I` lv COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND NINE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Barbara Nemec
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2005
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Clarify Court Order No. 29075 and take appropriate action as
may be necessary.
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Barbara Nemec
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 5 mins.
I _ ~ERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter
551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows:
OFFICE: Treasurer
~o;~
TIME PREFERRED: 950 A.M.
Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday.
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:

All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been
prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be
appreciated and contribute towards you request being addressed at the eazliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules
Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
ORDER NO. 29075
REVISED PERSONNEL POLICY
Came [o be heard this the l4's day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Cortunissioner Baldwin The Court approved by vote of 3-1-0 the
policy relating to 7.08 PAY SCALE (c) as presented to read as follows:
(c) When an employee leaves a position no new hire may be employed at a higher
classification than Step 1 of the Group to which the position belongs, without prior
approval of the Commissioners' Court. An employee who transfers to another position
within the county shall keep a0 IongeviTy step/grade increases earned. An employee who
ttansfers to another position witttin the wunty shall not be allowed to transfer any prior
merit increases they have earced in their curtent position.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
JUDGE TINLEY: The next item on the agenda is
to consider and discuss policy related to transfer of Kerr
County employees from one job position to another.
Commissioner Letz?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put this on the agenda
what our policy is or should be, I think we kind of set
it -- what it is at our last meeting, and I put I back on
the agenda, and I believe the Treasurer has looked at it and
kind of has some input as well.
MS. NEMEC: If you'll take one and pass it,
please? Thank you. I had talked to Kathy last week and
told her I would have a couple of options for you all to
look at, and so that you would all be able to choose from.
But after looking at everything and considering everything,
I kind of just felt that this one that I'm offering is the
fairest way to do it. So, this is what I'm recommending.
If you'll look at the second page, under Pay Scale, Section
C, what I am proposing -- and if anyone wants copies, I've
got an extra one here -- is to keep C, "When an employee
leaves a position, no new hire may be employed at a higher
classification than Step 1 of the group to which the
position belongs without prior approval of Commissioners
Court." Now, then it goes on to say -- and I'm proposing
±-19-05 __ e;'cerp t_
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
<9
25
that we delete this language and add the language that I
have on the front page. "Transfers, even if within the same
department, are new hires for purposes of this requirement.
The fact that there may be surplus funds in that salary line
item is not authorization to hire at a higher step than
authorized by this paragraph." I am proposing that we
delete that and insert -- the first sentence is the same
that we have on C, and the second sentence starts with, "An
employee..."
Are y'all there? Can y'all find that? "An
employee who transfers to another position within the county
shall keep all longevity increases earned. An employee who
transfers to another position within the county shall not be
allowed to transfer any prior merit increases they may have
earned in their current position." And that, to me, is
because when they earn a merit increase, they earn it for
that position that they're in. When you earn longevity,
as to how they earn that. However, when you transfer to
another position, I don't feel that you should transfer your
merits that you have earned in a current position into that
new position. So, what that would mean is that anyone that
what -- how many positions -- or steps they've earned in
3-14-u `~ cc e_.c ernt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
merit and how many were longevity, and they would just be
allowed to keep their longevity steps, not their merit. And
that's just open for discussion; see whatever y'all think
about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that would mean
that an employee who may accept another position in another
department who may have earned merit increases over the term
of his or her employment for a period of time, if they were
to accept the new position, they, in effect, would be taking
a cut in pay.
MS. NEMEC: Now, if -- if it would mean a cut
in pay, then -- then no, I wouldn't think that that would --
usually when they accept another position, they go from a 15
to a 19, so they wouldn't -- they're already going to be
higher than that. Now, in cases --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well --
MS. NEMEC: -- where that would happen, then
we'd have to -- we'd have to look at that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looking at your
language, there are two elements involved in the transfer.
An employee -- assuming -- assuming that the person is
qualified.
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The longevity that
that person had earned up to the point of the transfer and
i-19-u5 __ excerp T_
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any merits that person may have earned for meritorious
service to Kerr County, you're saying that the employee can
keep the longevity, but loses the merit.
MS. NEMEC: Well, I mean --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That means the
employee may take a cut in pay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- but what the
Treasurer's policy would say is, in this situation, come
back to the Court to make a decision. I mean, that's -- I
mean, I personally, you know, agree with the policy as
presented. I think it is a fair -- it's -- I mean, I think
most people, when they take a transfer, are going to a
higher level. You know, it's a promotion to them or they're
doing something different; it's a choice they're making.
And, you know, it's like, why would a merit increase -- I
don't see why a merit increase would necessarily go with
that. You know, it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see
the logic behind it. Longevity makes real good sense to me,
because they're -- I mean, they're not starting over in the
county. They're still County employees.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The merit -- the merit
is related to the prior position.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not to the new
position.
3-19-0~ _~_ escexpt
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
~5
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the longevity
is any -- doesn't matter where you are in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could argue that
the merit -- the merit is related to the employee's
performance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And to the old
position.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. In whatever
position, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think the --
MS. NEMEC: If an employee -- for instance,
if it was my employee, and I had given my employee two step
merit increases for a job well done in -- in her position,
and then she transfers to another position, if -- if that
employee is not losing any money -- and, again that's --
that's when they have to make the decision, do they want to
transfer or not? If that employee is not losing any money,
then she's earned merit in doing the duties of the County
Treasurer's payroll position, not a merit in the District
Clerk's Office, for example. It would be up to the District
Clerk if -- she would keep her longevity, but it would be up
to the District Clerk to give her the merits that she earns
in that position. And, you know, this is just something
that I came up with. I mean, you know, I think once we all
start discussing it, we can come up with something better if
3-19-u5 cc excerpt
6
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
-- if need be, but this is just where I thought we'd start.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Barbara, how -- on the
longevity side, we've had the policy that we have in place
that you get the longevity increases in three years?
MS. NEMEC: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Three years.
MS. NEMEC: For your first year, and then
every three years after that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, how many --
when we went -- when we started that policy, we went back
and people that had been here -- did we -- I can't remember.
MS. NEMEC: What we did -- what we did there
was, when we started the policy, any employee who had been
given an adjustment in their pay, that's when we started
that employee. Anyone who had been moved up or been
reclassified did not get the longevity, because they had
already -- we felt at that time that they had already been
put where they should be. The people that got longevity
were the ones that their pay was not changed at all -- was
not affected at all at that time, so they got the one-year.
And then after that is when it started, every first year
from that time, and I'd have to look up the date on that.
And then we went every three years and every one year, and
it's just been on like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But -- so there are no
3 19 U_ cc ex-erpr
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
L•,
~. 23
~24
25
employees that have more than a two-grade longevity increase
at this point?
MS. NEMEC: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because we've only been
-- maybe three years at the most with the policy.
MS. NEMEC: Right. You know, coming up this
next budget year, I think employees are getting their
seven-year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. But, you know, it
will -- this policy will work more for the future, really.
Just a note. I don't -- I mean, if we adopt this, we have
to undo what we did last meeting.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you asked
that question. I'm getting ready to ask, how does that
apply to what we've done in the past?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it needs to be, I
think, retroactive to this year. I think you have to treat
the year the same. You can't -- you know, 'cause I know we
treated one of Paula Rector's employees one way, and we
treated one of Judge Ragsdale's employees a different way
last week -- at our last meeting, and I don't think that's
fair to do -- you know, do that. I think we need to be
consistent and just go back to the first of the year and
adjust them. I think the only one that is going to be a
possibly downward adjustment is the one we did with Judge
3-19-05 _- e., ~_erpt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
Ragsdale's employee at our last meeting, 'cause I believe we
left that person at a Grade 4, I believe.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not going to
feel very good about --
MS. NEMEC: That's going to --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- approving a
certain salary level for that job and then going back two
weeks later and say, "Deal's off."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's fair
for us, though, to set a policy that we have Ms. Rector's
employee and didn't do it, and gave -- I mean, for the same
exact argument, and gave an increase that we're not giving
one of those employees. So I think you have -- it has to be
consistent. And, you know, that's what, you know, was
brought up at our last meeting when we made that decision.
MS. NEMEC: There have been several
employees, I believe, since January -- and maybe from
December, from this budget year -- that have been
transferred and have kept their longevity and their merit.
I only know of one, which was in Ms. Rector's office, that
was not given that. And I think if we just know that we
have a policy -- we have a polir_y moving forward. But to be
consistent with what we've started doing in October through
today -- or through the last court date, it would be fair to
move Ms. Rector's employee up that one step that wasn't
-1~-~i cc P~-e r~,t
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
given to her, and then start fresh from here on.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That makes more sense
than trying to bring somebody down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a problem
with that, as long as we're consistent.
MS. NEMEC: And, you know, we can try this,
and when -- when a situation comes up, we'll see where the
numbers fall and how it works with what Commissioner
Williams is saying. And I understand what he's saying. We
just have to work with it and see how it -- how it works.
And maybe this is a -- a test, and we can kind of work with
this till September, and might have to adjust it for the
next budget year, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It may never be
applicable, but it could.
MS. NEMEC: Right. Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably will be.
MS. NEMEC: Yeah. Because, like, in these
cases, they've jumped from, like, 15's to 19's, and they're
not losing any money, but if someone jumps from a 12 to a 15
and they're at a 12-8 and they come back at a 15, and we
have to look and take all their merits that they've earned,
you know, that might -- that might happen, what you're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
7-i~-OS _~ esce r.~t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
10
MS. NEMEC: I can see that happening. And
maybe I should add on here, as long as they don't lose -- as
long as there's not a reduction in their pay. This policy
applies as long as there's not a reduction in their pay.
Should a reduction in pay occur, then we'd have to bring it
to Commissioners Court for discussion at that time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's already
pretty much in the language; if the elected official or
department head wants to bring it to court, it's brought to
the Court. I'll make a motion that we adopt the new
personnel policy as presented, and all employees that have
had increases up to this date, this budget year, will
receive both a merit and longevity grade increase.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that last
statement, you're just dealing with one employee?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just one, but if
there's another one somewhere -- I don't know what we did
with Ms. Decker. I know she had some transfers, and I can't
remember what we did exactly with those. Didn't you have
one, Linda?
MS. DECKER: One of mine went to the County
Attorney's office -- I mean to County Court at Law.
MS. NEMEC: I believe when I submitted for my
employee, I did not give her her merit increases that she
had; I brought her in at a lower step. So, if we're going
3-19-OS ~_ _r.cP-~-
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to go back, then I'd need to adjust hers also one step.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When was that?
MS. NEMEC: Couple of months ago. In
January, 'cause I hired her January 1.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, there's two.
Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded. Any
further question or discussion? Ms. Decker, did you have a
comment you wish to make?
MS. DECKER: Well, I'm just trying to
understand this. And based on what Commissioner Williams
said, a lot of -- a merit is based on performance, so -- and
because of performance, like in my employee's case, you
know, she was offered a position in another -- in another
spot. And, you know, when Judge Brown came in here and
said, okay, because of this person's performance, I want to
hire her at a -- whatever the step is -- 19, not as a 19-1,
but as a 19-3 and -4. And what I fear is that we're going
to still continue to make exceptions, which is not fair to
the rule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Perform --
MS. DECKER: In other words --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Performance rule.
MS. DECKER: Right. Because if you are going
to say, okay, if it -- if it reduces a salary, we're not
"3 19 uS nc e.ccerp Y'_
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to do it, well, that's not fair either. Now, I don't
want to see anybody's salary reduced, but if you're going to
set a rule, then it's a rule, regardless if the salary goes
up or down. 'Cause if you do that, then it's not fair to
that person who happened to go into a higher position, but
didn't get the same increase because the salary didn't go
down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with what Linda's
saying. I -- and I like the way it is, and I think that,
you know, I'd have to look at the situation whether I'd go
along with the -- giving the merit increase, 'cause there
could be a reason. I mean, the employee may just not like
working for Linda and may want to go work for somebody else
and be willing to take a pay cut to go do that.
MS. DECKER: Yeah, but based on this, if she
doesn't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know all your employees
love working for you.
MS. DECKER: Like -- well, whoever. It
doesn't matter. I mean, if one of my employees doesn't like
working for me and decides to go, you know, over here and
work for Rusty -- or, no, he's making more -- Paula. Work
for Paula. Then -- but because of that, she may -- she or
he may get a decrease, it's not fair because they made that
choice.
3- I Q- ~ S C C a~ C P L F L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
MS. NEMEC: So they should just lose their
merit completely?
MS. UECKER: They made the choice.
MS. NEMEC: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MS. NEMEC: That's where I was coming from on
this. It's up to them. They'll see what -- the new
position that they're applying for, they'll see by the -- by
this policy where it's going to put them, and it's their
choice.
MS. UECKER: But you said up there -- you
said up there we should not -- you know, we should come back
to the Court, and we shouldn't -- no employee should give up
any money.
MS. NEMEC: Well, based on what Commissioner
Williams' concern was. But -- but, really, what you're
saying is correct. They -- they know where they're at.
They know that the policy states that they keep their
longevity increases, so they see what the new position is
and what it pays, and if they're going to lose money, then
that's their choice to take it or not take it.
MS. UECKER: As long as we don't come in here
next month again and make an exception for Road and Bridge
or the Sheriff's Department.
MR. ODOM: Leave Road and Bridge out of this.
3 1 4 u 5 _ e z c e r p t
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Leonard's sitting over
there quiet.
MR. ODOM: I haven't said a thing.
MS. NEMEC: And I agree with Linda. You
know, this is -- if this is the policy, this is the policy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think this policy is
fairer than it was before, and I think it's -- I like it.
That's my motion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion and second. Any
further question or discussion? All in favor of the motion,
signify by raising your right hand.
(Commissioners Baldwin, Letz, and Nicholson
voted in favor of the motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed?
(Commissioner Williams voted against the
motion.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion does carry.
3-ia-os ~.~ e~~,es~~r
ORDER NO.29075
REVISED PERSONNEL POLICY
Came to be heazd this the 14'" day of March 2005 with a motion made by Commissioner
Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court approved by vote of 3-1-0 the
policy relating to 7.08 PAY SCALE (c) as presented to read as follows AND all
employees that have had increases up to this date, this budget year, will receive both a
merit and longevity grade increase.
(c) When an employee leaves a position no new hire may be employed at a higher
classification than Step 1 of the Group to which the position belongs, without prior
approval of the Commissioners' Court. An employee who transfers to another position
within the county shall keep all longevity step/grade increases earned. An employee who
transfers to another position within the county shall not be allowed to transfer any prior
merit increases they have earned in their current position.