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
KERR COONTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Friday, May 12, 2006
2:00 p.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
-~3
U
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
2
I N D E X
May 12, 2006
PAGE
1.1 Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action
to initiate review and analysis of current and
prior county grade/step payroll schedules and
other payroll records and obtain alternatives
and/or recommendation(s) to cure or resolve any
deficiencies disclosed by such analysis 3
--- Adjourned 36
1
°^ 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
3
On Friday, May 12, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., a special meeting
of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
date and time, Friday, May the 12th, 2006, at 2 p.m. The item
on the agenda is to consider, discuss, and take appropriate
action to initiate review and analysis of current and prior
county grade/step payroll schedules and other payroll records,
and obtain alternatives and/or recommendations to cure or
resolve any deficiencies disclosed by such analysis. I was
~ contacted by the Sheriff, who indicated that he had found some
discrepancies in the grade and step payroll schedules that
some of his employees of his department were paid, and he
thought it was a matter that needed to be brought to the
Court's attention, as did I, and so this meeting was scheduled
accordingly. Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER
Well, a little bit of history,
for this coming year -- and the budget, of course, is due
Monday. Mine won't be there; you'll have to wait a few more
days. But in trying to prepare it, since deputies and -- or
-iz-o6
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
«-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 24
25
4
since employees do get longevity increases, which are one-step
increases, on anniversary dates, and deputies get their
educational ones on the day they get their educational
certificate, in order to prepare the budget and come a lot
more -- have a lot more accuracy, you might say, in the final
line, what it's going to take for deputy's salaries for the
next year, then I need to figure in the step and grades and
not just the overall grade that they're in, or the current
step that they were in at that time, And when Nancy started
match a lot of the other 2.5 percents that were in our current
step and grade.
She brought it to me and refigured it in front of
me, and we're multiplying each step by the -- the 1.025 to get
the 2.5 percent, and it doesn't match. We're coming up with
different ranges, anywhere from one officer may be $63 a year
short to another one may be $700 a year short. And, you know,
some of them we find out are -- are even more than that. So,
I tried to figure up where the error occurred, and going back
finally to the 2002-2003 step and grade, we came up with the
step and grade that was not messed up. Everything after
2002-2003, being the 2003-'4, '4-'5, and '5-'6, step and
5-1Z-06
1
a...
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"m ^ 4
L
2 5
5
grades for our department are messed up. And what that is, is
That's one separate one. One is the step
the deputies are on. One is the one that
Now, the secretary and clerks, as best as I know,
are also on the same one the courthouse employees are on, and
that one I found no errors in. And finding no errors in that
large raises -- the nice raises were given to deputies and
jailers and dispatchers and that, when they figured in the new
step and grade. 'Cause before that, in 2002-'3, the nurses,
jailers, and deputies were all on the same step and grade
scale, okay? And because of the difference in the raises, the
jailers got 3,000 that year on top of everything. Deputies
got 1,500. It changed all that, and they had to be separated
out and put on different step and grades, and that's where the
problem came.
In trying to find out exactly what caused the
problem, I was reminded by my patrol sergeant and trainer,
Michael Earney, that he had come down here about two years ago
and got a copy of the step and grade on disk. He got that
s iz-oe
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
6
copy off Barbara Nemec's computer, because she had it at that
So, he came down here and downloaded a copy
I were able to pull it back up. So, in analyzing it, the first
~ thing I came up with, in going into the properties of what the
disk were, is -- and it's hard to see. The very first page --
these get very cumbersome, but the first page is what you --
you're looking at. And if you look at that printout, about
three-quarters of the way down, it says "Date Created."
That's the highlighted one. That disk was created June the
26th, 1997, at 1:57 p.m. The author of that disk at that time
was Thea Sovil, okay? In visiting with Thea, when she left --
or right before she left, even, all those -- the disk and
everything was transferred down to Barbara and put on her
computer.
Okay. Now, the second page that you're looking at,
if you will look on that, it is just a snapshot of a -- the
step and grade that was on that disk. One of them, okay?
2009-2005 deputies is what it was set at. And it is in an
Excel program, and right now in the screen, and even on
your -- your handout, the 14, Step 2 is this one that is
highlighted, okay? And that 14, Step 2 is at 24,527, as you
can see in your handout. If you go up above that, just up
above the alphabet where it says the D letter, you will see
s-ia-oc
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
how that Step 2 was acquired. That Step 2 was acquired by the
sum of 22,842, times 0.03. That year, we were given a
3 percent raise. Then those two sums were added into the
original 22,842, and on top of that was added $1,000 to give
you the $1,000 raise the deputies got that year, okay? What
you end up with on it, the 22,842 goes back one year to what a
step and grade was the year before at that level. That's
where it started from, okay? This is '04-'OS you're looking
at, so in the '03-'04 step and grade, a 14-2 was 22,842. And
then they added in the 3 percent, and then added all that
together and then added the 1,000.
In an Excel program, the problem they had with it,
they're adding each individual column. When they're adding
each individual column, it messes up the difference in between
the two columns, and they don't stay at a 2.5 percent step,
and so it ended up changing all the steps.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is this an automatic
calculation
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- by Excel, or was this a
manual calculation?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They did it -- the monthly,
semimonthly, and hourly was automatic, right down below that
24,527.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
-iz-ob
8
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
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But they did the -- the yearly
part of it manually by going into this Excel, okay, and having
the Excel program figure the 22,842 times 3 percent, and then
add it back into it and then add the 1,000. That's on that
top line. And it compounds it and does everything differently
than -- than the way I believe that it should have been done,
or definitely should have been done. The other problem with
that, you're going into each step and having to reenter that
salary. If you go to your next page, you will look -- that's
actually on a 23 --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rusty, can I ask you a question?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To make sure I understand this.
So, the way it was done on this printed sheet, it was done
every cell?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Every cell was done
individually.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the other way to do it would
have been to do the step -- the first cell, and then multiply
each one after that by 2 and a half percent.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's exactly what I went back
and did for the last three years. You'll see those in there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Why wouldn't it start on
Step 1, 23,991?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I can't answer that question.
5-12-06
9
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
I don't know, okay? I don't know. Okay. On the next page,
the -- and the problem with entering each individual one of
those, that one I actually have highlighted is a 23-2. The
23-2 up at the top, where it equals -- it says that that is
the sum of 34,184, times the 3 percent, then add back the
3 percent back into it and add the 1,000. And it would take
me going back to the '03-'09. I didn't have time to actually
give you -- if you will go over in your handbook, starting at
the blue tab, count that as one page. Two, three -- the
fourth page, it has handwritten on the top of it, "Patrol."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The first page after the blue
I tab?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, four pages after the --
counting the blue tab. And there right on the top of the
page, Jonathan, it says "Patrol."
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Hand-written, okay? That's the
year before's step and grade that they were working off of.
So, the figure that should have been put in that second deal,
where it says the sum, was actually -- it's -- it goes on the
next one, 'cause you're on Line 23 -- Position 23, so you're
on the next page from where it says "Patrol," is 34,784.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Step 2, Grade 23?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. And in a mis -- typo,
because they were doing each cell through that Excel, they
5-12-06
10

1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
typed in 34,184, a $600 difference, which threw off everything
again.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Where do you see that?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Look at your -- on that page
where it did your patrol, which I've got the 34,784. Okay.
Now go back to your second page where I took a snapshot of the
program that they used and how they used it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 39,184 up above.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. That should have been
34,784. It's the year before that they took to add into that,
calculated with the 3 percent. That has thrown off all our
calculations, okay? To try and keep this as short as
possible, all -- most of all the other pages you have in your
handout start out with the wrong step and grade, which is also
the ones we were using, okay? Up till this date. They're
using them. And each section -- behind the blue tab is all
the ones for the deputies, behind the red tab is the ones for
the jailers and dispatchers, and behind the yellow tab is the
ones that they were using for the nurses. Now, one other
problem that you have is that the one that we were on that
said patrol on the top of it, if you looked off on the
right-hand side of it, you also saw where it said, "Revised
11-1 of '03." The budget went into effect October 1 of '03.
The ones directly before that, if you go two, three,
pages before that, you will see at the top where we wrote
5-12 Ob
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
"incorrect," and 9-29-03. That's the one they adopted. Then
they came back, 11-1 of '03 and revised it, because it was
wrong. Now, our department wasn't made aware of the revision
until January of '03. Now, when did it go into effect? Did
they go back to October and change the officers' salaries
since they revised it? Or did they change them 11-1? Or did
they change them in January when we were advised? I don't
know. All I know is it's messed up.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me be sure I understand
what you're saying here. On this page, where you talk about
the sum of 34,184 plus 3 percent plus 1,000, that's correct?
The sum is correct; is that right?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 34,184 is correct or is
I incorrect?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, 34,184 is incorrect. It
should have been, by what they were using --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what I wanted to be
sure I understood. In whose favor was the error?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Should been 34 -- in the
County's favor, not in that officer's favor. He lost $600,
okay? Plus that whole schedule they were using, they had
originally figured it wrong, so it would have been more than
that 600. And then it's a snowball effect. They've got three
years of bad step and grades. You can go -- Michael, will you
s-i_-o6
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
12
add onto the -- do your calculator on that? Take step --
whatever we're at there. Take Step 20 and just go to the G
column, which would be Step 5. 34,379. What he's doing is,
he's taking -- I just told him to pick one. Step 20 -- or
Grade 20, and this is a Step 5. So, he's putting in the 34 --
this is the schedule they were using. He's putting in the
34,379. Now, multiply that by 1.025. That should give you
your next step, and you round off the fractions. 35,238, but
our guys get paid 35,174. The nightmare this causes me -- and
you have corrected ones in there. If you look at the ones
that are labeled either -- you know, they -- we start all the
way back '03-'04, '04-'O5, and 'OS-'06 corrected jailers,
corrected deputies, and corrected nurses. We stayed up till
well after midnight last night refiguring these. And,
Michael, can you pull up one of those?
MR. EARNEY: This one, or the corrected -- corrected
~ steps?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Is that the corrected deputies?
MR. EARNEY: '03-'04.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: All right. Click onto the
22,321, the 14-1. The way I figured this, is what I
believe -- and in visiting with everybody that I could visit
with telling me, we took the 20,313, which was the year
before's 14-1, okay? This is the year that the deputies got a
$1,500 raise. Y'all had stated in that Commissioners Court
s-l,-nH
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
meeting to -- to do the COLA first and then add the raise in
after the COLA. So, what I did is the 20,313 times 1.025,
'cause that was the COLA that year, okay? And then added the
1,500, and what you get is the 22,321, okay? That's your
base, your starting step. If you go to Step 2 -- now,
Michael, click on Step 2. What this means is C-4 times 1.025.
C-4 is the Step 2. You're taking this prior number that --
your base number that you got, and you're automatically
multiplying it by 1.025, giving your 2 and a half percent step
increase, okay? And you come up with 22,879. If you go over
to 3, it's D-4 times 1.025. It's a very simple calculation,
and the computer actually does it all, and I didn't stand
there and figure it. The only one I had to figure was this
very first one. You click on it, and all the rest of them
fill in; they're all 2.5 percent different, and everybody's
treated fairly. That's the way all the corrected schedules
are done for the last three years that we corrected last
night. The very last page of this presentation -- or last two
pages --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which tab?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The very last. At the very
end, the very last two pages in the whole deal. I did not
have time today, and it took us the last two and a half weeks
to try and figure out where all this was. I didn't have time,
and I don't even know really how to start to go back and
5 1~-06
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
14
correct three years. What you're seeing on the last two
pages, the list of all my officers, the first salary with
dollar figures in it is what their current pay is right now,
based on the step and grade that we're acting under. The
second line is the correct salary that these officers should
be getting this year alone. This only addresses '06 --
'05-'06. And it addresses it as if we were going all the way
through October. This is a full year, okay? The second
page -- this is on dispatchers and deputies. And the second
page, down at the bottom in the green, you will see the total
loss in this one year alone was $14,632.
Now, my problem is, some of these, if you go back
through and start comparing old step and grades to the new
ones, some of it changes my officers' hourly rates by as much
as 20, 30 cents an hour. Some of it by 5 cents. But the
problem is, in law enforcement, our overtime is figured
totally different than any other people. Law enforcement and
firemen are figured different. Where most people work 160
hours a month, if you work more than 160 hours, over 40 hours
a week, you get time and a half pay. It doesn't work that way
for law enforcement, which is jailers and deputies. What it
does with jailers and deputies, the first 11 hours of that
overtime is at straight time. It's only after that 11 hours
that it becomes time and a half. And that's in a 28-day pay
schedule. So, now I have to go back to get this straight, and
s-i2-o6
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
15
go back three years through every single officer and jailer
and dispatcher and nurse I've had or have, and look at all
their overtime sheets, all their monthly work schedules, their
hourly schedules, which we do have those records, and
recalculate every bit of it, sometimes twice, 'cause you don't
know if you're going to be in the 11-hour or in the after
11-hour, if you're straight time or you're time and a half.
And I've got -- this affects the current employees -- how many
clerks do we have?
MS. ROBISON: About eight clerks.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Eight clerks, 94 employees.
So, you're talking 70 -- or 87 employees, current employees.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't see jailers in
this.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Jailers weren't even in that --
I haven't even figured the jailers. That's only one year. I
didn't have time to figure -- the jailers or nurses aren't in
that, okay? In that corrected are what it would cost this one
year.
it COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a one-year
correction?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: This is just this current year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That doesn't go back to the
previous year?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. That 14,682 is just this
5-1?-06
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
16
current year we're in, not including any overtime
recalculations or anything else. It -- and it does not
include nurses, does not include jailers. It only includes
deputies and dispatchers for one year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you about through? Can I
I talk?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Sure, I'm through. I've had
it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I certainly would never
question Rusty's mathematical skills at all -- or I would his,
but I wouldn't question Nancy's. So, you know, we -- in
reality, we really don't know what kind of problem we have.
If there is a problem, if you're absolutely sure -- looks like
there is, so we have to -- we have to get an outside auditor
to do this thing and do it right, go through the numbers and
go through the employees and do all those things that Rusty's
not wanting to do, and he should not do. But, you know,
that's what -- that's the way I see our agenda set up, is to
do that. And I think we -- you know, in short order here, we
can select an outside auditor, and I think that we need --
they need to let us know how much this thing's going to cost
and set a time frame on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me offer one comment along that
same line. But the -- the accounting cost in this thing could
get to be pretty horrendous, as I'm sure everybody's come to
5-1~-G6
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
17
that conclusion by now. We may want to issue a call for some
of our good citizens with all this expertise that are in a
retired status that might be willing to help us, that have
accounting backgrounds, and might be willing to come in and
give us some assistance there. I -- I note that there was a
letter in the newspaper the other day that we've got all
these --
AUDIENCE: Would you speak up so we can hear you?
JUDGE TINLEY: -- wonderful folks that -- that have
moved to our community with these skills, and I'm just
throwing that out as an option. Obviously, we need somebody
that has the skills. I'm just concerned about the cost. And
if we can get -- if we can get some qualified folks that are
willing to work on this thing for us, I think it would be a
great thing.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with you 100 percent.
I would hope that they would be licensed or blessed or
whatever kind of people you get.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I kind of disagree. I think
this is a --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm surprised by that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm so easy to get along with.
I think this is a very important thing; has some very severe
legal implications to the County. And not only financial,
because there's so many things -- I don't know what all can go
5-12-06
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
18
on about paying people incorrectly. I think we need to get a
licensed -- currently licensed accounting firm to do the
audit, and with -- there's no agendas; they're just doing it.
It's just a straight professional service. I would love to --
I think I like the idea of using volunteers, but on something
that is as critical as this, it may have some pretty
far-reaching implications. I want us to have data that is
coming from a licensed C.P.A. firm, and then they -- we can
hold them accountable for their audit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to hear from the --
the Auditor.
MR. TOMLINSON: I totally agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do we need an outside firm?
MR. TOMLINSON: Yeah, I think we do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question would be, do we
use the same outside firm that we always -- where is Tommy?
MR. TOMLINSON: P.ight here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we always use? And if
you say yes, then I'm going to ask you, why didn't they catch
-- why didn't they catch this before? So, should we use the
same firm that we always use?
MR. TOMLINSON: I think what you ought to do is --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Tommy, I can't hear you.
MR. TOMLINSON: I think what you need to do is -- is
5 12 06
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
19
ask for some quotes. You can't get a bid, because it's
against the law. I mean, you can't bid a service contract.
So, I would make some calls and tell them -- give them the --
what data you have, and give -- have them give you an
estimate. And then you negotiate with, you know, whoever you
think has the best qualifications, and tied to whatever time
element that's involved, you know, how many people they have
to get the work done, those kinds of issues. 'Cause, you
know, I think we need to get this done A.S.A.P. So, you know,
if a firm doesn't have, you know, the people to do it, then --
then that might not be the best choice.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is that something you can
do for us?
MR. TOMLINSON: I can do it, but I prefer not to do
it, because I'm too close to the situation. And, you know, I
don't -- I don't want to be in any way -- even for anybody to
even think that I'd do that and have an agenda connected
with -- with that calculation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, we hire somebody to hire
somebody?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we -- I think, to get it
done, I think --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Get it in here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think some member of the
Court -- personally, I think Dave Nicholson, with his
-iz-o~
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
20
background in business, is qualified to do it, with his human
resources background, to talk to the people -- accounting
firm, to get the prices, bring the prices, and he can get with
the Sheriff and put some kind of proposal together. And I
really -- maybe the Sheriff -- I don't know if the Sheriff
should be involved or not in that. But I just think that --
you know, it doesn't have to be Dave; it can be anybody, but
he seems to have the knowledge from his business experience to
do such a -- make inquiries, anyway.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'll talk with -- if Tommy
would give me the list of potential candidates, I'd be -- I'll
be the contact person.
MR. TOMLINSON: Another reason that -- that I prefer
financial software package, and we are learning by the day, or
by the hour. And, so, to make -- for us to get that software
to where we like it and we know what we're doing, I don't
think we have the real time to devote to it that we need to.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to say a couple
things. To begin with, these people who have been underpaid,
I want to set a deadline, a time that they're going to be paid
correctly, and I'd suggest that should be June 1. I don't
know how -- I don't see this as a big accounting job, as maybe
some others do. It's probably going to take a number of
eight-hour days going through records, plugging stuff into the
s-iz-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
21
computer, and generating a report for each one of these
employees that's been underpaid. I also think that the legal
issue -- no, the tax issues will wash out. The feds don't
care if we paid people what we promised to pay them; they just
care that we deduct the right FICA and withholding on the
amount that we do pay them. Now, it could be a legal issue.
I promise I won't practice law, Mr. Attorney. If we don't --
if we made a promise to pay a certain amount and we failed to
pay that, then that might be an issue for the courts to
decide. It's not going to get to that, but anyhow, when we
decide our process for making this right, I'd sure like to set
a deadline. I'd like to get this money in the hands of our
employees as soon as we possibly can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't disagree with you,
Commissioner. I think we should, and I think we should do the
audit or cause an audit to be done. By which firm, I don't
know. I'm not sure whether I understand whether Tommy's
suggesting that the accounting firm that we typically use for
our outside audit -- you're suggesting not to use that one?
MR. TOMLINSON: No, I'm -- I'm suggesting that you
-- you include anybody that you want to include. I mean, they
can -- there may be firms that choose not to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that could be the
case. But --
MR. TOMLINSON: And so, I mean, you have a limited
s-iz-oF
22
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
number that you have to choose from.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I make one --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to finish my
statement.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it should be done,
should be done A.S.A.P. And if we can accomplish it by June
1, that's fine. I agree with you on the tax aspects of it.
If they're underpaid, they're going to be paid what they're
supposed to get correctly; the taxes will be deducted from
that, and the federal government's going to -- going to end up
getting what's it's entitled to get. I'm just wondering if
it's a bit more complicated than what -- what appears on the
surface because of the overtime factor, the way they do their
overtime, their shift involvement, not only the step and
grade, but the educational component, as well as the -- as the
time in grade. All of these things add up to a good bit of
work. But -- so I -- let's do it. Let's get it done. I
don't know -- I don't hold out any hope about getting it done
by June 1, but let's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's -- I think part
of it could be done by June 1 pretty easily. I think the --
the overtime issue is a -- could take a while; you have to go
back through so many records. But the payroll, getting that
right shouldn't take long, and I'd like to see us -- even if
S-1L-06
1
"" 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
°^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
23
we have to cut two checks, I mean, I think we need to try to
get the -- the payroll part fixed as quick as we can. Then do
then, as quick as we can get that, 'cause I don't think it's a
huge job to get the payroll and -- the flat payroll fixed.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with your approach.
Let's take care of the base pay first, and the overtime can be
adjusted after we've gotten all these pieces laid in place.
And I'm wondering if -- if we might not be able to pick up on
the Judge's suggestion about some people who do hold C.P.A.
qualifications to help do some of the preliminary grunt work
to help the accounting firm have a lot of things in place when
they step in place to do that. I'm just wondering if we can
do -- do the two together and make it come out right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if the C.P.A, firm is
willing to do that, that's great, but I think they're the ones
that's signing the result, and it's up to them.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The only thing I have with
volunteers, even if they're -- unless they're going to sign a
kind of contract and be bonded and that, I'd just have a
concern about opening personnel files with Social Security
numbers and all that in it to volunteers, or somebody that's
24
25 conside
s-iz-o~
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a valid
really not --
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-° 2 9
25
24
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You know, I would also agree
Okay? That's going to take a lot of actual time and figuring,
going through every time slip for 87 employees for the last
three years -- 87 current employees. Now, the jail's always
had a pretty good turnover rate; y'all know that, so you got
those, too, that left. I have some that have died. I have
some that have retired, okay? You know, it's going to affect
all that stuff. But the basic payroll, the basic step and --
and grade scales, all right, I even believe that I've already
corrected those for the Court. But I would definitely, before
you went by that, let an outside agency -- let somebody else
doublecheck our work, okay? But I believe that they're
correct, and you can see the calculation work. And if they
are, my only thing is -- yes, this is already, what, May the
12th, so the next payroll's going to come out wrong. Officers
are going to get paid wrong on the 15th of this month. We
know that, all right? But if we could get at least the
first -- the officers back to being paid correctly this year
so that they're not continually being paid wrong from now on,
let's get at least that corrected, or the base payroll, the
base step and grades fixed. And then go in and fix the
overtime and let them have that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Rusty, where are the time
s-iz-oE
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
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I keep them all at our office.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Everything that an officer
would need is at your office?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes, as far as that. Now, as
far as what they were actually paid, that's -- you know, some
of that is going to have to come out of the Treasurer's
office. We know what they should have been paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the message we need -- this
Court needs to send to your people is that we're going to pay
them what they're due. They're entitled to it. We're going
to see that they get paid. Now, we may have to do it in a
couple of chunks, but -- however it works out logistically so
that it works out properly. But -- but I think -- I think you
can be assured that we want to do the right thing by your
people and see that they get what they're entitled to.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I would appreciate that.
Because -- and I tried to tone it down a little bit. My
attitude hasn't been very good. I don't feel officers and
jailers get paid enough as it is, and then when we shortchange
them because of our mistakes, you're right, I think it's even
worse. So, yes, I'm tired of mistakes coming out of there,
and it needs to be fixed once and for all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Better cut him off.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll sit down, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The 22nd is the next
s-iz-o6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
26
meeting -- Commissioners Court meeting.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not going to be here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. How about the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- why don't we just
have a special meeting to pick us an accounting firm next
week, as soon as Dave gets it. And I think you ought to --
shouldn't take that long to -- he can even call some of them
in San Antonio, some of the local ones. There's only half a
dozen local, I think, that would probably handle something --
I mean, really have personnel to do it, and some in San
Antonio. So I think by Tuesday, you ought to have a pretty
good idea as to who you want to talk to, so maybe set a
meeting for next Wednesday or Thursday and let them get going.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That'll work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thursday would be better for
me.
JUDGE TINLEY: I won't be available Thursday. I'll
be available Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Either day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Late in the afternoon is
fine.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're just talking about
scheduling. Trying to figure out with the Judge and us in
terms of scheduling.
5-1_-06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
24
25
27
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 3 o'clock Wednesday, the
17th?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can do it at 3 o'clock,
yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's going to happen at
3 o'clock on Wednesday, the 17th?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hopefully hire a firm to do the
audit of the payroll records.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the first pay period
in June? June what?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: They get paid twice a
month?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We get paid last -- yeah, 15th
and the 1st -- and the last day.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to have the step and
grade schedule corrected so that the first pay period in June
reflects the actual base pay, base plus whatever pieces are
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That'll certainly be the goal,
but, I mean, I think you have to wait till we visit with --
get some input.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that should be our
goal.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think we need a
motion. We're just agreeing to meet next Wednesday, and
5-iz-o~,
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
28
probably going to do this same agenda item again, have some
information about who might do the work for us, and hopefully
we'll select a contractor.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other member of the Court have
anything to offer on this?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir. That sounds good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mrs. Nemec, did you desire to be
heard?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are we going to get off of
the agenda item here?
MS. NEMEC: No, sir, not at all. All about the step
and grade schedule.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me see the agenda item
again.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. NEMEC: I have a prepared statement that I'd
like to read for the record, please. It says to Commissioners
Court from Barbara Nemec, County Treasurer. The question has
been raised as to whose responsibility it is to prepare the
step and grade schedule. I was under the impression that the
previous Court Administrator prepared this schedule along with
the position schedule until the time she retired. However,
after researching the matter, I found that she only prepared
the schedule up until the year 2000. My office did indeed
5-12-06
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
prepare the schedule for the following two years after that.
It is my understanding that errors being questioned today did
not reflect -- did not occur during the two years my office
At this point, the Court approved adding additional
amounts to each step/grade for the Sheriff's Department. I
tried to explain to the Court the schedule would not be
accurate in the manner they were proposing. It was at this
time that the Assistant Auditor volunteered to take over this
function. I was not opposed to this idea, since, one, I did
not agree that the manner that was being proposed would keep
the 2.5 increment uniformity that is set in the schedule, and
two, it was not a duty outlined in the Court Order Number
21189 appointing me County Personnel Officer. From that point
forward, the following is the manner in which the schedules
were being handled. One, Assistant County Auditor updates and
prepares step and grade schedule. Two, Assistant Auditor
gives Treasurer step and grade schedule. Three, County
Treasurer updates the position schedule by applying the
amounts from the updated step and grade schedule to each
employee, and during the budget process, both schedules are
adopted by the Commissioners Court.
During the budget process, it is typical to receive
several calls from various departments asking for payroll
figures reflecting the anticipated cost-of-living, merit
5 1'-06
1
.' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 9
25
30
and/or longevity. At this early stage of the budget process,
the step and grade schedule is not yet available to reflect
the updated information. Therefore, I take the current
schedule that is in place and look up the step and grade that
each employee is being paid, and that amount is then
multiplied by the percentage of anticipated cost-of-living,
and then an additional 2.5 is added to that figure for each
grade that is being proposed. The 2.5 represents the standard
increments between grades. In November 1992, Court Order
Number 21189 was approved. This court order outlines my
are not one of them.
The duties outlined in this order read as follows:
responsibility of keeping and maintaining such personnel files
of each county employee as required by the Court or the
personnel rules, assisting in the administration of the Kerr
County personnel policies, preparing reports and documents
required by state and federal agencies regarding personnel
matters, maintaining time records, monitoring accumulations of
sick, vacation, and overtime, administrating the benefits
program, and working with the County Auditor in matters of
accounting and compensation. The County Personnel Officer
shall assist elected officials, department heads, and
s iz-oa
31
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
supervisors in personnel matters and shall make such reports
to Commissioners Court as may be requested to the Court. Any
questions?
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.
MS. NEMEC: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone else present have anything to
offer in connection with the matter being considered today?
Any member of the Court have anything they wish to offer?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a comment, and -- about
where we go from here. I think that the most important thing
at this moment is to do what we've done; is to get an
accounting firm to audit. The other part of it, as to what
caused it, I think that is something that the public has a
right to know as to why this happened. I'm not really trying
to point blame as much as figure out where the problems are.
And I'm somewhat shocked -- I think I've made this comment
before. Our personnel -- not the personnel side; the pay side
of this County's work, you know, this using Excel spreadsheet
to figure out pay in the computer days that we have today, and
the knowledge and the programs that are available, seems
really odd to me. Seems that it's way, way too manual. I'd
really like to look at going into the -- maybe the last
century in technology in this area, and -- and start doing
payroll properly. It just seems that we just have -- this is
an archaic way of doing it. We're actually doing it with an
-iz-oti
32
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
abacus, almost. I mean, with technology -- I mean, I'm
exaggerating some, but not a lot. And there are -- are
certainly firms around that handle payroll functions, and I'd
like to inquire about outsourcing this entire function to the
private sector. And every -- I just think it can be done
cheaper and better. We've had a lot of problems this year,
and it just -- you know, we've spent way too much time on this
issue trying to fix mistakes, and I think it's time to move
forward on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, Judge.
We've devoted a lot of time and attention here to the errors
that have taken place in the Sheriff's Department step and
grade. Are we confident that there are not also errors in the
other step and grade that affect all the other employees? And
if we are confident, that's fine. If we are not confident,
then we should take the necessary steps to rectify that at
this time as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're right, Commissioner. I think
the Sheriff has indicated, with some test figures that he ran,
he thinks that the regular clerical and admin. schedule is
okay, but if we're going to have this thing reviewed by
professionals, I think they ought to look all of it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We need to look at all of
it. There's no sense in completing one and going back to find
out we have to do it all over again. Just do it all at one
5-12-06
33
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
time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right, 'cause I
think it -- also, the confidence of the employees is at stake
here.
DODGE TINLEY: Surely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, anyway, I would put it back
on. I made those comments. I think we need to look into it a
little bit further, and I'll put it back on our next agenda as
well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sheriff, did you have something?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: One last comment. I have to
say, gentlemen, I'm at my wit's end with all this. Okay? I'm
sick and tired. In the last just little bit, I've had three
employees that were overpaid on their paychecks, and had to
all of a sudden pay it back on short notice, and hurt them on
that. I've had employees that didn't receive paychecks. I've
had employees that were shorted on paychecks. I'm -- and I'm
-- I don't know what the problem is. And I'm not going to
blame Barbara, but the only thing I'll say is, I wish I could
pick and choose what laws in this state I wanted to enforce
that were part of my duties.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you can't.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I wish you'd really tell us
how you feel about that, Sheriff.
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to tell you how I feel about
s-1,-oF
34
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
it. There have been 10 errors in the last few months in the
Sheriff's Department. Two of those errors I take
responsibility for. I have backup here, where those errors
came from and why they occurred. If you want to go into
executive session, I'll be glad to share it with you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see no useful purpose in
this dialogue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Stay on the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any member of the Court have anything
further? Tommy, you had something?
MR. TOMLINSON: Well, I didn't come prepared to say
anything, but there was a -- we had a -- I come before the
Court with a little mixed emotions. One is of surprise. The
other one is a little confusion, and maybe a little anger.
You know, the surprise part of this is that I didn't know that
-- that the Auditor's office was responsible for calculating
this schedule. I have never received, that I know of, a
directive from this Court or any other prior Court to that
effect. And what -- I mean, the County Judge, at the time
that the files were transmitted to the Treasurer's office, I
think the intent was to -- was to put that process in the
correct place. And -- and in my mind, it is in the correct
place, because, I mean, this -- this schedule is the basis --
or, I mean it's basic to the step and grade footprint.
Because without it, you don't have anything. So, my confusion
5-12-06
35
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
is -- is how do you	separate one function of --	of the	payroll
process or the step	and grade process from one	-- one	
department to another? I mean, I believe that	-- that	by
And the
And I think my employee that -- that was mentioned
in today's meeting, according to her, she assisted the
Treasurer, by the Treasurer's request. So, I mean, it's -- to
me, it doesn't matter who does the calculation. It doesn't
matter if it's right or wrong. What matters is -- is that the
person that's responsible takes that responsibility. I mean,
it can be -- I mean, Buster could have calculated it. If it
was right or wrong, the Treasurer or the Treasurer's office
has to assume responsibility. So, my -- my anger is that I
have -- and it's not with the Treasurer; it's not with the
Court, but I have been in the business world for almost 45
years. I've been in the military, I've been in college, and
in all those experiences, I've met many people and have had
lots of relationships. I've been -- I've been an employee and
I've been an employer. What -- what really makes me mad is
that none of those people that I've had association -- that
I've been associated with ever told me that I had the option
to pick and choose what part of my job that I'm not
s-iz-on
36
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
responsible for. Thank you for your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anything further?
MS. NEMEC: Yes, sir. I'd like to mention, for one,
that the payroll function is not the Treasurer's
responsibility in the court order that I was assigned to be
the County Personnel Officer. And Mr. Tomlinson says -- or
feels that it is my responsibility to do the step and grade,
and that it's not the Auditor's responsibility, but it is
clearly outlined in this court order. And if y'all want to
change it, if you feel like Mr. Tomlinson feels, then the
court order needs to be changed, because it says that I --
that the Treasurer shall work -- is working with the County
Auditor in matters of accounting and compensation. Working
with, not doing them.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Move we adjourn.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Motion made and seconded for
adjournment. Any question or discussion? All in favor?
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Opposed? We stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 2:54 p.m.)
s-iz oe
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
37
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 15th day of
May, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : _ ~L,~n~ 1~----
Kathy nik, De"Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
s-iz-oF