Travis County Commissioners Court

July 10, 2012 - Item 16
Agenda

Number 16, consider and take appropriate action regarding the fiscal year 2013 base compensation for elected officials: a, increase the base compensation rate for elected officials who are not subject to a state-mandated salary cap by 3.5%; and b, public advertisement for elected officials' base compensation rate.

>> And so today we've come before you previously and just done a presentation on the market study that we did related to elected officials.
And with that, we actually attached a calendar of how we would roll that process out.
Today what we primarily would like you to act on is approving the -- the advertisement, which was attached to the agenda materials.
That would then actually go out for advertisement in the chronicle on July the 19th.
And then the public hearing would be scheduled for July the 31st, as required, related to this process.
And that would be the date that -- that we're proposing that you would actually set the salaries for the elected officials.
So today we're asking you to -- to give us the approval to go forward with the ad and I think diane or todd can recap the information that we provided at the last discussion of this item.
If that would be helpful.

>> Okay.

>> Todd, go ahead.

>> Yes.
That -- historically, or at least within the last 10 years or so, Commissioners court has typically acted to provide officials, elected officials, with pay increases that are basically equivalent to what the classified employees have made and as we have noted before, the average increase in the market study was 3.5%.
Obviously, there was some variation in that, there were some people who did not receive anything.
There were some people who received more.
But on average the average increase as a result of the market study was 3.5%.
So we're kind of carrying on that tradition -- I don't want to say tradition, but carrying on that practice with what the court has seemed to have favored in the recent past.
To supplement that, we went out and did collect some market data on elected officials just to see if Travis County is competitive, paying in the similar manner than other counties of our approximate size.
We did find that for the majority of the position his we actually are a little bit behind.
There are some positions we are more than a little bit behind on.
But on average came out that we are about -- I don't know, about 7, 8% or so below market, when you include everything into the mix.
We have a couple of titles that are a little bit above market.

>> For example, justice of the peace.

>> Justice of the peace is up about 10% and I think the primary reason for that, judge, is --

>> [ phone ringing ] that we did do that linkage to the associate judges back in 2006 and I think that might have artificially kind of dragged their salaries upwards to a point where it wouldn't have shown in the marketplace that they needed to be.
So ...
The number of positions that are above market is actually relatively small.
The vast majority are below.
And some of them, such as -- well, you know, such as yours, judge, you are about 22% below the market.
But we are not advocating an increase to actually bring everybody up to exactly the market.
We kind of are viewing this as a comprehensive process.
In following with the recent tradition of court or the practice of the court, we're asking for an across the board 3.5% for all of the elected officials, including even the jp's, who we admit are a little bit above market today.

>> So that is of this 1 3.5%that does not apply to the elected officials that are capped by the state mandated salary cap and the draft add that we've included in the backup reflects all of what todd just talked about, the 3.5% for all of those officials with the exception of that category.

>> For the record we did look the a the probate judge and found that position to be on the market, too.
Right?

>> About 8%, yes, sir.

>> About 8%, so that's recommended for this same 3.5% for the Commissioners, we found them to be 28.85% below market.
They are recommended for the 3.5%, some members of the court, though, I guess from time to time, historically, have chosen not to accept the increase, which they are at liberty to do.
I have to say, though, that -- that 13 or 14 years ago, rather than doing market adjustments, for elected officials, it made sense to me that when we did an across the board increase we should just include elected officials anyway.
But I know we differ on that.
So, you know, I leave that to the elected official.
We set the salary, no matter who you are, if you are an elected official, you decide not to take it, you simply notify the auditor that you don't want it, is that right.

>> That's correct.

>> That's happened more than once.
So ...
But anyway the ad is to indicate our intention to do the 3.5% increase and to schedule it for public hearing, so residents who want to provide input have an opportunity to come and provide it before we take action on the recommendation.

>> Correct.

>> Okay.

>> Questions, comments from the court?

>> I have a -- I have a question.

>> Okay.

>> We have had compensation committee that's done some amazing work over a long period of time to -- to make recommendations to us from a policy perspective about where -- where we should be in the market for our -- for our rank and file employees.
And I'm wondering if we ought not have a similar conversation about, from a policy perspective, where we want to be as elected officials in the market.
Because right now, we're contemplating a -- a 3.5% across the board irrespective of where we are in a market comparison.
Now, I don't think we should base our decisions on this -- on this admittedly cursory market analysis that we did, because I don't want to hold y'all to it because I know you all feel it's an oranges to tangerines comparison, particularly with regard to the county attorney and district attorney since we only have three data points, Williamson county, el paso and harris county.
But I'm wondering if we ought not to have a conversation about where we want to be in the market since we do see considerable variation among the elects, at least in this cursory market analysis.

>> But the last time we did a comprehensive, thorough, very lengthy market salary survey it came back with similar results.
Still the political flack and really was the flack us giving ourselves pay increases about a us a lot of folk thought we should go to the legislature and do it.
The legislature didn't want this headache, either, because they would have to set salaries for every county in the state.
You're talking about just one county.
You start changing it for 254 you really do have flack.
I'm not opposed to it, I'm just saying the result was the same last time.
There are people who believe that when you take office, you ought to stay there and it doesn't matter to them that I've been county judge 12 and a half years.
Whatever I sign on for, they figure I should have kept it.
It doesn't really matter when I came as a commission I took a $5,000 pay increase.
I mentioned that the first year, pretty soon it didn't matter to anybody so I dropped it, but it mattered to me.
I didn't come here for a salary, but at the same time the cost of living increases affect us just like everybody else.
I think that the justification for this is that we are doing our best to -- to whoever is entitled an adjustment we try to get you to 3.5%.
If you are above market, with three exceptions, we don't give you the 3.5% and so I think it's fair that they took a look at us and where we are in terms of the market and try to figure out where we were, I think for Commissioners, and the judge, you look at the urban counties plus Williamson and hays, didn't you, factor all of that in and try to reach a conclusion.
I didn't them listed here --

>> We did not include hays.

>> We did include Williamson.

>> Right.
But just to add to what the judge said, we had about I think at least three committees made up of very prominent citizens and someone from the university of Texas and the -- in the financial field and in the hr field.
It was really, you know, wide-spread.
And they did fabulous work.
But they came back with something similar to you ought to be here in the market.
But -- but the judge is right, it comes down to the political situation anyway.
We have to vet on our own salaries so really we don't get anywhere.
But yeah I think one of the things that is very apparent is that, yeah, we know what the job pays when we first take the job, but what if you took the job 18 years ago.
Things have changed.
And the economy has changed quite a bit and everything is much more expensive today that be it was 18 years ago, for instance.
Utility rates were much lower.
And we don't get cuts on taxes.
And we don't get cuts on utility rates.
No one cuts our prices for food or for the care of cars or what -- transportation or whatever, so we have to deal with those expenditures with what we earn.
And, yeah, it's about public service but at the same time I think we have to kind of take care of our families as well.
And we can't -- we can't put that off.
We let somebody else do it.
For us.
So -- so it's a tough position to be in.
But I think that -- that -- I think that this work is just -- just as good and then we still have to make the decision ourselves.
I think it's something that we at least -- at least we don't give ourselves more than we would give rank and file employees and we're all kind of in the same boat.
In the same -- in the same position altogether dealing with the economic problems in this county.
So --

>> When was the last --

>> Golly, I'm trying to think.
We had about two or three.
It might be something that we want to do periodically, though.
I totally agree with you, the ultimate -- what's different about elected officials is the ultimate test is, you know --, you know, the electric has a remedy at the ballot -- electorate has a remedy at the ballot box where they don't on elected employees.

>> I think your suggestion of maybe having future discussions maybe even a work session, I'm talking about our policy where we would like to see our -- the elected officials salaries fall in the marketplace would be a very good idea.
I don't think this is the year to do it.
But I think that it, I mean from a standpoint of actually affecting this raise, but I think, if that's what it is, we ought to, if we created a policy that would help us -- help us better keep things in alignment on a periodic basis.
Because I haven't taken a race since I've been in office and, you know, I can tell you that's not the way at this salary, if you are going to try to attract qualified people in the future to run for these offices and be good representatives, you have to pay the fair market rate out there.
So I think it's important.
To address it.

>> In the past, I think there's an a point in the process, especially within your elected official arena and salaries, within that process there has been a possibility of possible grievance that means that if an elected official feels that they are not compensated accordingly, even with this proposal of three and a half percent, when would that -- when would that particular event trigger as far as what we're doing here today?
What would the time line be because right now we really don't, do not know, what -- what -- what the -- what the conversations are going on in elected officials minds at this point, even as what we are doing here today.
Can somebody talk to me about that?

>> I'll circulate this calendar again.
But basically the deadline for an elected official to file a grievance with -- with us is August the 7th.
By close of business at 5:00qob7

>> >

>> > and how it affects -- how it affects the elected officials that we -- that we -- that we pay the salaries here in Travis County.
Okay.
Thank you.

>> The biggest, when you look at the -- when you look at the sort of market preliminary data, the biggest gaps really are -- really are the five of us, followed by the district attorney who is a state employee and I guess we compare what the local -- what the local benefits contribution was?
And she's kind of way out of whack there.
Otherwise just the jp's overmarket.
The others, though, really looks like two or three percent, looks like the sheriff there is 7% undermarket.
So 3.5 will go a long way toward, you know, being fair to them.
Tax assessor 4.5, so 3.5 will help some.
But what's asked for us today is to approve the ad.
The ad has a 3.5%.

>> Yes, it does.

>> That will give us a chance, I guess, to listen to what the public says at the public hearing.
And when it comes back for action, to decide what to do about that.
Now, if we survey employees, every three years, that --

>> The policy actually calls for every four years.
It has not been approved yet, though, so --

>> Whatever the policy is, we may want to do it every three years, my recommendation would be to put all of the elected officials there, including us.
The presumption is that if you do all of that work, you will follow the recommendations.
And the county judge will not be here when the recommendations come back, but I reserve the right to come down to the public hearing

>> [laughter] and enforce my opinion.

>> There are some pretty serious statutory limitations on what can be in the ad.
I think this may have been asked before, not by me and probably already answered and shot down for legal reasons, but is there a legal impediment to putting -- I'm not suggesting it this year, because -- because I don't think our -- as I said, oranges to tangerines analysis we feel 100% about, but would there be an impediment to putting where we are in the market out beside this table that's in the -- in the -- in the ad?

>> My recollection of what the law requires is that it tells you that you have to put this information in the ad.
It doesn't say this and only this information.
And so if you wanted a bigger ad that included everything that is currently there, then I think that you could add another column.
At one point, the -- we were saying these were the salaries and when we looked at it closely, we changed that to say this is the maximum salary so that -- so that -- so that you can't go over this when you set salaries if this is what you advertise.
But -- but if you got a response from -- from the public hearing that suggested that -- that perhaps you shouldn't or didn't want to go that high, then you could bring it back as much as you felt comfortable with in terms of -- in terms of whatever was coming into the public hearing.
So there is -- there is flexibility in terms of what you put in the ad as long as you have the minimum.

>> So you -- we could say proposed maximum salary fiscal year '13?

>> Uh-huh.

>> And right now the ad does say maximum.

>> The chart says proposed fiscal year '13 salary.

>> At the top it says the notice of maximum proposed salary and allowances, but you are correct the column actually does say proposed fy '13 salary.

>> Can we highlight maximum in that first line?

>> In the chart, yeah.

>> Bold, and bold it.

>> Underline.

>> And bullet point.

>> Yes.

>> [laughter]

>> What I'm suggesting for the future, if we do get to a point where we have a more confident, it's difficult to do a confident market salary survey of elected officials if you are limiting us to Texas, particularly the da and the ca.
While the da is significantly undermarket based on our three data points, the full salary for district attorney is 160,000, so the gap is artificially inflated statistically.
Um ...
But if we did get to a place where we felt more confident about stating where we were in the market, I would like us to be able to -- to set out to the side that the county has generally as a policy underpaid elected officials.

>> Move approval of 16 b.

>> Second.

>> We could hold off on a, right?

>> I believe so.

>> Until we take action on it.
And I do think we ought to listen to the public, mull over what's in the ad and decide what to do when it comes back.
Discussion on the motion?

>> Judge.

>> Thank you.

>> Is there room for the public to comment on this right now or --

>> You can do it.

>> I just want to --

>> After Commissioner Huber.

>> Okay.

>> Have a seat.

>> I was just going to say that I think the discussion going on right now has been good and warranted and I think that there's obvious justification for some significant salary adjustments here.
But I did want to say that I'm going to vote against this because I don't think in these economic times and with the unemployment that we have that we should be entertaining a 3.5% increase of our elected officials levels and I would hope that other elected officials would agree with me because I think that we should set an example out there.
But I do believe that very -- there's justification here, but I can't vote for this today.

>> Mr. Reeferseed.

>> I want to applaud ms. Huber.
I admire her straightforward clear vision here.
And I just wanted to also mention that there is a -- a person who is a famous elected official who consistently year after year after year refuses to take these junketts and public -- I'm talking about Ron paul and he takes a whole lot less than all of those other scoundrels, he's the only honest one, he doesn't take any bribes or anything.
Just the valor of this one public official I think should be a great example, kind of along the lines that you're talking about, how everybody should try to be doing that, especially in these times.
I mean the news media is pretending that -- that we're not in a depression, but everybody who is real out there and has -- has to go to the grocery store and -- and pay for things, it's going on, it's really hard, people are hurting, I think for the sake of you being public servants, not public rulers, it would be -- I think it would be -- I agree with ms. Huber.
Thanks.

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

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.

July 3, 2012: Travis County Launches New Video Playback System

Our new streaming video system uses a single video clip for each session and items are linked to specific locations on that clip. Some browsers and mobile devices do not recognize the location information and display the entire clip. If this happens the "start time" will help you find your item's video within the larger clip.

If you encounter playback issues check out our video playback help page. If you still encounter problems let us know.

On July 3rd, 2012, Travis County began leveraging free resources by posting Commissioners Court meetings on Youtube. Previously every video clip was edited separately and hosted on the county's video server. The old system also required RealPlayer to view the video clips.

The new systems save time and resources -- and that saves taxpayer dollars!