1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
zz
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Special Session
Friday, September 15, 2006
10:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, CommissionerPCt. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4
v
CJ
\~
~l
Q

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
23
29
25
	I N D E X	
	September 15, 2006	
		PAGE
1.1	Public Hearing on proposed FY 2006/2007 tax	
	rate for Kerr County and set meeting to adopt	
	tax rate for September 20, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.	3
1.2	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	assert claim on Treasurer's official bond for	
	losses incurred by Kerr County in the amount of	
	$2,507.37 resulting from the County Treasurer's	
	failure to timely file and/or pay sums due to	
	TCDRS as required	4
1.3	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to set	
	salary of County Treasurer for FY 2006-2007	15
1.4	Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to	
	select type and method of constitution of Salary	
	Grievance Committee, take appropriate action to	
	name and notify members of such Committee and set	
	date(s) for any required meeting(s) of Committee	47
---	Adjourned	49
3
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
On Friday, September 15, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., a special
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
2006, at 10 a.m. It looks like we're pretty well out of
seats. If we have any -- any additional increase in the
crowd -- we've got a couple over here, I'm given an
indication, maybe one or two back in the back, one over here.
If -- if we need extra space, we can go upstairs. I'd prefer
not to have to do that once we get started, but if that's what
we need to do to accommodate everybody, we'll do that. The
first item on the agenda is a public hearing, so at this time,
I will convene a public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year
2006-2007 tax rate for Kerr County, and set a meeting to adopt
that tax rate for September the 20th, 2006, at 10 a.m.
(The regular Commissioners Court meeting was closed
at 10:01 a.m., and a public hearing was held in open
court, as follows:)
P U B L I C H E A R I N G
JUDGE TINLEY: At this time, is there any member of
a-is-o6
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"" 2 4
25
County? Anybody wishing to be heard, please feel free to come
forward. Give us your name and address and tell us what's on
your mind about the tax rate. I see no one moving for
recognition or otherwise coming forward, so I will close tho
public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2006-2007 tax rate
for Kerr County.
(The public hearing was concluded at 10;02 a.m., and
the regular Commissioners Court meeting was
reopened.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The matter has already been set for
-- for final adoption on Wednesday, September the 20th, 2006,
at 10 a.m., by virtue of public notice already published, so
the matter will be taken up at that time. I will move now to
the addendum to the agenda, and Item 2; consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to assert claim on Treasurer's
official bond for losses incurred by Kerr County in the amount
of $2,507.37 resulting from the County Treasurer's failure to
timely pay and/or pay sums due to Texas County and District
Retirement System as required by applicable statutes,
regulations, or rules. The matter was on a previous agenda of
the Court, and at that time, the figures were not specific,
and the request was made by one or possibly more than one
member of the Court that we should get the figures specific,
bring it back, and bring the matter up at that time. I have
not included any sums to the Internal Revenue Service that was
9-15-06
5
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
included on the original agenda item. The $527.01, I believe
it was, levy, while it has been paid, I'm not including that
in this agenda item because we've got another one outstanding
that has not yet been satisfied. We don't know the outcome of
that, so that possibly will come at a later time. The
T.C.D.R.S. notifications, members of the Court have been
provided with that, aggregating the total four different
instances in which those sums were not paid timely resulting
in administrative penalties or fees of $500 each on each of
the four occasions, plus interest, the total amount being
$2,507.37.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, let me ask you a
question. On the cover letter from the retirement system, it
shows a figure of 538.38.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then on Page -- on the
next letter, it's 530.38.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that two different --
JUDGE TINLEY: Those are --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- issues?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. The -- the first one, as
you'll note, is the report for the month of April 'O5. The
second one -- and the figure that you mentioned is for the
September '02 report, as indicated in that --
9-15-05
6
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- earlier portion of that letter.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the County Attorney here?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The reason is, after looking at
these, I think I made the comment last week that I think this
is a -- this is a cost to the taxpayers, these fees. They
come out of the retirement system, and the retirement -- and
the funds come out of the retirement system, and our balance
in that system is determined -- determines the rate that we
pay the retirement system. So, indirectly, there certainly is
a relationship there, which I have a problem with. I was
aware of the one last year, and had heard that there were
previous ones. This is the first time I've looked -- or seen
them, and I'm a little concerned about the dates on them. The
other three that are listed on here are from 2002;
January 2002 late payment, February 2002, and September 2002.
And elected officials are on four-year terms, and we have
four-year bonds. I really need to hear from the County
Attorney about how you go back that far, if we chose to do it.
They're -- it seems like that's a -- I mean, it's a pretty big
issue, I mean, the length of time there. So, that's kind of
something I would like to find out.
JUDGE TINLEY: These came to light as a result of
9-15-06
7
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
the one last year, when I received notification, and there was
some follow-up inquiry made. It may well be possible that
there'll have to be claims asserted on two different bonds, ~
and if -- if that's the case, why, that's the case.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. And the other issue that
I really wanted to talk to the County Attorney about a little
bit goes into a -- it's a precedent thing. I think these are
-- what's the word? -- more, I guess, blatant mistakes; that's
probably not a good choice of words. Of mistakes made that
cost taxpayers money, and it's certainly against the bond.
I've talked to several constituents that have this same
concern. And these conditions, I might add, are really --
they didn't have an opinion on one side or the other. Their
concern was more precedent setting, as to if you assert -- or
if we start asserting claims against elected officials' bonds,
what does that mean? If -- and I see Rusty sitting here. Say
Rusty's driving a car and takes a sip of coffee and hits a
deer, and he's costing the taxpayers money by having a wreck,
hurting the county vehicle. Well, that's a mistake that he
made.
Is -- you know, granted, it's a very different
mistake than we're talking about here, but it is a mistake,
and I'm sure there are other, if not all, elected officials
that have made decisions and/or mistakes that have indirectly
cost the taxpayers money. I was on my way to -- Commissioner
a-is-o6
8
1
"° 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`~ 2 4
25
Baldwin and I were, several years ago, on the way to Abilene,
and I was not paying attention and I made a wrong turn, and we
ended up about 50 miles out of the way. You know, that --
just have a real concern against where you draw the line. I
think these are different in a degree -- in a respect, but
it's a slippery slope that I'm worried about as to how you end
up saying, okay, this mistake, we should go against the bond,
and others we shouldn't.
I have a real problem with what -- the mistakes
here. The 2002 ones, I wasn't aware, and to me,
ose ones are more of a problem. We had two months
in a row when this amount wasn't paid on time, then another
time later that year. Clearly, after the first one, the
Treasurer was aware that a huge penalty comes when these
payments to the retirement aren't made on time, and yet
there's three more after the first one. So, you know, I'm
certainly not trying to gloss over it. I think it is a
serious mistake, but I'm not sure how the best way to assert a
claim against that is. Since -- you know, if there's some --
if you could show me that this is an intentional item, that's
very different, but from what she has told the Court
previously, it was a mistake. And that's just kind of a
9-is-o6
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
interest in hearing from the County Attorney on those two
issues, and then there's another issue that I'd like to hear
from either the County Attorney or Auditor or whoever else
might know, that can answer my question, is what are the
consequences of asserting a claim on the bond? Does it make
it more difficult for office holders to get bonds in the
future? Does it make it more costly? Is the reputation of
the	County harmed	by	asserting a	claim?	Those are questions
that	I'd like to	hear	the answers	to.	
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I seem to recall in earlier
Texas District/County Retirement System late payments and
penalties, that the Treasurer offered to reimburse the
T.C.D.R.S. out of her own pocket, as opposed to asserting a
claim and so forth. The issue here is not necessarily tax
money in any huge amount. It is an erosion of the pool of
money that goes to pay the benefits for those who retire under
the Kerr County retirement system, under the T.C.D.R.S.
system. I'm wondering if that offer still stands. Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: May I address the Court, please?
(Ms. Nemec handed out documents.)
MS. NEMEC: This is the original check that will be
9 15-06
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
10
deposited today for $2,507.37. I take full responsibility for
anything that goes on in my office, and I don't think it's
fair to the taxpayers to have to pay that money. And as
Mr. -- Commissioner Williams said before, I had offered to pay
that money before, and this check will be deposited today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Looks like that ends that
issue.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything further from any member of
the Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would -- just a -- I don't
want to belabor this. Hopefully this won't come up again. At
some point, you know, I think it would be a good idea to get a
bonding company -- a representative in here to explain our
bonds a little bit. I don't know much about them; I just know
we have to get one. I don't even know what it covers. It
would be interesting to see if this is a -- if mistakes are
covered under those bonds. Just curiosity.
MS. NEMEC: And I did talk to the bonding company
and asked if this was okay for me to do, and they said yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right.
MS. NEMEC: And as far as the I.R.S., I'd like to
pass out to you a release of levy as of yesterday.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One more, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Coming this way.
9-15-05
11
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One more -- oh, we got
enough, Barbara.
MS. NEMEC: Got enough?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Hand me that one, please.
MS. NEMEC: I was at the I.R.S. in San Antonio for
the last two days trying to take care of this problem.
Basically, what they told me was when I get those notices, do
not call Pennsylvania; go straight to San Antonio, and they'll
take care of it right there and then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the time frame for
completing this matter?
MS. NEMEC: The levy was lifted yesterday.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's not what I just
heard. What I heard you say was there is still material and
documents that have to be submitted. Is that what I heard?
MS. NEMEC: No, everything's been submitted.
Everything's been taken care of. But what the I.R.S. told me
yesterday was that in the future, if we -- if I ever get
another notice to that effect, do not try to call Pennsylvania
and talk to different clerks that answer the phone, because
you're never going to get the same person, and there are only
two tax specialty -- specialists that are dealing with
governmental agencies, that really know what they're talking
about, and two of them are located in San Antonio. So, they
III said as soon as I get one of those, just go down there and
9-15-06
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
they'll fix it right there and then.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Seems to me that that was my
suggestion the other day, that San Antonio would be a proper
place to do this, as opposed to Bensalem, Pennsylvania. My
question, though, is to the base issue. Have we resolved the
base issue of our classification with I.R.S. semiweekly versus
twice-monthly?
MS. NEMEC: We have. What is happening is, at the
end of the year, there's voided checks; there's reissued
checks. If a department forgets to turn in time for an
employee, then I have to do a separate check, and what happens
is you have to -- on your Schedule B, you have to put down
what your liability is. In Pennsylvania, they're doing it one
of two ways. Every time you talk to somebody, it's a
different way. They're taking the tax liability at the time
of your payroll, and then some are taking the tax liability of
what you pay. But that's why, when I went to San Antonio, he
took my Schedule B, he inputted it in the computer, it all
balanced and everything was fine. So, the -- the part of
semimonthly and monthly is cleared. That's not a -- that's
not the problem. The problem is the way the I.R.S. clerks are
determining -- and they take an average, like Mr. Tomlinson
said the other day, and that's how they come up with -- that
it doesn't balance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Very good.
9-15-06
13
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Very good.
JUDGE TINLEY: But it resolved after they put the
Schedule B information into the computer?
MS. NEMEC: I'm sorry?
JUDGE TINLEY: It was resolved after they put the
Schedule B information into the computer?
MS. NEMEC: After they put it in the correct way.
Because the Schedule B was put in the computer, but it was
done incorrectly.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anything further from any
member of the Court on this matter?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is there any
member of the audience that has filed a participation form on
that particular item?
MR. TRIGO: Could I address the Court?
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward. Give us your
name and address. Is this as to the bond item?
MR. TRIGO: The bond item, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right, sir.
THE WITNESS: My name is Steve Trigo; that's
T-r-i-g-o. I reside at 165 Scenic Valley Road. That's
Precinct 1. With regards to the bond being discussed, I have
recently requested an Open Records statement from other
elected and appointed county officials, and would like to
9-15-06
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~~
G ~
23
24
25
know, should the financial losses by county officials -- will
the same action being discussed today be imposed on other
county officials? As you was saying, Mr. Letz, if you should,
for some reason, veer off the road and cost the taxpayers
money for extra gas, are you going to be liable for that? Can
I get an answer on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sir, I'm not sure we have an answer
for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That was the question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my comments -- I mean,
there's a question there. I think it's something you have to
-- you know, that's why I brought it up. I don't think that
is a -- a good decision, but I think there's also -- this is
different than that. I mean, so I think it's a -- you know,
there's different kinds of mistakes, but I brought that up for
that very reason. I think that if we're going to pursue
something like this, it needs to be done consistently, and I
think that we need to get more -- I need to get more
information before I'd be willing to do that, because I --
MR. TRIGO: That's why I'm asking. Is the same
action going to be taken on other officials?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Like I say, I didn't put this on
the agenda today.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't know.
MR. TRIGO: You don't know?
9-15-06
15
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
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
THE WITNESS: Then why are we discussing Ms. Nemec's
bond right now, if you don't know this?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. TRIGO: If you don't know an answer to this, why
are we discussing Ms. -- the Treasurer's bond right now?
JUDGE TINLEY: We had some specific losses that were
incurred, and that's the reason we're here, on that issue,
that specific narrow issue.
MR. TRIGO: I think you're setting a precedent here.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think any precedent has been
set as a result of no action being taken.
MR. TRIGO: Well, I just -- I'm just wondering,
because I have letters -- you got one yourself, Judge, so...
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Does any member of the
audience wish to be heard with respect to Item 2 on the
agenda, the bond issue? Let's move on, then, to Item 3.
Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to set salary
of County Treasurer for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. I placed this
matter on the agenda. When -- when I performed my statutory
duty as budget officer for Kerr County, I plugged in a salary
for all the elected officials, including the County Treasurer.
I plugged in the salary of the County Treasurer for $27,850.
I did so because of the -- initially, because of the
notification which the Treasurer served on the Court in
9 15-06
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
16
other members of the Court, that she had an unfilled position
that she's not taking steps to fill, but notwithstanding that,
she put the Court on notice she was not going to do that. I
considered that a significantly large portion of her duties
and responsibilities, and in preparing my proposed budget
which I subsequently filed, I reduced that salary because of a
significant reduction in those duties and responsibilities. I
must admit that there were some performance issues that came
to mind over the past year that had arisen that also played
into my thinking, but I performed my duty as budget officer.
That's what I plugged into the budget. I thought it was
appropriate then; I think it's appropriate now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My comment earlier was, at a
salary be reduced to the same as commissioners. And I think
there's a -- the number for that is somewhat arbitrary.
It's -- I didn't -- you know, I just picked a number, same as
commissioner, to try to keep salaries somewhat tied to
different things. And I -- I agree that the -- there is a
9-15-06
17
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
reduction in workload, but my recollection before I was on the
Court -- I do see Commissioner -- former Commissioner and
future Commissioner Oehler in the audience. He may be able to
answer this. I don't know if it was done during his time on
the Court or not, but all the -- County Treasurer, Tax
Assessor, County Clerk and District Clerk were all equalized
just before I got on the Court, as I understand it. I'm not
sure exactly when it was. And I believe at that time, some of
these functions were not being done by the Treasurer, or just
recently done, or adjustment was made at that time. But prior
to that, her salary -- or the Treasurer's salary, not
necessarily Ms. Nemec's -- was lower than the other -- those
other three elected officials I named. I'm not sure exactly
where that salary was, but I know it was lower. I don't think
it was in the neighborhood of half or 40 percent, the
difference. So, thinking of that, and also of the reduction
in workload by taking the position off of the human resources
function, which I think is better served in its own
department, I stand by what I said previously, that I think
the salary should be the same as the Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had taken a position
earlier that I needed to reflect on the matter, and did, and
did some research on the matter. And what I reviewed is what
Commissioner Letz just said; that I believe it was in '94-'95
budget -- I believe that was what it was, either '93-'4 or
9 15 Oti
18
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
'94-'5, the Treasurer's salary was brought to parity with
other elected officials. And that followed on the heels of --
sent to us saying that she no longer wished to do that work --
I made less comments because of what I read in here. Based on
the letter that was sent to us by the Treasurer indicating
that she no longer wished to do that work, we then moved
forward to set up a human resources department.
I, frankly, think that is a good thing to do. I
I supported it
I support it
With 300
department that takes care of all of the issues of law
relating to the employment of people. And having said that, I
believe that we did the right thing, and I would do it again
if it came before us tomorrow. I joined Commissioner Letz in
my second-week discussion on this -- second time we discussed
this, and I concur with his assessment of the matter. I
believe a reduction is in order. I don't believe a cut down
of $15,000 or $16,000 or $17,000 is in order, and I support
the levy of the -- the level of compensation for the Treasurer
9 15-06
1S
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
to be set at the same as commissioners, $93,257. I move that.
JUDGE TINLEY: 43,257?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe that's what the
new Commissioners Court level is. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If that's not it, then
whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And move the budget be set
accordingly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll second that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We have a motion and second that the
County Treasurer's salary for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 be set at
-- excuse me -- $43,257. Mr. Tomlinson, could you verify that
figure for us?
MR. TOMLINSON: For --
JUDGE TINLEY: As being the equivalent of a proposed
commissioner's salary, so that we're dealing with a real
number and not something that we're having to go chase? I
appreciate that. The number you want is whatever that number
is?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Is there any discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Judge, I have a little
9 15 Ob
20
1
~. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~" 2 4
25
I understand
You've -- the Judge has actually
sense. So many times in here, we simply reach up in the air
and grab a number, and I've always been uncomfortable with
that, but it has to be done sometimes. But I have a different
-- little bit different perspective on the thing. I think
that there is a perception in the community that this thing
has turned into a -- just a battle between Judge Tinley and
the County Treasurer. So -- and I think -- I think that's a
bad thing. I think there's a better way to handle this, and
my proposal is that we -- yes, we do lower the salary, but ,ae
lower it to a point -- and I'm recommending 35,000 -- to a
point that would cause the Treasurer to go to the grievance
committee. Because I believe that, because of the political
part of it, it needs to be removed from this court and put in
a jury of peers of -- of folks that are base people that are
out in the community; that we put that group together and
bring them together and provide them with all the information,
let them make a decision, and then we live with it. That's --
that is -- I just think that that's the best plan. Because if
we -- if we go on -- I believe if we go on the route that
we're going right now, there will forever be a cloud on this
9-15 06
21
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
Court. And it's nothing but perception of the community, and
as we all learn sitting here, perception is 75 percent of the
game. And I just think a clean, clear way to do it is turn it
over to a grievance committee, provide them with all the
information, and let them make the decision. That's all.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Judge, when I look at
the -- compare the duties and responsibilities of the
Treasurer's office compared to the three other jobs --
AUDIENCE: Could he speak up, please, so we can
I hear?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Compared to three other
jobs that are similarly paid -- that would be the District
Clerk and the County Clerk and the Tax Assessor/Collector -- I
can see that their duties and responsibilities are
significantly larger than the Treasurer's, and so I would
support bringing the Treasurer's salary more in line along the
lines that Commissioner Letz has proposed, with -- with other
salaries in the county. And I -- you need some sort of a
benchmark, and commissioner -- county commissioner's salary is
as good a benchmark as any. There's -- as you know, I think
county commissioners may be paid too much, but we're paid what
we're paid.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other discussion or comments to
be offered by members of the Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- I'll just make another
9 15-06
22
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
comment. I mean, I like what Commissioner Baldwin said a
great deal. I will probably support the motion that I
seconded, but I think that is a good idea, and I wouldn't --
you know, if there's a grievance filed, I wouldn't be upset
with that option either. And I think that -- you know, I
think all elected officials can -- you know, we could open
that up for all elected officials, get input on salaries.
Might not be a bad idea. There's -- I think the -- I come
very, very close with Commissioner Nicholson on commissioner's
salary. As I've been a commissioner, there's been one
increase other than a cost-of-living. I think everyone should
get cost-of-living increases. I think it -- you know, that's
just -- to me, that's almost common sense. But there was one
adjustment upward, which I voted against, and they were just
trying to -- you know, several years ago after the Nash study,
there was a couple -- $2,000 increase for commissioners. I
voted against that at the time. But I -- you know, overall, I
think that the review of elected official's salary is
something that's good to do, and a grievance committee may be
a good thing to form at some point to get input on that. At
this point, I'm willing to support the -- the motion I
seconded.
JUDGE TINLEY: The grievance committee, of course,
is something that is -- can only be triggered by the employee
or the elected official whose salary is in question, as I
9-is-oo
23
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
understand it. And, of course, that would be truly
representative government, because the people we are elected
to represent will have the direct opportunity to set that
salary, after having all relevant facts with respect to the
duties, the responsibilities, qualifications, and the
performance. But it's something that we cannot trigger here.
It's got to be triggered by the affected elected official
under the statute. But that -- that, certainly -- as
Commissioner Baldwin said, I don't like the perception that
it's some sort of a personal matter as -- as between myself
and the Treasurer. It's -- the perception is going to be what
the perception is going to be. The only thing I can say is
that I'm looking at performance and duties and
responsibilities, and that's what I base my decision on, as I
indicated earlier. Is there any member -- I've got some
participation forms here, and -- and I'm going to allow these
people to participate. If there's anyone else, I'm going to
give them the opportunity to participate also, in case they
did not file a participation form. The first one that I have
here is Lexy Michalec. Do you wish to be heard, Ms. Michalec?
MS. MICHALEC: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Please come forward. Give us your
name and address, and tell us what's on your mind.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Judge, before you get into the
discussion, so that everybody would know, could you explain
~-i~-oh
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
how the grievance committee would be set up? Is there a
constitution that -- I mean, is there some kind of bylaws that
says it has to be a certain person here, or are they appointed
by the Commissioners Court or the County Judge? How would
that -- how would that grievance committee be set up? That
might resolve a lot of issues that people would have a
question about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm not sure we're on the
grievance committee issue; that's the next agenda item.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not on that item.
JUDGE TINLEY: We're not on that item. That's the
next --
JUDGE ELLIOTT: But the discussion was, if we can't
-- if you can't agree, maybe we ought to let the grievance
committee, since they're some objective third-party group of
citizens, when, actually, they're actually appointed by
members of the Commissioners Court. Then that wouldn't really
necessarily be so third-party objective.
MS. HILMERS: They're not.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, unfortunately, Judge Elliott,
we're not to that particular item.
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Not appropriate within the agenda
item. Ms. Michalec? Please come forward.
MS. MICHALEC: Lexy Michalec, 1603 Ranchero Road
g-15-06
zs
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
here in Kerr County. And I can personally vouch that Barbara
Nemec has been at the office working past the normal working
hours. In fact, I've observed her working many times past
midnight, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock in the morning on several
occasions. I visited her at her home while she was still
working on County Treasurer duties, and therefore, I do not
believe it should be -- her salary should be lowered. I think
that she does a lot of community service other than just --
you know, that's my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Linda Arrellano?
MS. ARRELLANO: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll come forward, give us your
name and address, please.
MS. ARRELLANO: My name is Linda Arrellano. I
reside at 122 West Lane in Kerr County. To -- Commissioner
Baldwin, to your statement as to you don't believe that it's
in y'all's place to decide what the salary should be, I
believe that is something that y'all were elected to do, to
actually rule on these types of issues, and that's why they --
y'all have put this before the Court. I also believe that
when you say you're not going to pull numbers out of thin air,
I think that's what you just did with the 35,000. The only
cloud that is on this Court, I believe, is the one that Judge
Tinley has been placing over and over again. I do believe
that the duties that Ms. Nemec has as Kerr County Treasurer
s-is o~
26
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
began with her constitutional duties when she was elected to
office way back when. Those have not changed. Her salary
should be kept in line with what her history and her
experience has been given to this community. When she took
over those duties for human resources, she did it without an
increase. The increase was given to her to keep her in line
with the other offices, and now you're trying to not only take
the actual increase that you gave her to keep her in line with
the other offices, but you're trying to decrease what she was
elected to this office with, the amount that she was elected
to this office with. And I would actually ask the Court to
research whether -- the fact that you're trying to lower an
elected official's salary after she's already been elected to
the County -- appointed position.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Pat Dye Hilmers.
MS. HILMERS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Morning.
MS. HILMERS: My name is Pat Dye Hilmers; I'm
retired County Clerk. My address is 306 Aaron Drive in
Kerrville. And I look around this courtroom, and I see Bruce
and I see Linda, and I see some of you -- I see so many peop'_e
that I know. But -- and I also know each of you, and thank
you for letting me talk. I'm quite concerned and disappointed
in the way our county government is right now because of the
way our Treasurer, Barbara Nemec, has been treated. I also
9-15-06
27
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
feel that it may be a form of harassment, because it's been
onaoina. I have pondered for weeks on this problem, and I
recollection. As a growing county, many changes have taken
place. I started working for the county in 1975. Excuse me,
allergies are getting me. Soon after that, our county was
~,rno ors„~h rhar ar a„d;rnr had to be hired. Don Williamson
was hired.
In the beginning of county government, we had the
Tax Collector -- text Tax Assessor/Collector and the Sheriff
as one office -- one office. Then the offices were separated.
The County Clerk and the District Clerk were combined, then
they were separated. The County Clerk did all the bills. A
part-time deputy County Clerk worked four or five days every
month helping Dorothy Pfeiffer do the bills. The County Clerk
did the insurance and the retirement for all County employees.
The Treasurer did all the checks and the bookkeeping that went
into payroll. She and the County Clerk worked together as a
team to accomplish their work and balanced all the county
accounts. After Ms. Emmie Muenker retired in 1982, I ran for
the office and was elected. I took office January 1, 1983.
Soon after that, Don Williamson came to me and said
9-is-o~
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
za
it was time for me to give up the responsibility for the
retirement and the insurance to our County Treasurer, Dorothy
I checked
of the county bills. I understood that was one of the major
responsibilities of a County Auditor, and Don Williamson
agreed. He hired a full-time deputy auditor, My salary was
Tax Assessor/Collector still made the same salary. The
Commissioners Court appointed Barbara Nemec Treasurer upon the
retirement of Dorothy Hillburn. She was her deputy. She has
carried on and performed all the responsibilities of the
Treasurer's office, and in my opinion, her salary should not
be reduced. She still has the same responsibilities by
statute that she has been performing. And her part-time
deputy position shouldn't be taken away either.
Before Dorothy Hillburn was Treasurer, Mrs. McDonald
had a part-time deputy. She did not do the county retirement
or the county insurance. In 1985, the Commissioners Court, et
al, made the decision that a County Court at Law or a district
court was needed in our county. The Texas Legislature would
9-is-oc
29
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
not finance another district court, but they would approve
county courts at law, because the counties would be funding
them, not the state. Our County Court at Law was established
and Bill Baskette was hired to fill the new position, and I
was appointed clerk of that court. There was a great amount
duties for me and my staff. I did not receive any additional
salary for accepting this responsibility. The County Judge,
Gordon Morris, didn't have his salary cut to help defray the
cost of Bill Baskette's salary. The only people hired were an
administrative clerk and a court reporter for Bill Baskette
and the court. My staff did double duty, and no one was hired
Precinct 1, Fred Holland, our new -- with our new optic
scanner voting machine. I had used three of the five machines
in our largest voting precincts for the last election, and one
had been dropped. They were big, huge, bulky, and very hard
to handle. This machine never functioned perfectly after
that. Right? I had decided to have all machines for central
counting station on election night. So, about 30 minutes
before our 9 a.m. Commissioners Court meeting, where
Mr. Holland and I were to have a heated discussion, he came to
my office for me to type a letter for him. This was customary
that I would do this, or Dorothy Pfeiffer, our Commissioners
9-15-05
3C
1
-~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-- 2 4
25
few minutes, we would be in court arguing. I told him I
didn't hold grudges and this was my job, and that I respected
him, and he smiled. In court after the discussion,
Commissioner Victor Lich said, "Gentlemen, the entire county
elected Mrs. Dye to run our county-wide elections. I think we
should let her do her job as she sees fit." And that ended
the discussion.
Commissioner Lich was like me in the sense that he
came up through the ranks. He had worked for Adolph Bartels,
I understand, and had an excellent understanding of county
government. Barbara Nemec also came up through training in
the Treasurer's office under Dorothy, and she had an excellent
understanding of county government. The other day, I was
asked to write a letter about one of our past commissioners,
and I agreed to do that. I wrote that he was always prepared
for each meeting, each budget session, and knew his facts so
he could make an educated decision. He was always fair and
respectful, and I enjoyed working with him. I wonder what
would be said of each of us today about working together.
Were we part of the team effort to solve the many problems
that face us today like we faced in the past? I hope and pray
that we can say yes. I sincerely hope that by explaining some
of our history, that you will understand that we do have a
5-15-06
31
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
history of tolerance and understanding, teamwork and respect
for each as an elected official. And I also want to commend
the Commissioners Court for appointing Diane Bolin, our
interim Tax Assessor/Collector. This was the right decision
for Kerr County. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
(Applause.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Hazelle Calcott?
MS. CALCOTE: That's Hazelle Calcote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cote, excuse me.
MS. CALCOTE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Give us your address.
MS. CALCOTE: Oh, you bet. I'm Hazelle Calcot°, and
I live at 1701 Calcote Road. And it's in Kerr County, in case
anybody doesn't realize that. And when anybody --
JUDGE TINLEY: Pull that mic down.
MS. CALCOTE: I'm kind of short on one end. If
anybody starts getting into my pocket -- and "my pocket" I
consider to be taxes that I have paid to the county and to the
state, the government, to whomever. When I say "my," that
means, broadly, everybody's taxes. So, consequently, you-all
all work for me, "me" being everybody in the county that pays
taxes or wherever. And that's why I am up here to complain
that I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth in
somebody that does not know what responsibility means,
9-15-06
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
To me, when you have -- I worked for savings
dollars. And such a responsibility which a Treasurer has --
that's money, and comparing hitting a deer in a police car
would be like comparing oranges to apples, and you don't do
that. What you do is, you do your job as you were elected to
do it, in the manner that it should be done.
And I have written down some things that were not
At least four times, paid employees' retirement funds were
late, incurring penalties and interest each time. That wasn't
accidentally. You hit a deer accidentally. You might
accidentally make one mistake. That's -- I'm pretty lenient;
I forgive once. Twice, I don't forgive. Which reminds me, I
can handle ignorance forever; stupidity I have zero tolerance
for. And numerous times, she failed to deliver either
correctly, late, incompetent, or not at all the proper I.R.S.
forms, and I always thought you don't mess with Uncle. I
don't care who you are or where you're from. And these forms
were resulting in levies being placed on county funds. Again,
that was my money. And if that's going to happen, I think
that she ought to give more than one check to the county fund,
and pay all the fees and all the penalties that she has caused
to be incurred against the county. Refund that to my account
for the county.
9-15-On
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°^ 2 4
25
The I.R.S. simply does not make that many clerical
errors. Now, I'm sure nobody's perfect, and that includes
them. And she states that they make a lot of clerical errors.
Undoubtedly, she's never worked for the I.R.S. If so, the
And I'm going to go
back to say that whenever part of your duties are deducted
from what you have to do, your salary should certainly be
deducted also. And I like Buster's figure of 35,000,
provided -- I would also add a P.S. to that. I would go a
little further and say put her on a time clock. Punch in and
punch out, paid by the hour. I don't care how much you pay
her by the hour; that's all right, but I'll guarantee you,
you'll get more work out of her. She'll be there if you put
her on a time clock. So -- but deduct her salary, 'cause if
she doesn't have three-fourths of the workload, she doesn't
need to be paid for something she is not doing with my money.
Failed -- she failed to timely pay health insurance
premiums, and, boy, that's no fun to get penalties on top of
that. And, like September and October, and resulting in the
termination notice, which everybody read in the paper about
that being issued to Kerr County by the insurance provider.
And the human resource -- resource function of the Treasurer's
office will end effective the end of this month, and a new
9-15-06
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
department is being created, and we all understand that, and
that's fine. If that's needed, I'm all for that. Just pay
everybody -- I don't care who it is. If you get paid, do the
work. Be able to earn what you're paid. I don't care who you
are, from the president on down to the dogcatcher. If you're
being paid a salary, you earn it. And compensation for
performing a job in the real world is based on job duties, as
well as current and past performance of the employer, so --
employee. I would like to ask for her removal. I understand
y'all can remove her. The public hired -- elected her, and
you all set her salary. And it looks like that the public
thought -- the majority thought that she would do her job.
But every time -- I don't take the paper, but I read it over
on the computer, and seems like at least once a week, I read
again about something that has turned up that's a boo-boo.
And I thank y'all for letting me spout off, but I hope do you
something positive.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. CALCOTE: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there any other member -- any
person in the audience that -- we'll get to you momentarily.
If you'll come forward, sir?
MR. OEHLER: I'm Bruce Oehler; I live at 125 Oehler
Road, Precinct 4. The statements I have to make this morning
are not personal and they're not political. It's a statement
9-15 Oh
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
of fact and then an opinion about what I think may happen.
Elected officials have duties that are statutory and others
that are not statutory. When a person is reelected, they know
the duties of that office. Ms. Nemec chose to stop doing the
human resources part of her job. This was a major portion of
her responsibilities. Consequently, a new department was
formed to take care of the human resources function, along
with some other things that will cost taxpayers more than
they've been paying for this function to be done in the past.
This department head will make an amount similar to the
District Clerk, the County Clerk, and the Tax
Assessor/Collector. Those duties, in my opinion, aren't
nearly as responsible as the District Clerk and the County
Clerk and the Tax Assessor/Collector. In my opinion, if you
do not substantially reduce the salary of the County
Treasurer, you will set a precedent for future elected
officials and present elected officials to shirk
responsibilities that they now have. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. I believe I had
someone over here -- yes, ma'am. Come forward and give us
your name and address.
MS. GEORGE: Thank you. My name is Jaye George. I
live at 708 Overhill Drive. My statement may not be exactly
where we need to be on your agenda, but as a private citizen
looking at people who are elected to do jobs, like each of you
9-15 06
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
and several people sitting in this courtroom, I have no idea
how you spend your time. I have no idea if you spend 10 hours
a day one day and zero hours the next doing your job. You're
elected to do that job. I have confidence, I hope -- it's
getting pretty weak nowadays -- that you're doing your job as
you were elected to do, and you're spending the time that you
need to spend. I suspect that what I could do in 10 hours
doing what I do, you probably couldn't do it in 20 hours, but
we could turn it around. Barbara Nemec does her job the way
she sees it. I've not followed her around. I have no idea if
she drinks coffee four hours on that time. But I have
confidence, as a person who votes, that we put people in
office to do their jobs. I hope you all are doing yours so we
can be proud of you, and I trust that Barbara is doing her job
so that we can be proud. I don't like being embarrassed by
what's going on in our town now. We have a fine town. I
think we look like idiots. I hope we get this over with.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am?
MS. DIXON: Good morning. I'm Ardith Dixon; I'm a
citizen and I live at 1509 East Jefferson Street in Kerrville.
I only have a brief statement to make. I'm embarrassed too
that this has been publicly in the papers as it has been. I
don't think it makes Kerrville look good, and -- and it makes
me wonder why we don't go internally first to solve some of --
9-15-Oo
37
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
or to question some things before it comes full-blown in the
media. But the one thing which makes me wonder about having
-- going to a grievance committee, I -- I see that it might be
perceived by the Commissioners Court to pass the buck; that,
hey, we don't want to be the ones to say how much she's going
to make. Let's do that; that's off of us. And, you know, I
just think some people will perceive it that way. I would
hope that as you're representatives of our county, that you
can make a good, solid judgment. I personally don't believe
that Ms. Nemec's salary should be lowered. I think over the
many years that she has been in service and worked for this
county doing her duties, that she has earned the level of her
pay. So -- and also, it is like, I believe, Ms. George
mentioned, we don't question your hours. I mean, if you're
going to say, well, her pay should be same as the clerk, maybe
the clerk puts in four hours, but she gets her job done.
Barbara may put in 12. I don't think you can base it that
way. I think it has to be based on the job she does and needs
to do. So, with those things to consider, I thank you for
your time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone --
is there any other member of the audience that wishes to be
heard in regard to this? Yes, sir. Come forward and give us
your name and address, please.
MR. NEMEC: Ed Nemec, 122 West Lane. One thing that
9 15-06
38
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
hasn't been brought out, and I'm bothered by it a little bit;
it was mentioned in this morning's paper in an open letter to
the taxpayers of Kerr County about, my understanding, during
the budget workshop, the Treasurer had said that she would
continue doing the human resources job -- functions, and that
~! at that time she said it constituted, I think, about 30,
35 percent of her time, if the Court would provide the
necessary staff and resources, but the Court chose otherwise.
So, I want that in the record that she did offer to keep the
job if she was given the necessary staff. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. There was someone
else out here trying to get my -- yes, ma'am. Come forward;
give us your name and address.
MS. MERRICK: My name is Billie Merrick. I live at
1506 Ranchero Road in Kerrville. I did not plan to speak,
except I have been doing some research --
JUDGE TINLEY: Pull the mic to you just a little.
MS. MERRICK: Oh, okay. I have been doing some
researching with large, small, and medium-size counties, and
Kerr County seems to fall in the medium-size county
government. This morning I talked to someone in a small
government, and they had been reading the articles in the
newspaper, and they thought it was ludicrous to lower an
elected employee's salary that much, you know, if someone had
been elected at a higher salary, and that they would be
9 15-06
39
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,,,_ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
._ 2 4
25
you will create another department? Is that what the
intention is? Has anyone done any research as to what it
costs to run -- so, if you decrease her salary, is that what
you would intend to do with -- would pay the human resource
person?
JUDGE TINLEY: I think you'll get -- in some
question.
MS. MERRICK: Okay. Well, the reason I was thinking
is just governments -- small governments, you know, medium
cap, from 250 to 499 employees, a human resource director,
there's a list of the things that they are required to do
here. They make starting 37.50 an hour up to 38.94 an hour,
which seems to be -- I don't know how you're going to find
somebody to do that in this size of county. That's average,
and that's in government. San Antonio, in small governments
in their portions, pay 41.37 an hour for human resource
directors, and that's in a small community like -- golly,
what's just right on this side of San -- Leon Springs,
whatever. So -- but I don't see how you -- you're lowering
hers, but you're going to cost you a lot more to separate it
q-is-oh
40
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
and get you one if you want them to do all these duties that
it says is required of a human resource person.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone
else here in the audience that wishes to be heard? Yes, sir.
Come forward.
MR. CASTILLO: I'm Claudio Castillo. I live at 807
Laura Belle. And sometimes, when the Court says, "Can do you
this job?" we'll say, "Well, okay, what is it?" And you're --
Commissioners are carrying the torch from the previous
Commissioners. And is that -- that's what happened with
Barbara previously. Can you handle this job? And was there a
$2,000 increase? Was there a $100 increase in her salary?
And like this young lady here said, an H.R. director is a --
an executive director is going to have to be paid some good
money; you know, $50,000 or so. Is that -- $50,000, is that
the equivalent of bringing it down to $27,000, getting that
I
~ from 27 to whatever Barbara was making? Is that the $50,000?
I
Did Barbara get anything when she was handed the insurance and
handed the H.R.? I don't know if even I can handle it, or
tell you how much she got. I think we should know. I think
li y'all should know. I think Tommy should know. Yet here we
~I are, going to bite her for not doing the job that she was
maybe not paid to do in the first place. I'm sick and tired
also of -- of fighting like this. We shouldn't be fighting.
We should be handling this thing directly. Buster, good
9-15-06
41
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
grief, I'm surprised at you saying things that you've been
saying in the newspaper. You know, I remember opening a can
of worms one time, and by golly, I finished that can of worms;
if it took me all day and it was cold, I got that. Wasn't a
big one, but I got a perch and it took all day to do it. I
did it, closed it up, went home with it. So, if you open up a
can of worms, finish it up. Don't throw it off on somebody
else. You got your hands dirty on it. Finish it up, and
let's do it right. What are you going to take away from her?
You never gave her anything in the first place except pick and
axe, and wail away at it. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else --
anyone else that wishes to be heard? Yes, sir?
JUDGE ELLIOTT: Vance Elliott. Well, 1230 Lois
Street in Precinct 1, thank goodness. I just -- I really
don't have an opinion on what the salary should be set at. I
want to commend Judge Tinley for putting, as he is supposed to
do, a budget, and with recommended salaries to the
Commissioners Court. And he -- he didn't say we should
possibly lower or we should lower a little bit or we should do
this or do that. He showed leadership in his -- and provided
a figure, which he is supposed to do. And when you receive
that figure, then I feel that, as the Commissioners Court, it
is your responsibility to decide if that figure is adequate,
and if not, recommend, as you have done, with saying it should
9-is-o6
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
24
25
be on parity with the Commissioners Court, a commissioner's
salary. I'm concerned that if it goes to grievance committee,
how the grievance committee would be set up. That issue,
again, would be all political, and people would say, "Oh, it's
motivated by who got put on and who was appointed by who."
Let's just show some leadership and resolve the issue right
here, as you're elected as Commissioners to do. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Anyone
else? Yes, ma'am?
MS. NEMEC: I'd like to clarify some comments that
were made earlier. One of the ladies said that there were
penalties on insurance, late payments. There were not any
penalties on any insurance payments that were late. Yes,
there were four late penalties on T.C.D.R.S. That was taken
care of today, at no cost to the taxpayers. In the paper, it
constantly states that the Treasurer failed to submit I.R.S.
paperwork on time as a result of Judge Tinley's agenda items.
That is false. And I want to again point out that I have told
this Court on several occasions during the budget workshops
that I would be glad to continue to perform those duties,
provided that I am given the staff and the resources to do so.
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. Anyone else? Any further
questions or comments from any member of the Court with regard
to the pending motion?
-i5-o5
43
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do, Judge. I have -- I
want to comment about passing the buck. That was brought up
four times.
JUDGE TINLEY: I didn't count.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The -- I did. That wasn't --
that wasn't my issue at all. I'm very capable of voting, and
I do, hundreds and some -- maybe thousands of times a year on
issues that are more difficult than this, I can tell you, and
I don't have any problem with it. I was just trying to get it
out of the political arena and do the right thing for the
community. I have no problem. Let's vote.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments by
anybody on the Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only comment I want
to make was -- two, and this goes into my decision on this.
And Ms. Nemec has today said she's willing to do these duties,
and she -- you know, I was aware of that. I think one other
person asked what we're doing with H.R. We're setting up an
H.R. department; it has been set up and the new director has
been hired. Over the last several years, it has become
apparent to me that this county, with its size, the complexity
of -- of laws, needs more expertise in that area of human
resources, and that's the reason I went forward. It wasn't
taking work away from Ms. Nemec; it wasn't anything like that.
I just truly believe that our insurance issues have gotten
9-15-06
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
more and more complex. Our H.R. overall have gotten more and
more complex, and I, quite frankly, think that you need a
professional to do that. And that's my decision for hiring --
going with the H.R. department. It was not trying to take
work away from Ms. Nemec. The other option would have been to
do -- you know, budget consequences is to put an H.R. director
like we have hired under Ms. Nemec. Yes, that was an option, i
but I -- from a dollar standpoint, you know, it's not going to
change anything that much in the county. So, I just wanted to
bring that up. It's not something against -- I think Pat Dye
really is who I brought this comment up to. She was
talking -- or Ms. Hilmers, I should say. I'm sorry.
MS. HILMERS: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, things change over
time. We are a much different county than we were 5, 10, 15,
20 years ago. And that's why we need an H.R.; nothing to do
with Ms. Nemec's position, in my opinion. The other thing
that I also think is important and that weighs in on my
decision on this today is that she -- she is elected by the
people. That's why I have a real problem with a -- a real
large reduction in salary. Most of the things that we've been
discussing today, and off and on, were aware to the voters
when they reelected her. Maybe not quite as much as, you
know, have come out recently, but still, some of these things
were aware. And she was reelected by the citizens of Kerr
~-is-oc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L 1
22
23
""°' 2 4
25
45
salary without going through the grievance process. I -- and
I don't know if she is going to accept it or not. That will
be her decision. But I think that there -- you know, I just
think the commissioner's salary is a more accurate salary
level than the other three that she previously had parity
with, based on responsibilities. And I think -- my final
point I do want to make is that several people have said that
because of her longstanding employment with Kerr County, both
as an employee and as an elected official, the salary should
be -- you know, should justify that. That's something I've
had to wrestle with many times. We have a very experienced
elected body in Kerr County right now. But when we hire a new
constable -- or we've just hired a new J.P. -- I shouldn't say
we hired; the employees -- the citizens elected a new J.P.
Well, should that new J.P. get paid less because she's new
than an existing J.P.? To me, no. The responsibilities are
basically by statute and by law. So, yes, it is great to have
experienced people in these positions, but I don't think it is
-- you necessarily need to pay based on that experience. I
9-15-Oti
46
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't think the Sheriff should get paid more this year than a
new Sheriff would sometime in the future. I think you have to
look at the position. People run for those jobs, and they
should be paid accordingly. That's it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other question or comments by any
member of the Court?
MS. ARRELLANO: I have a question, sir. What are
you paying the H.R. director?
JUDGE TINLEY: The number is 52,500. That's what's
in the budget.
MS. ARRELLANO: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any other comments, questions from
members of the Court? All in favor of the motion -- let me
first clarify. The Auditor has verified the number as
$43,257. The motion, therefore, is that the salary for the
County Treasurer for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 be set at $43,257.
That's the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: The motion does carry. Based upon
the -- based upon the communication which was received from
Ms. Nemec last week, I believe it was -- maybe earlier this
week; I'm not sure -- relative to the issue of elections for
9-15-06
47
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
salary grievance, does -- does the content of that letter
still hold, Ms. Nemec?
MS. NEMEC: Oh, no, I wish to withdraw that.
JUDGE TINLEY: All right. So, Item 4 -- I'll go
ahead and call the item, and then let the members of the Court
do whatever they wish with it. Consider, discuss, and take
appropriate action to select type and method of constituticnal
salary grievance committee and take appropriate action to name
and notify members of such committee and set date or dates for
any required meetings of the committee. Based upon
Ms. Nemec's communication earlier, and as confirmed here this
morning, I see no reason for the Court to take any time
constituting a grievance committee. We've had no other
notification from any other elected officials of a need for a
grievance committee, and -- that's my sense of it. Any member
of the Court have anything different?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused a little bit. I
thought that the letter from Ms. Nemec was that if she -- she
would file the grievance if we set it below the commissioner's
salary, and she's withdrawing that letter. Does that mean
you're filing the grievance?
MS. NEMEC: No, as long as my salary is what the
Commissioners are making, then I will not go to grievance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: As just approved.
9-15-Oh
48
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
MS. NEMEC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think it would be just
helpful, since there are a lot of people here, and Judge
Elliott brought it up as to how a grievance committee is
staffed, and then after that, I think we're pretty much done
for the day, in my opinion.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Local Government Code provides
that we have the ability to make an election of how the
grievance committee is constituted. One -- one election we
would have is for specified elected or county officials to be
on the grievance committee, that being the Sheriff, County Tax
Assessor/Collector, County Treasurer, County Clerk, District
Clerk, County Attorney, or Criminal District Attorney. And
the balance of the members of that committee would then be
public members and would be drawn from those persons who had
served on Grand Juries in this county during the previous
calendar year, I believe it is. The other option --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wait just a second.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, with that -- going that
route, yes, it could be political. It could remain politicai,
okay? Now, there's another way to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: The second selection that we have, we
could elect to compose the committee of nine public members.
Those public members would be drawn in the same manner or
9-15-06
49
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
method, which our County Clerk was prepared to allow us to do.
She has obtained the names of all persons who served on the
Grand Jury -- Grand Juries in this county in calendar year
2005. She's got them all neatly cut up and in little strips
in an envelope, and we were ready to roll if need be. So,
that was the other selection method, or constitution methcd.
So --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that one is not
political.
MS. HILMERS: It's been done both ways.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's been done both ways.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything -- anything else by any
I member --
JUDGE ELLIOTT: And y'all have shown leadership
today. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, gosh.
MS. NEMEC: Commissioners, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for straightening
out the I.R.S. matter.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate that. Anything further,
gentlemen? We'll stand adjourned.
(Commissioners Court adjourned at 11:17 a.m.)
5-15 Oh
50
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
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 19th day of
September, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ ______ __ _ _
Kathy anik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
9 15-Ov
ORDER NO. 29940
SET SALARY OF COUNTY TREASURER FOR FY 2006-2007
Came to be heard this the 15th day of September, 2006, with a motion made
by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Set the salary for the County Treasurer for FY 2006-2007 at $43,257.