>> sure.
the district clerk did not submit that request.
we wanted to show as a potential issue just in case.
it may come up.
we showed the cost for both of them on page 9.

>> [multiple voices]

>> both of them treated the same historically.

>> well, that's the point that's been kind of the problem because we have a similar name people kind of lump us together.
but the point that I'm trying to make here is that the policy should be that the similar offices are treated the same regardless of title.
and that's the point that I'm trying to make.
we are multi-function, we're not court centric.
that's where we should be compared.

>> may I play semantics here.
instead of titles this is an exception to -- to a title to title comparison because I think that -- if -- is that the what the -- what the probable explanation of the difference in market is, that the title, the titles are similar, in district clerk chief deputy and county clerk chief deputy, but the job descriptions are similar in our universe between chief tax assessor collector or deputy tax assessor collector and deputy county clerk.

>> especially since I do elections, that's not the case in every county.

>> that's what I'm getting at here.
normally one could utilize similar title as at least an indication of apples to apples.
but in this case, you are kind of an outlier.

>> yes.

>> but travis historically have we treated the chief deputy and the county clerk's office the same as the district clerk's office.

>> I would have to --

>> we did some of the research, historically with the exception of a couple of years, they have been at the same pay grade, approved at the same pay grade.
but again --

>> that's unclear whether it was market

>> [multiple voices]

>> I haven't been able to make this stick.
it goes back.
if we get new people it's forgotten that I did this.
I don't keep up with it.
we're too busy paying attention to the multi-focus goals of our office.

>> which is why we want the court action on it.

>> what would our minutes show.

>> the minutes would show that you had a broad discussion about the scope of the office and that the vote was on the county clerk and tax assessor collector --

>> what do our minutes show?

>> past minutes or minutes today?

>> past.

>> the past minutes show exactly what dana said.
in the past you have essentially agreed that the tax assessor collector and the county clerk titles would be the paid the same amount.
I do not find any record in the minutes that the agreement went beyond that particular title.
but it could have been one of those things that was -- just kind of implied by the discussion.

>> what did the agenda item say?
what did the listing say?

>> says consider and take appropriate action on request to increase county clerk's salary due to additional responsibilities, scope of office and additional revenue.

>> is that for the county clerk or the deputy?

>> that was for -- that was in 2004.
after you had talked about the scope of office in 2000.
and then in 2003 when I took over the rest of the elections and it came back in 2004, that's when you voted on it a second time.

>> did you already make the motion, Commissioner Gomez?

>> that's why today we want to include the chief deputies in the -- right.

>> yes, please.

>> as part of the policy to -- county clerk and the tax assessor collector.

>> but your motion is to basically increase the compensation for the chief deputy county clerk to the same as the deputy and --

>> and tax assessor collector.
one grade.

>> perhaps we may want to say something along the lines of those two jobs will be in the same pay grade from here on out as opposed to increase.
again, if you want to link them permanently, it would be nice to show something that linked them permanently

>> [multiple voices] after this, we show record that they were never really in the same pay grade after this.
so this apparently didn't get carried through --

>> I will take that as a friendly.

>> sorry.

>> thank you, sorry.

>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> thank you.

>> next unresolved issue.

>> [one moment please for change besides refrigeratormech.

>> no, that one was resolved.
we did ends up resolving that.
we discussed it when we discussed the three through seven.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> pretrial services.

>> I'm just going down your list on page 2, right?

>> okay.

>> todd, do you want to give background?

>> okay.
pretrial services, we're talking about three slots.
its title is pretrial manager.
on this one we recommended keeping this in a pay grade 20, which is where it was prior to the study.
the department requested that it go to a pay grade 21 to be a pay grade above what we had recommended for similar positions in juvenile probation and cscd.
I think the rationale for their argument is that in the past when they have been in a similar pay grade, that they've had trouble losing personnel to those other departments.
and that since they have been placed a pay grade ahead of the other positions, that they have not had those retention issues.
I will let them speak to that part of it.

>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.

>> good morning.

>> there's historical information that I'm going to give you all and basically, I guess there was concern about the wording that was used that there was not enough information provided.
but there are equity issues here.
and -- and when the initial mms results were shared with us in July, then in November, the probation case work manager had not changed, it remained at a 19.
then on March 13th, when the backup was being presented to the court, we noticed that -- that the juvenile case work manager had been proposed to change somewhere along the lines to a grade 20.
so historically, we've always maintained those same manager positions at the same pay grade.
so that's when dr. Nagy sent the letter to hr on March 13th bringing that to their attention.
and letting them know that, you know, we needed to have these equitable.
along with that is that the pretrial services managers have always been one pay grade ahead of the probation in that, you know, they have differences in -- in judgment, decision making, hours, different types of duties that they do as a manager, these are three positions.
that's what we included in that Friday March 13th letter.
then when the backup was prepared, there was information that there was not enough information, that's when we sent this detail letter information to hr yesterday, then we forwarded that to you all this morning.
we wanted you all to consider that because we really didn't -- we weren't asked for additional information and had we had it early on, or had they asked early on, we would have provided that.
but the other piece of that is that, you know, probation pretrial and now drug court are all one department.
and in addition to that, the drug court manager is proposed to go from a 20 to a 21.
and that drug court manager is in pretrial and so that's why we're just asking consideration for those three pretrial managers to also be moved to that pay grade 21.

>> so probation case worker manager and juvenile case worker manager are at 20?

>> yes.

>> and your argument is that pretrial case work manager should be a higher pay grade because they are distinct from those other two because they have -- those three positions have a broader scope of authority?

>> that's correct.

>> and that goes to subject matter and personnel supervised?

>> yes.

>> subject matter in that they are 24/7, they are making decisions, they're not staffing with anybody, they are at the jail making decisions on -- on issues that come up.
releases.
we have gps cases being monitored, domestic violence, serious cases where there's victims and if there's a violation they have to respond to that.
so those are independent critical decisions that the pretrial managers make 24/7 that is not applicable to our probation case work managers.
and --

>> so it's a higher stress job.

>> that, too, and the environment.
and back in '08, if -- I don't know if you all remember we came to you all about the career ladder for the pretrial officer family, and that's when you all approved that and that's when you all made the statement, also, about them being one pay grade ahead of the po 1, 2 and 3.
and they just kind of always were one pay grade ahead.
we presented that information back in '08 and that was agreed upon with hr and I know carlotta was here, diane wasn't or todd.
but so -- so --

>> ho do we lose pre-- so do we lose pretrial case workers to probation and juvie because it's similar job but --

>> I can direct that.

>> [indiscernible] one of the things is that we don't lose managers per se right now but we traditionally have been losing a lot of our officers to adult probation and juvenile probation, we were losing that tenure experience so if every one of our managers or let's say I decide to retire one of these days, that we would like to promote within that experience and that tenured individual.
so with our predicament back in those years was that we kept losing officers, so we didn't have that experience.
we always had to hire new people to train them just to lose them to juvenile probation or adult probation where they were working Monday through Friday type of job.
whereas with pretrial it was having to work seven days a week, nights, holidays and weekends.

>> isn't there a pay differential for that, though?

>> for most of the positions we have been able to get that approved through Commissioners court.
the officer position --

>> doesn't that essentially change the -- improve the pay grade circumstance because there is a pay grade differential for those?
because I remember voting on that the fact that you have to work nights or odd hours and --

>> right.
that might be something that we could look at.
but really right now our main push is not to lose what had been voted on back in 2008.
that gave us that -- that pay grade hike.
so that we could retain our people.
and I think evidence shows that we had been able to hold on to our officers.
right now through the career ladder, they are hanging in there and getting their proper promotions and our hope is that some of these officers, as -- as pretrial 3's and seniors, will one day might be able to -- in a competitive position, apply for that manager position.

>> so this is something that the state would pay?

>> not pretrial.
pretrial is by the county.
yet --

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> drug court.

>> and the other issue that the senior po would be a one pay grade lower than the manager if it's not changed.
then there's compression issues.
and, you know, so we maintained that we need that one pay grade.

>> okay.

>> so we

>> [multiple voices]

>>

>> [multiple voices]

>> evidence that the Commissioners court agreed to pay these one grade higher?

>> we can see that in 2008 that was addressed.
I can't tell if it's a forever issue or if it was in regulars to this market salary survey.
again, if you want to make it a forever, it would be nice to say --

>> I thought it was a forever thing

>> [laughter]

>> so the market data show what?
market is showing it should still be in the 20 -- it's properly classified from a market standpoint, but I don't think the issue here is necessarily a market issue that they are bringing before you.

>> so travis the fiscal impact is how much?

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> page 9 in the backup, less than $8,200.

>> when you say you don't think that it's necessarily a market issue, expound upon that because it is a very stressful job.
pretrial is an extremely stressful job.
so I'm presuming that people want to move over to juvie and probation because the hours are more stable for a while, although we have corrected that, that may explain some degree the -- the reduction in people moving out of the pretrial.
but for a while I recall there were three people to a cubicle at pretrial.

>> exactly.
the environment, stress level, hours, the type of population, the people that you are serving, you know, it's -- yeah, it's quite different from -- from the probation case work manager.
again, that one was changed, it was just changed, that wasn't the market.
it was changed that week that it was being presented to court.
we're glad it was changed but along with that we feel that the pretrial officer one should have been changed.
whether it's market or not, it's equity issue.

>> but other things have changed as well.
better physical working conditions for pretrial.

>> yes, absolutely, yes.

>> couldn't have gotten much worse.

>> yes.

>> and there was a pay differential established, which also approved the circumstance.
which also improved the circumstance.

>> yes, shift pay.

>> move that we pay these at grade 21.

>> second.

>> seconded by chose -- seconded by Commissioner Gomez.

>> second.

>> discussion?
no question about what we did in 2008, right?

>> no questions.

>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
I believe the next one is an hhs issue, has to do with the structure of our financial services division and we requested that a position be reclassified to a financial analyst lead so that we would have two positions of equal -- of equal grade and to be able to lead up to very -- very separate functions within the department.
hr's position had been that folks who are leading accounting units in the county are accountant leads.
we certainly understand that.
we understand the organizational equity issue.
however, it meets the department's lead for -- meets the department's need that these two positions just by virtue of how they are used in similar responsibility as unit managers, be similarly situated.
I -- I am not sure how it is equitable to -- to identify a manager of a unit and say just by virtue of -- of your work, you get paid less, you have similar responsibilities as someone else at a higher pay grade, but just by virtue of the fact that it's accounting versus contract compliance you get paid less.
so it -- maybe that is the market piece of this discussion.
but in terms of how the department would intend to use this position, it would certainly be -- we would have to modify the responsibilities of this position because these positions will not be paid at the same grade.
and that's not consistent with how we would use them in our department.

>> sherri, is it fair to say that hhs works more in a team function rather than a hierarchical function and that explains the disconnect.

>> yes.

>> hrmd what say you?

>> hrmd says -- hrmd says -- we had a -- in a compromise for the incumbent they had a vacant financial analyst lead position so they promoted this person to the vacant financial analyst lead position.
so this is going to be very just flawed at this points.
our position is we had to look at organizational equity, too.
across the organization people who lead accountants are accountant leads that grades out lower across the market than does financial analyst lead.
we feel we have to maintain equity, also.
there would be impact across the organization if we decided that people who lead accounts are not longer going to be accountant leads.
they would be financial analyst leads.
they would have a two pay grade difference at this point.
our position is if you are leading accountants you have an accountant lead.

>> how many

>> [indiscernible] across the organization.

>> I don't think sherri is proposing that.
I don't think sherri is proposing every accountant lead become a financial analyst lead.

>> I think if they function in the way we propose to use ours, I would certainly support that.

>> is there a way for us to reflect the difference in organizational style because I mean I -- you know, I love social workers.

>> [laughter] and so social workers have a tendency to work as teams rather than hierarchy.
we just don't like the whole hierarchy thing.
so we distribute, we distribute workload differently.
is there a way to reflect that cultural difference?

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> I mean, maybe it's different.
but other people are doing it in the organization.

>> I need more facts in order to determine.

>> I think it would be good to look at this if we're looking at a reorg across the summer that this might be a position since it's not filled right now, that we would look at how does that fit in.

>> I suggest we start right here this afternoon.
we're looking at probably 2:00.

13. consider and take appropriate action regarding compensation issues, including: revised recommendations from hrmd and unresolved issues from departments related to the job analysis project conducted by hrmd during fiscal year 2011-12 and other compensation recommendations; we achieved remarkable progress this morning and we were toward the end of the outstanding or unresolved issues.
right?

>> correct.

>> so we were looking at one I thought I heard the court say we need more time or did I not hear that?
the next to the last one.

>> I believe this was the next to the last one, the contract compliance specialist.

>> page 2.

>> page 2, I'm sorry.

>> hrmd we again immediate issue on this person that was the incumbent is going to be satisfied by they already have -- hhs already has the financial position so we are promoting the incumbent into that position.
what we're trying to do is come to an agreement on what needs to happen with this slot.
personally as we're talking about reorg over the summer, I would like to talk about this in conjunction with the reorganization, sherri, your thoughts.

>> I think we sort of stated before we took the recess, the department certainly looked at the -- the comparison of other departments and while yes there is similar structure as hrmd pointed out, we believe in light of the budget responsibility of health and human services, the ongoing grant, grants that we have in the department and responsibility for continuous reporting, the number of contracts we manage outside of the community, allow -- it just necessitates having parity between the two positions.
I think clearly it sounds like a difference between what do you call one, what do you call the other.
I think the way that the department intends to use these positions, health and human services historically has not had a huge finance division.
I think in light of the dollar responsibility, over 28 million in general fund, upwards to 55 million when you add grants in any given year, we need that depth and structure in our department.
and so that -- that is mainly our reason for making this argument.
I certainly get the fact that so far we have set accountant leads lead the accounting divisions, we believe our accountants do more than that.
we had hoped we had made that argument in that we would, you know, sort of understand that the department is trying to create a structure that provides the depth that we need to manage the budget that we have responsibility for.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> and I guess there's a little less pressure if the person filling this position would be moved to another slot anyway.

>> that's correct.

>> our goal would be if we expedite it, can we bring it back to court within 30 days.

>> we will bring it back whenever you want us to bring it back.

>> the reason that I say that, I realize that you probably need that action taken before you post it because the description in how it's posted and what the compensation level will turn on the classification, right?

>> absolutely.

>> the reason I hesitate on the timing, we had gotten advice from hr regarding various personnel actions that need to take place --

>> I understand.
we have found them to be more than cooperative in the past.
we'll see you in 30 days or less.

>> thank you.

>> how is that, y'all?
is that okay?

>> sounds fine.

>> okay.
on this next one, it's real easy, what you are suggesting is that we put the late request for us to consider -- I'm -- yeah, the judge's salaries, right?

>> there is a request from --

>> [indiscernible] I believe to look at the associate and magistrate judges.
we're asking a little bit more time.
we have gathered some data.
traditional there's a court action in 2006 that pegged those judges to the district court judges, also rolled in the jp's at a -- at a similar level.
so we're asking for a little bit more time.
we have gathered some data.
we think probably some action will be needed.
but we would like to roll that in with the elected and elected officials when -- we would like to bring that back when we bring back the elected officials and recommendations.

>> during the budget cycle.

>> yes.

>> move approval.

>> second.

>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
anything else on a?

>> I think we're good on a.

>> one more thing.
reclassification.
so if you turn to page 9, if you look towards the bottom, you will see that there are reclassifications that have been recommended by -- by hrmd and its, hhs and the medical examiner.
and those total, once you remove the one position that you just discussed with hhs, $125,321.
we have -- departments have been able to identify roughly 190,000 for 49 positions and those reclassifications are ready to be processed.
we're going to be uploading or I guess cop piling the information to share -- compiling the information to share with the auditor's office at the end of this week.
those are going to be on the payroll through the April 1 effective date with the April 30th payroll.
but there's still $125,000 worth of reclassification where the funding hasn't been identified.
we are just requesting our recommendation those be put on hold until funding is identified by the department or go through the budget process, but the court may have a different position.

>> we said last week try to fund these reclassifications internally.
if you cannot, come back and let us know.
do we think that all of the departments took a genuine, legitimate look and tried to find internal funding?
well, I think that -- that as of this point in time, the departments have looked and our analysts have looked for available permanent salary savings.
there are departments as you well know, about an 8% vacancy rate in Travis County right now.
that's an ongoing vacancy rate.
where these departments say like hhs there's actually 16 vacant positions right now, when we do the budget target, we do not take, if somebody is at midpoint, we do not take that down in the budget target.
the department retains those funds and they do have discretion to bring that new employee in at the beginning step 1.
and they will get permanent salary savings.
so it's possible through the -- through the next six months, the next half year, that these departments that can't fund these currently would be able to internally either freeze vacant positions or some way come up with permanent salary savings.
the smaller the departments, the less flexibility.
but that's how we've done with -- with career ladders for the last several years have been internally funded.
reclassifications have been internally funded.

>> so your recommendation is to let us let the departments keep working.

>> our recommendation has been that those departments that cannot internally currently fund it work with us through the budget cycle and allow us to fund those as internal funds become available.
the court would have the opportunity during markup and after we file the preliminary budget to -- to take additional appropriations to fund them if in fact the departments have not been able to.

>> last week we approved a may 1 implementation date.
this won't affect that at all.

>> well, this would affect those reclassifications that have not identified internal funds.
the alternative would be for the court to go ahead and fund the approximately 125,000 with the promise from the departments that they would do everything they can in their transactions through the end of the fiscal year to identify as much of those permanent salary savings to fund them.

>> although we lose leverage by doing that, and 125,000 -- well, I want to hear why 125,000 isn't frankly a rather small increment for the departments to find.

>> ms. Flemming has the answer to that question

>> [laughter]

>> oh, my goodness, sherri flemming county executive for health and human services.
$83,000 of that money is in health and human services and while I certainly understand the rationale of the planning and budget office as it relates to this process, health and human services does have 16 vacancies that we have reconstituted over the last two years in order to make available slots and resources to assist us in our spending of the stimulus money through our weatherization program and the needs that arose from that.
and we think that's a good thing.
the department is in a position now, those positions slowly come back as we close out that project, we are making decisions of our reallocations of those positions as well as going ahead and fill those positions.
so the department has sacrificed over two years to hold those positions vacant so that we can use those resources in other areas.
so our request would be that we not be asked to sacrifice permanently.
that we would be allowed to use those positions as we are planning to the benefit of the department over the long term.
if you ask us to spend those -- that funding on this project, we will lose the flexibility to be able to use those resources in other areas of the department and we'll be back to the court for additional f.t.es.

>> are you going to fill all 16 of those vacancies before the next budget year begins.

>> that's our plan.
I can't say 100%.

>> > let me ask you this then.
what if we transferred from allocated reserve enough money to cover these so the effective may 1 date can be complied with.

>> April 1.

>> secondly, we ask the departments to look internally for that funding and third, though, if at the end of this fiscal year that the department has not been able to do it, then why don't we simply take it from salary savings and reimburse the allocated reserve.

>> we can do that.

>> that's the way we have our cake and eat it, too.

>> is that your motion, too.

>> it is now.

>> I second it.

>> I think if you can fill a position do it.
but this is one, one and a half position if the salaries and benefits are as I think they are, right?

>> sure.

>> so if you fill them, you fill them.
if you don't, though, there are salary savings there, we just replenish and maybe just a paper transaction anyway, but I guess we feel a whole lot better about it.
we can follow this and we can do it if we need to.

>> I think what sherri is saying we are really looking for permanent salary savings.
those are temporary, obviously when you have positions open over a thousand days you're going to generate salary savings of which we have calculated salary savings inside hhs, they have had in the past to rely on those salary savings to supplement the social services during the recession, so they have attempted to do that.
I think what we would encourage and recommend from p.b.o.
is that the departments would commit.
if in fact the court approves the funding during fy '12, that they would commit to evaluate each of their open positions and where possible bring them in at a lower permanent salary level than what the person that left.
and that would create permanent salary savings to help fund these --

>> [multiple voices] -- then we can come back to the court during markup and give you an update on --

>> but instead of that why don't we just ask them to try to generate whatever funding they need to cover the reclasses.
rather than micromanage how they do it, our goal, what I'm hearing you saying, we prefer to stick to our policy of having the departments generate the money to cover reclasses, that sounds fine to me, we do have an emergency reserve so if sherri is left without money that historically she's taken from salary savings to cover other emergency health and human services programs, we have the emergency reserve that we can tap if absolutely necessary.

>> that's right, uh-huh.

>> okay.

>> my motion sounds better all of the time mr. Nellis, unless there's a better one.

>> that's fine.

>> Commissioner Davis, seconded it, right if.

>> yes, judge.

>> I'm -- we have three tiers, three ways to deal with this basically.
but we are trying to leave with the department, our policy of them generating funding internally to cover it.
if not we have other ways to do it.
but at least we can stick to the may 1.

>> judge, it's --

>> April 1, April 1.

>> temporary

>> [multiple voices]

>> 1.

>> beg your pardon?
temporary employee change, we ask the effective date may 1 for temporary employees.

>> okay.

>> any more discussion of that motion?
you got it all, ms. Porter?

>> [laughter] all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> thank you all.

>> thank you.

>> is that all of a?

>> I have one more housekeeping thing.
you had asked me to come back and I think Commissioner Davis as well to let you know what we thought the impact would be for temporary employees for this year.
I think that should be on page -- let's see here.
sorry, on the bottom of page 8.
looks like the worse case scenario we think that employees may need to acquire about $25,000 of additional funds to bring temporary employees up to the main pay grade in fy '12, the potential could be we could receive requests up to $100,000 for fy '13.
we believe that 25,000 of our costs can be covered just by the earmark that's currently there for compensation, we will be working with departments --

>> okay.
if we do nothing it's there and just use it.

>> right.

>> being on.
anything else a.
b is pretty easy.
we can move approval of it.
we have discussed it several times.
3.5%, probably the elected officials, whatever we can do can only be effective for fy 2013 bylaw.
so this is indicating our intention more than anything I also, I guess, and the elected officials would be all of the elected officials are of Travis County.
but during the budget process, we will address that directly in the ads that we are required to post.

>> there's some restrictions, too, on the salaries per the judiciary.
so those calculations didn't include the district judges, county court at law judges or --

>> we will do all of that during the budget process for 2013, right?
it's not like we can deal with it effective April 1, even if we wanted to.

>> right.

>> so b is just setting the 3.5% for those categories.

>> yeah.

>> we're at the elected officials because we got sort of late-breaking requests from them asking what about us?
what about us?
so this adds them.
legally we can only do that at the beginning of the fiscal year for the next one because there are posting requirement, public hearing requirements that we have to meet.

>> are we addressing -- I suppose we are not because we don't have the power to address a market salary survey of the -- of those categories.

>> no.
we didn't do a market salary survey on any of them, right?
we looked at the county judge and Commissioners I thought 19, 20% behind.
this doesn't address that, though.

>> it does not.

>> my understanding of this is an earmark of 3.5% for the fy '13 budget and will come back with a recommendation with the elected officials and also working with pops, of course.

>> really more for purchasing and auditor and now peace officer pay scale that we have to deal with later, which we said that we would do.

>> pops.
all of this fy '13.

>> but we asked what is outstanding, what have we not addressed.
this is some of them.

>> correct.

>> move approval of b.

>> elected officials to be dealt with during the budget process pursuant to law.

>> correct.

>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
c, outstanding issues from compensation policy report and general schedule for follow-up action.
we do expect the compensation committee to keep working.

>> yes, sir.

>> may I just take this moment then to move that we appoint the acting tax assessor to replace dusty knight who used to be on the compensation committee but retired, so the current acting tax assessor wishes to replace him.

>> second.

>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
sorry to cut you off there, but that seems to simple.

>> that's okay.
in light -- going to you.
in light of that action, judge, we do have a -- have sort of an issue that exists with the human resources department and their representation on the compensation committee.
due in large part to having a change in personnel.
so I think that ms. Perot would like to speak to that.

>> todd is on the compensation committee now apparently ms. Smith was a voting member of the compensation committee.
when I came in they were hot in the policy development phase, todd was working hard on that.
I have not asked the court to be formally a voting member.
I'm actually fine just where I'm at, or if the court wants me to be a voting member of that committee, that's fine, too.
we also have another issue.
it's my understanding that alicia perez was also a member, rodney rhoades was also a member, seems to me we need to put leslie browder or a designee for her on that committee.
I'm not sure if anything was done for alicia perez or not.

>> there was no any action taken once she was no longer with the county.

>> rather than doing this piecemeal, could we not just charge the compensation committee as it's requested with updating the membership roster and bringing us a recommendation.

>> we are happy to do that.

>> I would move that we charge the compensation committee with updating its membership roster and bringing the Commissioners court a recommendation.

>> second.

>> suggestion on the motion?
when will you all be able to do that the next couple of weeks.

>> we would need to schedule a meeting.

>> as soon as we can get the remaining members together, that will be an item, I'm sure we will take care of it at that meeting.

>> as long as we're on a roll going down what's in y'all's backup,.

>> let's vote, though.

>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote, Commissioner Davis temporarily off the dais.

>> so what were you saying.

>> just in the interest of moving it along, how about I move to -- that we charge the compensation committee after updating their membership roster with identifying and recommending a perform evaluation system for the Commissioners court consideration and approval and to hold any action on performance based pay pending that recommendation.

>> second.

>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion?
we didn't make that motion last week?
okay.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> show me in support of the last one, the motion.

>> what about the one we just voted on that one, too.

>> show Commissioner Davis as being an affirmative vote in the last two votes.

>> thank you.

>> so the last item in that section has to do also with career ladders, the compensation committee tabled this particular issue, we would also request that the court authorize us to study this issue and make a recommendation.

>> so moved.

>> that the committee study that career ladders.

>> and report back to the court at the appropriate time.

>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.

>> [laughter]

>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> okay, so may I take you back up to the options related to the compensation policy.
just briefly, I will share with you we proposed three options.
the first option had to do with the Commissioners court approving the compensation committee recommendation as submitted.
and as you saw in the backup, we -- the resulting -- what would result from that, a is no change in the compensation, if you rejected the recommendations of the compensation committee, if you reject the recommendations of the compensation committee, you essentially have no change in your current compensation policy.
and the committee does not recommend that option.

>> so how about ...
modified recommendations of the compensation committee with recommended 3 point 5% costing change and provisionally adopting the new compensation policy as reported out by the committee.

>> that is our recommended option.
however, I believe our -- our chair, acting as the county attorney, would suggest that legal would prefer if there were any changes that court members had that those changes be recommended prior to the policy going to legal.
do you want to speak to that?

>> if I may.
there are actually, besides rejecting there are two other options.
one is the option which you just suggested which is simply adopt the recommendation of the compensation committee provisionally and send that to the county attorney's office so that we can review it and put it in final language and bring it back to you for formal adoptionment the other option would be to make modifications in the policy.
and adopt it with the court's modifications.
so you can do that as well.
that's not the recommendation of the committee.
the committee has worked to put together a compensation policy and they are recommending that you adopt it.
one of the choices that you have is to say okay, well, we'll adopt this policy, but we want these changes.
that's where sherri is indicating that if you will indicate as a court what changes you want to the policy, if you chose that option, then the county attorney's office will happily draft those changes into the policy and bring it about a being to you.
or you can simply adopt the policy as recommended, in which case we'll review it, put it in final form and bring it back to you.

>> do you enjoy inviting chaos.

>> I do not.
that's why I emphasize that the committee's recommendation is simply adopt the policy as the committee recommends it.
as your lawyer, I need to make sure that you understand that you can reject or adopt, you can make changes and adot the changed policy if that's what the court wanted to do.
but the committee is recommending adopt the policy the way they've recommended it.

>> okay.
so that's option 1.

>> that's option 3.

>> option 1 is reject the policy.

>> all right.
3.5%, then provisionally.

>> the 3.5% simply reflects the change that we made in response to leroy nellis's concerns and in fact the court has just adopted funding mechanism for the market study that implements that recommended change.
so you've already acted on the market study in accordance with the committee's recommendation on how you should treat market study increases.

>> refreshing our memory, the original recommendation was a 5% increment for change in pay grade, but there was concern about red lining, compressions, so we went down to a 3.5% --

>> [multiple voices]

>> I hate to invite chaos, but --

>> up to the midpoint

>> [multiple voices]

>> you topped out at the mid point for a change, so the concern was that people that were high, high in the grade because they had been here a long time or had performance pay, that it would be negated, they would get no increase when something went up.
what we did was come back with a 3.5% of the midpoint of the new grade, that's what everybody would get in the event that there was a market change to a higher grade.

>> so with regard to option 3, the provisional aspect of it for this market salary survey and adjustment --

>> it's that you adopt it provisionally, send it to our office, we review it and get it in final form language for adoption into the code.

>> okay, sorry.

>> that's the only --

>> that's option 4 actually.

>> of the professional nature of the adoption is just don't make a final adoption until our office has reviewed it and put it in final language and then we'll bring it back to you probably within a matter of two or three weeks in final form, ready to drop into the code, and it will replace the compensation chapter in the code that you have now.
but as it stands now, the compensation committee has worked very hard on it, but the county attorney's office is not -- has not reviewed it for any sort of consistency as to the language or form to get it into the code.
we are simply, as your lawyer, I'm recommending before you adopt it finally, you allow that review by the county attorney's office.
but we need to know what you have adopted so that we can then review it and put it in the final language.

>> instead of adopting it, what if we just direct that legal do whatever needs to do for option 3, bring that back and we'll decide whether to adopt that or tweak it.

>> well --

>> because I'm not sure that I've been following the conversation, actually.
I'm sort of compensation policied out.
so either I need that language to come back to us to see if we understand it and agree or I'm going to need to take another week on it.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners] test.

>> so I hope --

>> okay.
I understand the provisional approval?

>> yes, sir.

>> of the policy?
so what is the policy?

>> the policy is the recommended revised compensation policy that the court has reviewed in previous sessions.

>> that is the voluminous documentses?

>> yes.

>> that's why I need a week.

>> yes, sir.

>> and when legal goes through all of that, it requires a lot of work.

>> we would prefer to review it once but we will review it as many times as the court wants us to.
our preference will be, tell us what you want, we will review it and it will be done.

>> it is a whole lot more than the five or six census, though.
and when we bring it back, we only have one week to bring it back, right.
do we need one week or two?
one will do it.

>> may we request at least two weeks because h.r.
has a lot of work to do in the next couple of weeks.

>> glad to know y'all are working out there.
ms. Fleming.

>> we are one big happy family, judge.

>> [laughter]

>> the way you have been carrying on, I don't know about that.

>> two weeks and that will be April 10th.

>> [laughter] .
we will do two weekses at the request of staff.

>> thank you.

>> is that it?
thank you very much.
it took a bit longer than I thought it would beginning at 9:00 this morning.

>> thank y'all.

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.