Travis County Commissioners Court

June 26, 2012 - Item 13
Agenda

View captioned video.

>> And since we have you there, it's a good time to go to 13.
13, consider and take appropriate action regarding compensation for associate and imagine state judges fools: A, adopt new compensation methodology, B, increase the base compensation to $112,000 effective July 1, 2012.
As I told ms. Brouder, I have a little problem with this.
I'm going to need another week.

>> I can't speak for the associate judges.

>> In terms of the calendar it shouldn't.

>> And let me just say we did put this effective July 1st.
If we wait until next week, we can't make that retroactively effective.
Barbara, is that correct?
So we will have to pick a new effective date if we put a hold on this.
I will answer any questions if you would like.

>> Okay.

>> At the request of the court, the court was petitioned by judge livingston to look at the associate magistrates judges' compensation.
It has been tied at 75% of their base salary rate.
This hasn't changed since 2007 and in fact because they are tied they do not receive some of the cost of living adjustments that our other employees did receive including elected officials in 2010.
So they asked to us take a look at this.
We did do a market salary survey at the direction of the court and todd can speak to that a little bit.
Right now I believe the market is about 116,000.

>> Correct.
Todd osman, compensation manager for the four urban counties, the market average was 116,000.
Which translates to about 83% of district judge pay.

>> And what we have actually put in front of the court is a new methodology that would be pay them at market but not to exceed 85% of the district court judges' base salary.
That is there because of the compression issue between the district court judges and their employees.
The associated magistrate judges.
So there's no floor to it.
If there was a big increase in district court judge's salaries, that does not mean have you to raise the associate administrative judge oh, it would be based on market but there would be on not to exceed at 85%.
That puts them a little below market but they are back at 80% at 112,000.
This seemed to be important to the district court judges.
I believe in history they were at 80% at one point and several years ago it went to 75% and they would like to see the associate magistrate judges go back to 80%.
They approved unanimously a methodology that is market not to exceed 85% so they did not put a floor on that and there was some discussion on that.
So if I can answer any questions, I would be happy to.

>> I have a question -- well, just to make a distinction.
It's a fine point, but I suppose it's a point worth making that these positions when we talk about market, this isn't a market range, these positions have a set salary like an elected office position.
So when we're talking market, we're not talking between point a and point b, it's pretty much a number.

>> That's exactly correct.
Typically like when we did the classifieds, what we're looking at is mid point to mid point.
We look to see is our grade placement consistent with the market.
And it's just a mid point to mid point comparison.
We do not look at actual salaries.
When you are talking about associate magistrate judges, that's a salary to salary compare only is.
Typically these do not have a range so we are looking at actual salary.
That gives us -- it's trickier to look at that way, but one of the things we looked at was there any tie between these associate magistrate judges and their district judge counter part.
In three of the counties there was no direct tie.
In other words, it wasn't a certain personal, and on the fourth county it was a not to exceed at 90%.
So we felt like the not to exceed was probably a good idea.
We think 90% is a little high so we did put a cap at 85%.

>> Well, I got two problems with it.
One is that the average that we arrive at is kind of funny because if we right now at 105 they make the same thing as their dallas counter part.
They only make 3,000 less than bexar county.
But when you put tarrant and harris in there, then they fall way below market.
The other thing is that for the other employees we have been doing a 3.5%.
And so if we increase theirs by $7,000 up to 112,000, that's closer to a or 6%, isn't it?

>> And I could respond to that in just that we have been doing on the other employees we did do 3.5%.
But 3.5% of the mid point of the higher grade.
That was irrespective of where the employees were in the grade.
So we could have somebody who was very high in the grade in the lower grade still over mid point, but we still gave them that 3.5% of mid point.
So they are still well over the mid point of the new grade.
So just kind of taking a look at that.
We did it across the board no matter where they were in the grade.
If the grade moved up, we gave them three and a half percent of the mid point.
That could have put them over the mid point of the grade.

>> Who else got a $7,000 increase?

>> We did have a few people that moved up more than one grade so they got more than 3.5%.

>> They got 7,000?
That's what I would like to see next week.
Because unless I change my mind, my recommendation to the court would be 3.5%.
And judge, I just told them issues I have with them.
At 105 they are making the same thing that their counter part in dallas is.
3,000 less than taranto than bexar county.
Significantly less than tarrant and harris though.
But more important than that is that 7% -- $7,000 increase is in the 5 to 6% increase range.
And for all of the other employees we've been looking at 3.5%.
So that stood out to me.
Not that I can't get used to it, but it's going to take at least another week.

>> Two things t

>> [wouldn't be nice to have a brand new courthouse.
I want to commend and thank hrmd for the hard work and cooperation and collaboration with us at the district court.
It was wonderful to work with them and it was an easy dialogue so I'm grateful and appreciative of the work they've done.
Second, I hope will you get used to it next week.
It does represent an increase, but I hope you'll remember that before the a js were tied to the district judges' salary this would uncouple them but at one time they were tied to us and they were 80% of what we made.
Then it went down to 75%.
What we're trying to do is get them back where we think they belong.
The handle the cases that we handle, a portion of it certainly without all the responsibilities that we have, but we think that's the right number.
And so I hope will you get used to it, think about it, let me know if there is anything else I can do to provide some information when I'm not panting about it.
But we think this is the right number.
We think they deserve it.
We think this is where they should be.
And it does uncouple for the reasons I think they've articulated while I was running over here for good reason and it does also recognize that there could be some movement in the future that would cap it but give them some range of movement so that they are not necessarily stuck with us.
Because as you know, the legislature makes decisions very slowly about the judges' increase, the elected judges' increases.
It's been, I want to say, eight years since we've gotten a raise.
It seems unfair to tie them to that.
I think moving in -- uncoming it is a really good idea but capping it makes sense, giving us wiggle room so when the market justifies that they can maybe move a little here and there is careerly reasonable and we hope you will consider it favorable and vote it out.

>> Can you bring us the coupling situation and the other four counties you compared them to.

>> My esteemed colleague, todd will, I'll be out, and we'll need to consider the starting date.

>> > tell us what el paso does.

>> I think el paso --

>> I can wait until next week.

>> -- is way higher than the rest of us in some respects.

>> That may help you and the judge.

>> There's some question about the -- el paso is in an interesting situation.
I think you will be intrigued.

>> I doubt that I'm going to be that fascinated whatever the information is.
Can you also tell us what the actual elected officials make compared to the salary figures you have for the associated and magistrate judges?

>> Absolutely.

>> Judge, I'm trying to get there.
I'm trying to help out.

>> I've been told that in el paso is county court at law judges make more than the district judges which I found intriguing.
We'll see.
Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you, judge.

>> We're trying to get you a unanimous vote here, judge.

>> I appreciate that.
The judges work very hard and they would appreciate it as well.
I'm going to run back over to the docket.

>> Thanks for coming over.

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.