Travis County Commissioners Court

August 7, 2012 - Item 7
Agenda

Item 7, consider and take appropriate action to set the Fiscal Year 2013 salaries of elected officials.

>> Good morning.

>> Good morning.

>> Good morning.

>> Diane, director of hrmd.
Todd osborne, compensation manager.

>> Yes.
This item is for next year's budget, proposed 3.5% pay increase for elected officials.
Obviously not the first time that we've heard this.
We had this item up several weeks ago.
Last week we had a public hearing on the item.
Hrmd has done a market survey for these positions.
On average we're about 7.5% off market at the moment.
Now, that does vary by title.
Some jobs, such as Commissioners, are off market by more than that, some are closer to market than that.
The survey was done of the major metropolitan counties in Texas.
And also Williamson county.
And I don't think there's anything new since we've discussed this before.
So -- so I guess at this time we would ask if you have any questions or if you are prepared to vote it's --

>> Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> Martinez: there was some discussion --

>> There was some discussion about a more formalized policy for setting executive officer's salaries.
There was at some point in the past, before you all came to the county, of a citizens panel that reviewed executives -- I mean elected officials' salaries, did we determine when that was?
The last time we had a citizens panel review them?

>> We got our history person here.

>> Deanna is coming up.
You are too young to have been with the county as long as you have.

>> [laughter]

>> No, no, I have got a great memory.

>> [laughter] the last time that the committee met, it was about 2007-2008.
It's been about five years since they've stopped meeting and the Commissioners court went back to following, setting elected officials' salaries following whatever the classified pay employees received.

>> We do have a compensation committee for rank and file.
The last time we utilized the citizens committee, did they work with -- I don't think we had a compensation committee for rank and file at that point.

>> I'm not sure.
No, they worked independent.
They were -- they were -- the Commissioners court set up who was going to be represented.
On the group.
And then they met independently with staff.
I staffed it and -- and carlotta valdez levy from hrmd staffed it, also.
And they met and we got them a lot of market data from a bunch of the counties in Texas.
And they had multiple, multiple meetings every year to try to come up with solid recommendations for court.

>> As far as -- one thing that I'm concerned about is that -- I'm a little bit uncomfortable doing a 3.5% across the board for elected officials when we have established a policy for rank and file, although actually we haven't adopted the policy yet, correct?

>> Correct.

>> Okay.
But the proposed policy is that we have a -- we have a goal of hitting the 50th percent style on the market for -- percentile on the market for rank and file; is that correct.

>> Our goal is to have it market driven, yes, at the mid point, correct.

>> Because we don't have a similar -- a similar policy regarding the setting of -- of elected officials, I'm uncomfortable with doing a 3.5% when I know at least from our limited market survey some are significantly below, some are slightly above.
I wouldn't want to give a 3.5% across the board to rank and file when I knew that some were way below and some were slightly above.
I'm just not sure why we would do it for elected officials.
I feel more comfortable doing a 3.5% for everyone who at least in our limited survey is more than 10% off market.
But even that gives me some pause because I know that our market analysis was very small.
Or sample survey was very small and has a great degree of inconsistency within it and I'm not knocking hr.
The reason why there's inconsistency is because what the county attorney does in one county is very different from what a county attorney does in another district.
Some counties don't even have county attorneys.

>> [laughter] so it would require a finer analysis.
So I guess what I'm asking is what would be y'all's opinion of charging our current compensation committee with looking at elected officials salary and augmenting that compensation committee with private citizens.

>> As far as the makeup of the committee, I think we'll do whatever the court wants.
I do think that it's a good idea that perhaps we come up with a policy and so that we're consistently following a specified and approved policy for setting the elected officials compensation.
I think it's a sticky subject and it would be good to go ahead and have some procedures that are voted on that we're consistently following year after year, so we're not trying to come up with something every year.
I think there's some opportunities there.
And I would love to have the compensation committee take a look at that and make a recommendation for the policy.

>> It is a sticky subject, but we've been in exactly the same circumstance with rank and file three years ago where we really didn't know where our rank and file was in a snapshot in time in the market.
So we chose to give no raise until we knew what was actually -- what the facts on the grounds actually were.
I feel like I'm in a similar position with the elected officials at this point.

>> I guess my -- I have two thoughts.
One is that whatever -- whatever we think we need to do, we can do.
But as to future actions, the posting has not brought it up.
The posting really goes to setting salaries for fiscal year 2013 and setting the salaries for elected officials.
The last time we went and asked a committee to do market surveys of elected officials, they came back with some fairly high recommendations, including for the Commissioners court.
The political will was not there to take action.
Consistent with the recommendations, it did not surprise me that after a survey of Commissioners court members and comparable counties, we were -- we came back basically under the market.
I always thought it was around 20%, but it came back actually at more than 20%.
When we chat with voters, the ones who voice opposition voice opposition that we set our own salaries.
And the problem with that is bylaw that is the way it must be done.
A couple of times we thought about going to the legislature and asking if that be changed.
There is not enough support state-wide to get it done.
But that is always a possibility.
When we had the public hearing last week, we had one citizen to come and give testimony and that citizen was mr. Reeferseed.
So, you know, this is -- it's an important issue.
I wouldn't give myself a 22% increase.
If it's not 3.5, the question is what is it.
We can go lower than the advertised salaries but we can't go higher.
As to the other elected officials, one thing that we have to do when we set the salaries is to notify them of what we have set it at because they have an opportunity to file a grievance and have that heard about a committee of citizens.
The last time we addressed a grievance, that committee basically recommended what the elected official asked for, right?
What the elected official really did was to do a market survey and show that comparable elected officials in other counties made a certain amount more than I think it was a male, more than he made and the committee was convinced that he should make about the samement a and recommended it -- same amount and recommended it.
The law is fun knee, if it's unanimous the Commissioners court must follow it, right?
If it's not unanimous, we can deviate from it.
In that case it was unanimous and basically we did it.
This is a tough call.
There's never a good time.
When the economy is robust and we give ourselves a whatever we give the rank and file, there are a few objections.
When the economy is not good, we give pay increases there are a few objections.
It just comes with the job.
When I explain it to different people, their position really is they just hate that.
The argument that I in you what the salary was -- that I knew what the salary was when I got the job is true.
But I've been county judge 13 years and I've been part of Travis County 23.
When I came as Commissioner I took a $5,000 pay decrease.
My point though is that I don't know any reasonable person would expect me to make today what I made 23 years ago when I started here.
I don't know that any reasonable person would expect me to make the same amount that I made 13 years ago when I became, you know, county judge.
The other thing is that the more we don't act, the higher the recommendation will be from a committee that looks at it fairly, but the political will is never there to give those big increases.
One time that we did, my vote was not to give what the recommendation was, but to give a 10%, and I was treated like a hero.
But the recommendation was 22, 23%, which was way up there.
In my view I think it comes with the job.
It's easy to write a newspaper article about it.
I got one email, one person came to court, there would be other, you know, media coverage of it, it comes with the job, in my view.
So we'll -- we have several options.
We can give elected officials zero, we can give the other elected officials 3 and a half percent oranb recommended.

>> What about approving the 3.5% for all who are more than 10% below market according to our analysis.

>> That would be us, too.

>> That would be all.

>> It wouldn't be all on the list, no.
Some are within 10%.
Some are slightly above market.
Or right at market.

>> Then they can go to the grievance.
What if there's a recommendation for much more than that.

>> I thought we ought to do the 3.5%.
If we want to put in place another scale that basically provides more guidance, then we ought to do that.
And maybe it will help.
Again to get, you know, outside assistance.
But if we hand pick the committee, no matter what the recommendation is, if it's for us, the argument will be we hand picked the committee.
To do things that -- that, you know, benefited us.
And -- it's an agonizing issue.

>> Absolutely.

>> And --

>> Well, my feeling is this, is that in Travis County everyone who works for Travis County, including elected officials, are county employees.
We're all on the payroll in that manner.
And I wish that I could say that the raise of 3.5% for employees, including me, is all going to go into the bank and we're going to save it and not spend it.
That's just not the case.
Here in Travis County, I'm sure all of the taxes that are collected by all of the entities, whatever we get it's going to go back to those entities.
In terms of taxes that have been increased, in terms of utility rates that have been increased, groceries have increased and I'm sure that whenever there's announcement that somebody is getting a raise, the rent is raised.
So it all goes back into the local community.
So I don't think 3.5% is outrageous for our employees.
Across the board.
Including the elected officials as they try to -- to stay afloat.
And with all of the expenditures that are going on in this community.

>> All elected officials and employees have the right to go to the auditor and say I don't want to take the pay increase that Commissioners court voted for.
I want my salary to remain where it is right now.
I will pat you on the back and if the auditor needs some kind of action by Commissioners court, I'll support it.
That has happened several times.
And you know that -- for the -- for those that want an alternative, that's it in my view.
Commissioner?

>> I judge u.s.
Want to say because -- I just want to say because I said the same thing the last time this came up before the court.
There's a clear need to address that.
We need to attract people that are qualified to run for office to run for office.
But I also agree with the fact that we do need to have a system that really deals with it fairly and transparently.
I just haven't for the record haven't taken an increase since I've been in office.
Even though some have been voted on.
And I -- I'm not wealthy.
I need the money just like everybody else, we have health issues in my family.
But I don't believe eewe've been in a recession for four years and I don't believe this is the year.
I think we need to set a clear example as elected officials that we're willing to tighten our belt.
I can't support the increase this year.
Although I recognize there is a need to address it and I think we should put a process in place for that.

>> Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> I, too, haven't taken the salary increase and I'm not going to this year irrespective of what the vote is.
And it's true that that is a personal choice.
I'm looking for a middle ground here.
Would you entertain a motion, judge.

>> Yes.

>> I move that we provide a 3.5% salary increase to all of the elected positions that according to our market salary are below -- are more than 10% off market.
That equates to, I believe, seven of the 43 elected officials in Travis County.

>> That's the motion by Commissioner Eckhardt.
Is there a second?
That motion dies for lack of a second.

>> I move that we approve the 3.5% for elected officials as advertised.

>> Second.

>> That we authorize the county judge to send an appropriate letter to elected officials in compliance with statutory requirement.
Okay.
Seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
Discussion on the motion?
All in favor?
Show Commissioners Davis, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
Voting against, Commissioner Huber, abstaining --

>> I'm abstaining, I know that's a wuss position to take, but I'm abstaining.
I do believe we need to attract good talent.
It's not that our elected officials aren't a really deep bench of really good folks.

>> I will gladly receive an agenda item in the future to address the issues that were discussed today.

>> Thank you, sir.

>> Thank you all very much.

>> Thank you.

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!