1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Workshop 9 Wednesday, August 8, 2001 10 4:00 p.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 18 ELECTED OFFICIALS' SALARIES 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 On Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 4:00 p.m., a workshop 2 of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in the 3 Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, 4 Texas, and the following proceedings were had in open court: 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. It's 4 o'clock in the 7 afternoon on Wednesday, August the 8th, Year 2001. We'll 8 call to order this workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners 9 Court, the purpose of the the workshop being to discuss 10 elected officials' salaries in Kerr County, as compared to 11 comparable counties throughout the state. Before I turn it 12 over to Commissioner Griffin, who's done yeoman work on 13 this, I want to say that all of us on the Commissioners 14 Court, I believe, appreciate how difficult this issue is. 15 We're handed a checkbook for the public finance, and we're 16 very conscious of that. At the same time, we're also 17 conscious of the fact that we also control what the elected 18 officials earn for their service, and just like the 19 employees, the elected officials are entitled to earn a fair 20 and equitable salary for the service they provide. So, it's 21 a difficult issue for those of us up here to attempt to be 22 fair, and at the same time to be proper stewards of the 23 taxpayers' money. So, I think the way that -- that we've 24 gone about this -- and I know that the elected officials had 25 called upon Commissioner Griffin to do the research which 3 1 he's now providing, so I think the way which we've gone 2 about this is a way that enables us to make decisions that 3 will be understandable and beneficial to not only elected 4 officials, but also the taxpayers and the employees. So, 5 with that intro, Larry, take it away. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me echo just a 7 little bit of that, and I think everybody, certainly, in 8 this group understands the difficulty in -- in elected 9 officials trying to set elected officials' salaries. And 10 that's not unique to County government. The same thing has 11 happened in our -- at the national level, certainly, and the 12 state level. The U.S. Congress, if you'll recall back in 13 the early '80's, every time there was a congressional pay 14 raise, there was a big brouhaha in the media that would last 15 for a week or two, until some other story came along and 16 pushed it off the front page, but there was always 17 controversy about it. And, in the mid-'80's, the Congress 18 went to -- both the U.S. House and the -- and the Senate 19 went to a commission arrangement, where there is an 20 independent commission that recommends and evaluates 21 comparable jobs throughout the industry and throughout the 22 country, and comes up with a -- with recommended salaries 23 for Congressmen and Senators. And, if you think about it, 24 over the last several years, you haven't heard near as much 25 about congressional pay raises in our U.S. Congress as we 4 1 used to, and I think that's the big reason for it, because 2 there is an independent, supposedly, and we hope objective 3 look at how those salaries are determined. 4 Several people asked me, knowing that I know 5 something about computers, about could we do an analysis 6 that would give us, first, an objective comparison. 7 Secondly, something that's easily understood by everybody 8 involved, the elected officials, the public, the media. And 9 most important, that we all know how we got to the numbers 10 that we -- that we decided on. In essence, trying to take 11 the squeaky wheel syndrome out of the process and trying to 12 take any -- any action -- keep from taking action that would 13 grossly put somebody way out of whack with the averages that 14 may run statewide or in counties that are similar to ours. 15 And, there's two very important issues involved here when 16 you do this kind of model. And, notice that it says "a" 17 model. It doesn't say "the" model; it says it's "a" model. 18 And most of the time modelers in computers use the word "a" 19 because it's a way to do it; it's not the only way. And, if 20 somebody else can come up with a better model, we ought to 21 try that one, too. 22 But, there are two things. One is the model, 23 and the other is the data that goes in it. Those are not 24 totally separated, but they're two distinct functions. And 25 we need to first talk about what does the model do? And 5 1 assume for the moment that the data you have to put in it is 2 absolutely perfect. We know that's not the case here, 3 certainly. We know it's very seldom the case in any 4 computer model, that all the data that you put into it is 5 perfect. And you always -- I'll say more about that later, 6 but you always work to try to keep improving the data input 7 and make it as perfect as you can. So, first off, what does 8 the model do? And -- and forget for the moment the data 9 that goes in to it. 10 What this model does is it takes -- it 11 takes -- from the best available data we have, it takes the 12 total income of elected officials in each of our positions, 13 and compares that -- compares our total income to the same 14 officials in a range of counties in the state of Texas that 15 is either plus or minus 15 percent of our population, and 16 that applies to most of us. In some cases -- I think in two 17 cases, we had to go to plus or minus 20 percent of our 18 population to get a meaningful data set -- data sample, 19 number of counties. And what it does is, then, is 20 calculates the average for that range of counties for the 21 like position, and let's take Sheriff. It will take the 22 Sheriff's position in all of those counties plus or minus 23 15 percent of our population, compare our salary rate today 24 with all of those other salary rates in the average, and it 25 says are we above the average? Are we below the average? 6 1 If it's below the average, it will show how 2 much we're below the average, or if we're above the average, 3 it will show the same thing. How much are we above the 4 average? Then you can -- in this particular model, if 5 you'll notice, on the front page, there are a couple of 6 percentages there. One is set right now for this 7 printout -- and realize, this is a dynamic thing, and in the 8 computer you can play what-if games with it all day. But, 9 for the printout, it's set at 100 percent. That just means 10 that the numbers that are generated -- it assumes that you 11 want to set salaries for our elected officials at the 12 average, 100 percent. We want 100 percent of the average to 13 be what our elected officials receive. If we thought our 14 elected officials ought to -- are better than the average, 15 and by golly, they ought to receive a 125 -- or they ought 16 to receive 25 percent more, you can make that number 125, 17 125 percent, and it would spit out a different set of 18 numbers to show you how much above or below the average you 19 are. If you didn't think ours were as good, then -- of 20 course, that's not possible, but if we said our officials 21 aren't as good as these other counties and ought to make 22 something below the average, we can set that to something 23 less than 100 percent. 24 So, realize that this gives us -- and we can 25 also set whatever COLA rate, the cost-of-living allowance, 7 1 that we want to put for the next year; we can also set that 2 and play what-if games. And, then it goes in and will 3 correct -- it will bring it up-to-date. Whatever numbers 4 you stick in there, it will regenerate the right set of 5 numbers for each position. Then it aggregates them all up 6 here to the front page so that we can then look at them in 7 total, and we can also see what the total budget impact from 8 last year's or this year's budget would be. That's the 9 model. 10 Now, some people -- and it's -- you probably 11 never can get any two modelers to agree; certainly, you 12 can't get more than two or three people to agree on what's 13 the right model. And we can argue that and discuss it 14 and -- and talk about it, and we ought to do that first. 15 Does the model do what we want to do? That's the question. 16 Do we want to set -- do we want to use a range of counties, 17 plus or minus some percentage, compare that to ours, and 18 then try to set ours either at the average, above the 19 average, or below the average? And before we talk about 20 what data goes in for each one of those counties and all, we 21 really need to determine that. This, to me, was the only 22 way I could see to do it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry, I agree with 24 you, that's the only equitable way to do it. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. And -- and there 8 1 -- but somebody else may have a better idea, and I 2 appreciate that. And -- and here's another thing. It has 3 to be consistently applied. We cannot say that 4 Commissioners ought to make 25 percent more than the 5 average, and the Sheriffs ought to make 25 percent less, you 6 know. That -- we either -- when we adjust these numbers, we 7 can determine that level, whether it's going to be at the 8 average, above it, or below it. That should apply to all 9 elected officials. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one question. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With regard to the 13 very positions that you've analyzed here, in some cases we 14 use -- in several cases we use 12 counties, and in one 15 instance, we use -- 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Now, we're talking -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- a minimum of six 18 counties. Would you explain that, please? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: In fact, that's on the 20 data side. As I was talking about earlier, that's -- that's 21 the second thing we have to discuss in this process, is if 22 we can agree, or if we have consensus -- I suspect we never 23 can agree -- that this is a model that will work, then we 24 need to talk about what is the data source that we use and 25 how do we get the data -- input data into the model so that 9 1 we get a good, fair, decent, equitable output in the 2 product. So, that's the next -- that's the next step. But 3 I want to make sure that before we get too far in -- 'cause 4 I've got a lot to say about the data; in fact, a lot more to 5 say about the data than I've got to say about the model. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I like the model. 7 I'm not going to -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, the thing -- you 9 know, you start tinkering with -- I mean, you can -- you can 10 take this information out to the n'th degree. I mean, you 11 compare with the size of population of counties, and we have 12 -- we've kicked this thing around for years and years and 13 years, but can get in to things like -- well, Kerr County 14 has Interstate 10 going through it. Kerr County has a 15 retirement community. And, you know, average income and all 16 those kinds of things. And, it's difficult -- when you 17 start breaking it down and looking at those little, bitty 18 things, it's difficult to compare. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the only equitable 21 way to do it is with the -- with this population thing that 22 you've done. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and you can find 24 -- in fact, I found a county that -- it's interesting. You 25 know, this is way outside the job description of the County 10 1 Commissioner to sit and do this stuff, but it's sort of fun. 2 One of the things that -- one of the things that I found 3 interesting is that we do have sort of a sister county in 4 the state, and that's Lamar County. I don't know how many 5 of you know, but Lamar County is where the county seat is 6 Paris, up northeast of Dallas, and it's a county of about 7 48,000. As I recall, it's a little bit larger than we are, 8 but it has about half its population in the city of Paris; 9 about half its population lives in the county. It's 115 -- 10 105 miles from a -- a major metropolitan area, Dallas, like 11 we're away from San Antonio. I-30 runs about 20 miles away 12 from it; it's not quite as close as our I-10. But, it was 13 interesting, 'cause I started looking at some of that. You 14 know, are there consistencies in this population range, 15 where there are counties that have demographics like ours? 16 You know, they have a relatively large retirement community. 17 They got a great web site, too, by the way, where I got all 18 the information. 19 But, anyway, it's -- there are several 20 weaknesses, because obviously, there's some counties that 21 don't -- that may not -- I don't know this for a fact, but 22 there's some counties -- for example, I had one -- I was 23 looking for County Attorneys. It spit out Van Zandt County 24 as being within our range, but Van Zandt County doesn't have 25 a County Attorney; they pay their District Attorney a little 11 1 stipend to advise the Court. So, I threw that data out, 2 because that skews the average. They don't really have a -- 3 a County Attorney, for example. So, you have to -- you do 4 have to do some -- some judgment calls on the database, or 5 otherwise you would -- garbage in, garbage out. There's no 6 getting away from that. 7 So, let's talk a little bit about the data. 8 In a perfect world, what you would do is that every piece of 9 data that's in the database, you would verify yourself to 10 put it in. You would verify that the salary or the travel 11 is a number that you got out of that County's budget 12 yourself, and you put it into the database. That would be 13 perfect. And, ultimately, I think if we were to adopt this 14 approach, and for next year -- not this year, but for next 15 year, that is exactly what I would propose that we do, 16 because we could get the counties that are in that range; we 17 could get copies of their budget this October, and in a few 18 days I can tell you what the -- what the recommended 19 salaries for elected officials will be next year. Not this 20 coming year, but the year after, because we would have real 21 data, and we'd have 10 months to thrash that around if we 22 wanted to. So, that would be the perfect thing, is for us 23 to get the data and put it in ourselves. 24 Probably the second best, and maybe what we 25 may want to consider doing this year, would be to -- by 12 1 phone, because we don't have the time to get all those 2 budgets and go through that process that I just talked 3 about -- by phone, we could probably verify all of the 4 positions that we have and get hard data that we know is 5 absolutely the best we can get from somebody on the other 6 end of the telephone reading from that county's budget, from 7 what they could tell us. And then the next step, and where 8 we are today, is to use someone else's data. And, the 9 numbers that you see in here right now is what that is. I 10 took the TAC -- the Texas Association of Counties -- 11 database that is now online, and I downloaded that 12 information for the counties that you see. 13 Here's some weaknesses in the TAC database. 14 Number one, not all counties participate. Not all counties 15 participate, so there are some counties in the range that 16 fall within our population range, our limits, plus or minus, 17 that aren't in the TAC database. So, those don't -- you 18 don't see those here, and this is the answer -- part of the 19 answer to your question, Bill, because not all counties 20 participate in that study. Secondly, not all the counties 21 who participate report all elected officials. So, we have 22 some counties in that database where there are -- they do 23 participate, but for some reason, they don't list the 24 District Clerk or something. So, again, what you hope is, 25 in a data sense -- and this is more of a statistician's 13 1 tutorial, I'm really not a statistician, but you -- you try 2 to get a meaningful data sample to wash out those kind of 3 errors. You figure there's some pluses, there's some 4 minuses, but if you can get a large enough data sample, you 5 can wash out those areas and still end up with a fairly 6 decent output. Not the best. The best would be to have all 7 that data known for sure and you put it in yourself, you 8 verify the data. That's -- that's ultimately where we'd 9 want to be if we adopted this kind of system. 10 I found some errors. I mean, they were just 11 glaring errors that were in TAC database. There was a -- 12 there was a J.P. -- in fact, our J.P.'s ears ought to really 13 perk up on this one. There was a J.P. in Hood County that 14 was making $103,000 a year. I said, "Gee, I'm going to move 15 to Hood County and run for J.P.," 'cause that's pretty good. 16 As it turns out, it was an input error in the TAC database. 17 I called Hood County, talked to them. The lady I talked to 18 in the Commissioner's office almost fell out of her chair 19 when I said that was in there. She went and got the right 20 number and gave it to me, and that's what you see in there 21 now. So, there's no doubt that -- that the data that we 22 have in the model right now is not perfect. It's the best I 23 could do in a relatively short period of time. 24 The next best thing -- the next best step, 25 and we may want to kick this around, do we -- we probably do 14 1 have time if we could get, I think, two people for two 2 days -- oh, one other thing. You have to control -- the 3 data has to have integrity. I'm not not talking about 4 integrity of the people taking the data. The data, to have 5 integrity, needs to be centrally gathered. You can't get 6 data from one source over here and put that in, and then 7 have somebody else go get another thing, and that person 8 comes back and puts it in. You've got to have a centralized 9 data collection. 10 MR. MOTLEY: Within each county? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'm talking about us. 12 MR. MOTLEY: Every county done the same? 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, because we want 14 the same people asking the same questions of these people on 15 the other end of the line. You know, how much is the 16 salary, the base salary? How much is the travel? And have 17 a little worksheet for them to go by. I think you can 18 ticky-boo through them pretty quick, myself, and I think a 19 couple of clerical types, with a little help and a couple of 20 days, can do it. But that would be better than -- than 21 this. If we had to it do over again -- I'm glad we 22 subscribed, because it got me something to build a model 23 from. I'm glad we spent that 180 bucks, but I wouldn't 24 spend another 180 bucks on it, because it's got too many 25 errors in it. 15 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we do -- 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Not enough verified 3 figures. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do we know anybody who's on 5 the Board of Directors at TAC? They might update -- 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think they will. In 7 fact, I've already told -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Larry's neighbor is 9 the Chairman of the Board. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right, old Bill 11 Bailey, yeah. And they need to caveat that thing very 12 heavily up front, that this data is unverified. It could be 13 old. There's -- I have a suspicion there's some numbers in 14 there from counties that may be more than this year. You 15 know, they may be last year's numbers. And in some cases, 16 they may have put this coming year's budget numbers in. 17 There's no way of knowing. So, until -- unless we -- until 18 and unless we verify it. So, we probably want to kick that 19 around. But, the main thing that I wanted to get across, 20 and then I'll step out of the discussion, we can get down to 21 details about questions on the data or whatever, but -- but 22 remember that it's two parts. It's the model -- and we can 23 change that if we find a better way to analyze. And I have 24 a lot of confidence in the model, 'cause I built it, and the 25 modeler's always going to say he has a lot of confidence, 16 1 but I have great confidence in the model at this point. 2 And, of course, I don't have as good confidence in the data, 3 because I had to use somebody else's data; in this case, the 4 TAC database. So, with that, I think we're ready to -- 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a quick 6 question here. In your model assumptions -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- just a simple 9 question. That first line, the second part, not including 10 directly reimbursed funds. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that -- the only 13 example I can think of are the -- the state supplement. Is 14 that what you're referring to? 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the state -- 16 that would not be included in that. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It would not include 19 state supplements, it will not include anything where 20 someone is paid on the basis of a direct fee for a service. 21 I think, for example, the J.P.'s -- 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Go to the State 23 Hospital. 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And the Judge goes to 25 the State Hospital. We take in fees. And -- 17 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we pay them out of 3 that. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we're trying to 6 do here is we're trying to find out what's the hit on the 7 Kerr County taxpayer. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm with you. I'm 9 with you. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And -- because if you 11 look at that morass of supplements and other things out 12 there, man, trying to analyze that over 20 counties or so 13 that may fall within our range would be very difficult to 14 do. So, those lucky people who get supplements, you get 15 them. 16 MR. MOTLEY: Was the definition part of 17 creating the model? 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. Because 19 that's -- well, that determines how you input the data, 20 because what goes in there is anything that's a direct hit 21 to the Kerr County taxpayer is in your current income. And 22 notice I use the word "income," not "salary," because it's 23 taking your salary and your travel. Now, when we -- when we 24 take it out and put it in the budget, if we have a reason, 25 for whatever reason, that we want to separate travel from 18 1 salary, we can do that. But, you see, we're going to put 2 them together in the model and we're going to compare them 3 put together to everybody else in the model, and then we're 4 going to take it out. 5 MR. MOTLEY: One more question before you get 6 off of this. I notice that Wharton County was only 7 considered in Constable, County Attorney, County Clerk, 8 Treasurer, and District Clerk comparisons. Is that because 9 they did not report their other -- 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Exactly. 11 MR. MOTLEY: That was one of those? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's one of those 13 counties. That's where I had to open it up to plus or 14 minus -- plus or minus 15, plus or minus 20, to get it to 15 even kick those out. Now, what I propose we do is that if 16 we did, say, like a telephone interview to try to get this 17 data better, quicker, would be to list all of the counties 18 that fall within a plus or minus 20 percent range, and I 19 think that's about 15, 20 counties, maybe, if that many. I 20 can look here in a minute and tell you, but -- but what we 21 would do is we would question them all, and if they say, "We 22 don't have a County Attorney." Okay, fine, we know that 23 now, so we don't -- we're not going to consider them in the 24 data sample. But we know that we -- we don't have one 25 that -- this should be listed, but it's not in there because 19 1 we don't know it, at least we'll know they don't have one. 2 MR. MOTLEY: One other model question. If 3 you are forced, because of lack of information, to go up to, 4 say, a 20 percent spread for some positions, do you think it 5 would be somehow unfair to go back and go plus or minus 6 20 percent for all the other ones? Is that -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. I don't think 8 that makes a -- what you've got to do is have a -- what the 9 statistician's calling a statistically significant data 10 sample, and if we can get -- if we can go back and get 11 enough -- because there's several counties that don't report 12 to the TAC database. I think we may have a statistically 13 significant data set at plus or minus 15 percent if we had 14 all the data. 15 MR. MOTLEY: You have to have enough numbers 16 to have something to average. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's right, and 18 we've got enough that we can build a meaningful average. 19 Now, we can look at that -- and, again, that's on the 20 modeling side. If we're not -- if we don't have it opened 21 up wide enough to get enough for a -- a statistically 22 significant result, then we could open it up. But those are 23 things that we would address, and certainly we would address 24 for the following year, because we'd have 10 months to work 25 on it. 20 1 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Make it much better. 3 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Commissioner, we talked about 4 the difference in the -- there's some other salary 5 adjustments in a particular job that a particular job may 6 have that may be more probable in some positions. For 7 example, I get -- did you get some data that I -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes. 9 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Supplemental data. Justice 10 of the Peace, for example, are often given -- it's not 11 uncommon that they have a travel allowance. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: And I noticed in our model -- 14 which I feel, when I talked with the other Judge about this, 15 that we're very comfortable with your model. And, as you 16 stated, some of the data that TAC provided -- not that you 17 came up with, but that TAC provided -- certainly was -- a 18 couple of counties were out of sync with their incorrect 19 data. But, I just want to make sure that -- that if we're 20 going to -- when we put in our salary plus travel as our 21 compensating package, that we would be compen -- we would be 22 compared to other counties' J.P.'s salary plus their travel. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Absolutely. 24 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Because some of them have a 25 larger travel than -- than we do, and they have, you know, 21 1 smaller salary, so it averages out. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You are exactly right. 3 That is exactly what we would do, and that's the reason -- 4 if we had their budget in front of us for every county, 5 that's the reason I would want to do that. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: One thing you have to be 7 careful on things like travel, in particular, is apples and 8 apples. 9 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Right. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's just accept the fact 11 our travel allowance is salary. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's income. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't have to do anything 14 other than collect our check every month. Question would be 15 if -- if someone else's J.P. shows it as salary, but they 16 have to submit a voucher for it. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Mileage. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Mileage. Then it's not the 19 same as what our -- as what our J.P.'s get or any of our 20 elected officials get, because it's something that's not 21 salary; it's more in the nature of reimbursement. 22 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's correct. The four 23 counties that I provided that information for was -- was 24 part basically of salary. It was not we reimburse you 25 for -- document your mileage. 22 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think, by far, the 2 large percentage do it that way, 'cause they don't want to 3 fiddle with the trip tickets and all that kind of stuff. 4 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Those numbers were just 5 documented real easily. Like we stated, if you had a couple 6 people that did the central -- so it was equitable for all 7 positions, verifying this information. That was very easily 8 done by contacting the County Treasurer, and the County 9 Treasurer said this is what it is. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, I think that if 11 we -- the one thing that's got to happen, and I don't know 12 whether I really said this up front or not well enough, and 13 that is, you've got to be totally consistent. And that's 14 the point you're making or your question infers, is that if 15 -- if we're going to aggregate travel and salary, as it's in 16 the budget, for our numbers, then we have to be completely 17 sure that we're aggregating salary and travel when we 18 compare that to other counties. And absolutely -- 19 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's all. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. I mean, that's 21 got to be there. And that's the reason I would want to see 22 the real data next year. We don't have time to do that this 23 time. 24 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Do we have time for those -- 25 just those 11 counties -- maybe make a phone confirmation? 23 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: More than 11. 2 JUDGE ELLIOTT: See if those numbers are 3 correct? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's back up here. Let me 5 jump in here, if I can. 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Sure. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: There's two issues here. One 8 is the model and one is the data. Let's just throw out the 9 model on the table. Is anybody uncomfortable with the 10 model? And, this is a workshop. Speak up. We're all in 11 this together; it affects us all equally. Is there anyone 12 who is uncomfortable with the model, plus or minus 13 15 percent of our population? 14 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah, I am. Mainly for 15 the main reason that -- and I understand it's -- and it may 16 be the only way you can do it, Larry, I don't know. But, my 17 uncomfortableness comes from -- in the law enforcement end, 18 okay? You have to then look at how many law enforcement 19 agencies are inside each of those other counties and what is 20 the duties of that Sheriff's Department, you know. Like, I 21 don't know what the city police department does, okay? So I 22 don't have the percentage of that. So, it's getting kind of 23 like Buster was, you know, saying; you can really start 24 taking it apart. 25 The problem I have -- and I don't have a copy 24 1 of the Nash study y'all did last year, okay, setting 2 employees' salaries. I don't know what model they used or 3 what counties they used; I don't remember. But, in those, 4 in that model that they used that the County signed off on, 5 the main -- the main problem I have is currently, in my 6 department, the Chief Deputy makes almost $2,000 more a year 7 than myself, okay? And, in this model you have chosen, even 8 with your COLA and everything in it, that the chief deputy 9 still makes almost a thousand more a year than the Sheriff, 10 so it doesn't -- it doesn't really fit. I'm just -- I'm 11 kind of concerned at that, where it's more of a local issue. 12 And I've tried to work my budget normally, and on my budget 13 requests, trying to stay locally. What does our department 14 do locally? How do we earn our money, and what's -- you 15 know, what's our actual duties in Kerr County? And -- and 16 work it out equally, equitably, to where we feel everybody's 17 getting paid justly for what they do for Kerr County. 18 'Cause that's the taxpayers' dollars. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that your only other 21 department heads that you have, you know, is, like, elected 22 ones like the County Clerk and the District Clerk and the 23 Treasurer and Tax Assessor/Collector. Their chief 24 deputies -- the difference between the elected official and 25 the chief deputy averages anywhere from $10,000 to $12,000 25 1 that the elected officials makes more than the chief deputy 2 does, okay? And that's the way y'all have it set up. 3 That's the way it's worked out through the Nash study and -- 4 and through -- through the current salaries of those elected 5 officials. But in my department, it works out where the 6 chief deputy makes more than the Sheriff, and this model 7 doesn't correct that. And last year, when we went through a 8 lot of that, that's what we had talked about trying to get 9 corrected, and I don't know the answer to that, Larry. I 10 don't know how to -- how to correct that. I just -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me say, I did 12 not -- purposely did not have any consideration of the Nash 13 study in -- in building the model. Now, the only way that 14 this model could compensate for that would be to go to some 15 higher level of -- of percentage, but then you affect 16 everybody by that higher level of percentage, which affects 17 the bottom line of the budget. So -- and that would have to 18 be a judgment call that would -- that the Court ultimately 19 is going to have to make. 20 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm just kind of 21 curious, that if the Nash study was good enough for all the 22 employees here in Kerr County and that's what we all agreed 23 to, then I also feel that the Nash study should be good 24 enough for all the elected officials, if we use that same 25 data and that same stuff to come up with those elected 26 1 officials' salaries. I don't -- you know, I don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I don't know the 3 answer to that one either. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: The Nash study really was 5 designed for employees, but we looked very hard at what the 6 market in our area is. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, and that -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: And, for the reason, we 9 included Bexar County, we included some of the larger 10 counties that really are not comparable counties, but 11 they're our competition for employees, you know. I don't 12 know if they're competition for elected officials or not. I 13 don't know if Linda's going to jump down and run for Gerry 14 Rickhoff's office in Bexar County, or somebody, like, in -- 15 MS. UECKER: Happens all the time. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's really the difference, 17 is that we were looking at competition for employees with 18 the Nash study. We included Bandera, we included Gillespie, 19 we included the City of Boerne, we included the City of 20 Fredericksburg, we included Bexar County, because we were 21 trying to get a true picture as to what, you know, the -- 22 the compensation for employees in our area was. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yes, without -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: And that was not an issue 25 with the elected officials. 27 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And let me just say, 2 too, that -- that here we're dealing dealing in a political 3 arena. Allegedly, we weren't with our employees; that was 4 not a political question. And what the model attempts to do 5 is to sort of take it out of a political decision-making 6 process. It's not -- it's an objective system. It says 7 here's how we set salaries, and we can paint it on the 8 walls. We can -- we can make anybody understand it, because 9 we do it the same way every time, you know. It's -- and 10 it's a repetitive -- 11 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then there's one 12 other question. And, I'm not trying to be offensive; don't 13 take this wrong. Me and Commissioners Courts have always 14 had an excellent working relationship, and I don't want to 15 change that. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So far. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But I think you have to 18 look also at the number of hours that the official spends 19 doing their job duties. Is it what people consider a 20 part-time job? A full-time job? And are you comparing it 21 to a part-time job or a full-time job? 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: You do that, and you're going 23 to set up so many variables, and they're subjective 24 variables. 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I mean, our J.P.'s may 28 1 consider their jobs to be full-time, with all due 2 justification, with all due -- in their heart. I work at 3 this full-time. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And -- 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Someone else that doesn't 6 know what they do may disagree with them. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I thought -- I really 8 thought that early on this might have been a part-time job, 9 but I got out of that a long time ago. This has taken two 10 weekends, and I haven't had a weekend free -- 11 MS. UECKER: Awww. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's just -- that's 13 it. That's only time I've had to do it. 14 MS. UECKER: Two whole weekends. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What I'm saying is -- 16 is that it's all in the eye of the beholder on what -- on 17 what is part-time and what is -- and how much time do you 18 spend at it. You know, that's -- that really is in the eye 19 of the beholder. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me make one 21 comment. I think what the Nash study showed all of us -- 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Let me stand up so we're 23 not looking through the -- 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What the Nash study 25 showed to all of us was that for all -- for too long, we did 29 1 not take into consideration in a uniform manner our employee 2 group and what they did and how they relate to the whole. 3 And we also didn't take into consideration -- or because we 4 hadn't had a Nash study to any great extent before that, we 5 failed to take into consideration what the department 6 head -- how the department head should be treated above and 7 beyond, as top employee. If we had done that all through 8 the years, you wouldn't have the chief deputy who's making 9 $1,000 more than you. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You're -- I mean, I 11 agree, okay? But that's why I'm saying, are we going to 12 change those type -- that type of criteria now, when you do 13 a study for the department head or elected officials 14 compared to one for the employees? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we're here to 16 talk about, but it's also something that we have to be able 17 to go to the voters and say, this is why we did it. Paula? 18 MS. RECTOR: That was -- I wanted to speak to 19 that, because Rusty brought up a good point about the 20 different duties and responsibilities within an office of 21 particular departments. As far as the counties, there are 22 counties that don't collect any taxes; the Appraisal 23 Districts collect. There are counties that -- County Tax 24 Offices that don't do voter registration; they have an 25 Elections Administrator. Their duties are specifically 30 1 motor vehicle. I collect for 15 jurisdictions, I do motor 2 vehicle, I do voter registration also. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, what -- 4 MS. RECTOR: So you're going -- 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let me throw out here that 6 one way, possibly, to address the issue that the Sheriff is 7 raising and Paula's raising is for us collectively to say we 8 should go to 100 percent, 150 percent. This might address 9 some of those inequities. That's a decision that can be 10 made. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Also, it would be 12 worthwhile to do some analysis on those counties that fall 13 within our range to see how many of them are in categories 14 like you're talking about. 15 MS. UECKER: Yeah. I would have thought we'd 16 have started a lot -- little sooner with this, and maybe 17 made the direct contact with the counties, 'cause I found 18 several errors. And, addressing Rusty's point, I think, you 19 know, you're right that this is a political issue where the 20 employees' is a market-based salary study, but I think in 21 doing this, you need to consider the Nash study. You know, 22 maybe not totally -- or do a Nash study, but you're going to 23 have to consider that study in making the decisions for the 24 elected officials' salary. Now, I did, on the other 25 point -- and I don't know if this goes under the form or the 31 1 content -- is I found three other counties that probably 2 should have fallen within that 15 or 20 percent, whatever it 3 was. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, that's back to 5 my point I was making a while ago; there are several 6 counties that are within the range that don't participate in 7 the TAC study. 8 MS. UECKER: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The salary study. 10 MS. UECKER: Well, I found three of them. 11 And one of the counties that you do have on here, I called 12 yesterday, and the information that is on here is not right. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, let's -- that's a data 14 question, so let's hold -- 15 MS. UECKER: That's what I'm asking, is -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Let's continue to talk about 17 the model for a little bit, okay? Let me just throw my 18 budget hat on here. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think you're going to 20 have -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Just a minute, Sheriff. Let 22 me talk about -- put my budget hat on here. We got about 10 23 days to resolve this question, because within 10 days, as 24 Paula well knows -- and she's fixing to start reminding me 25 of schedules -- we have to start to really cranking down a 32 1 budget so we can have our hearings on the budget and tax 2 rate, a separate hearing on elected officials. So, you 3 know, we don't have a big window of time here to agree on a 4 model and to -- to provide the data for that model. We're 5 talking about doing it within the next week, so that we can 6 crank the numbers and put the numbers in where they belong. 7 MS. UECKER: Well, a comment I remember 8 specifically coming from the Court last year is, this year 9 we're going to take care of the employees, and next year 10 we're going to take care of the elected officials. So, I 11 would have thought that this should have been going on. 12 MS. RECTOR: In the works. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I distinctly remember a 14 luncheon I had with a number of elected officials in May in 15 which I said I'm not doing it. I'm more than happy to 16 support it and propose it, but if you all want to do 17 something about our salaries, you all need to get on the 18 stick and take care of it. 19 MS. UECKER: And the Treasurer said she was 20 going to get the data, as I recall. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you know, that -- it's 22 not our responsibility. We're -- 23 MS. UECKER: To do what? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're willing to entertain 25 the data, because we know it's inequitable. We don't think 33 1 anybody up here will argue with the fact that there's -- 2 there needs to be adjustments made. That's why, you know, 3 we've scheduled this special session to come in and talk 4 about it. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, Judge, can I 6 throw a -- a point in here? I think maybe, you know, we do 7 -- we've got two separate issues here. We had the Nash 8 study, and now we're trying to get elected officials' 9 salaries corrected. There may be some inequities, like the 10 Sheriff has pointed out. And I think, for one thing, is 11 that if we were to adopt this -- and let's say we adopt it 12 at 100 percent, just for discussion purposes. We get the 13 data where we're comfortable with it, and then there is the 14 kind of inequity that you have in the Sheriff's Department. 15 I think, for one thing, is that we might ought to step out 16 of the box a little bit and say that those deputies -- those 17 deputy position salaries would be frozen until such time as 18 the inequities were -- 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, then you're 20 throwing out what the Nash study -- the purpose of the Nash 21 study and everything else. You're throwing that whole idea 22 out if you start freezing those salaries. 23 MS. RECTOR: That's right. 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: 'Cause that was the 25 longevity with the education and all that. I don't think 34 1 that's fair. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Maybe -- so maybe 3 that's not a good idea. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: I disagree with you a little 5 bit, because the longevity and the education we threw in on 6 top of Nash. That was nothing that Nash recommended, per 7 se. I mean, particularly the education. That was something 8 that we threw in because the educated fork force, a trained 9 work force, particularly in law enforcement, is the best 10 thing you can have. So, that's not part of the Nash study, 11 so all the advantages that the Sheriff's Department rightly 12 got for their advanced certificates are above the Nash 13 study. You know, you could take all -- you know, the boost 14 that your guys got from their certificates and back it out 15 to be closer to the Nash study. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well -- and, you know, I 17 just think you're going to take a step backwards in -- in 18 what the Court did last year, and following the Nash study 19 and doing what they did solved a lot of problems. I mean, 20 our guys -- some of them are still making $10,000 less than 21 the Kerrville city officer is, but it's solved a lot of 22 problems, because of some of the other little benefits. You 23 know, even though our education and longevity isn't as much 24 as the -- as the city's, it's keeping us in line with them. 25 If you start freezing those, then we would go back to where 35 1 we were five years ago, and we've now undone all the good 2 that the County did. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That thought was off 4 the top of my head. What I'm saying is, in cases where we 5 have a deputy making more than the principal, I think we 6 need to look at it. 7 MS. UECKER: That's what I meant when I said 8 you need to consider the Nash study, take it into 9 consideration when you, you know, enter the data. 10 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: If I'm looking right, 11 the Nash study consisted of about 16 counties and three 12 cities? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. I think that's where 14 we ended up with 20 jurisdictions. In the -- at the end, we 15 added one, 'cause we were one short. And Linda, I think, 16 brought me another one. We added it in. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And that's where all 18 that came from? 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We take all of the 20 county within the range that I'm talking about. I think we 21 ended up with about 20 total. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't -- I don't know 23 what the answer is on this, 'cause what -- what Paula said a 24 while ago, I think, is a very good point. How many of 25 those -- those other Tax Assessors do those type of duties, 36 1 okay? I mean, and how many, you know, other -- I think 2 Paula has a good point. Some of the different J.P.'s. How 3 many of the different Commissioners Courts still have Road 4 and Bridge directly under them, or the road departments and 5 that, you know, like y'all used to? There are just a lot of 6 different things. What are the actual duties, and not -- 7 not nitpicking little ones, but major duties that is 8 different? I think you got to bring it to a local level. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes? 10 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I feel that the -- the model 11 you have is probably the most objective way of collecting 12 the data and applying it. I feel that we would have time, 13 as we did in our budgets, where if it's just a matter of one 14 day, say a week from today, to say that, listen -- and I 15 understand and I appreciate and agree with the fact that -- 16 that data collected has to be somewhat uniform for all 17 departments. But, if a department has -- for example, the 18 Justice of the Peace may agree we don't have a problem with 19 the model. All we want to do is apprise you of this data, 20 and if you can confirm that, we wish you would make 21 adjustments to the data. And then we -- we're finished with 22 our ten-minute program to address the issue, kind of like an 23 appeal process. So that -- but I don't understand why, in 24 one day, you guys, a week from today, can't say, "Okay, 25 we're going to entertain that. Rusty, what is your issue 37 1 here?" And he says, "Well, Nash has done a good job of our 2 employees and that, but your program puts me below the chief 3 clerk -- I mean chief deputy, so, therefore, I feel that 4 there -- you should make -- I recommend that a -- that your 5 data say 10 percent above the chief deputy or something for 6 this particular incidence." 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're talking about two 8 different things here. One is the data and the other is the 9 issue between chief deputies and the Sheriff, and I think 10 that we can separate the two. 11 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Well, we don't know if the 12 model is -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think we can -- we can work 14 on the model, and then we can agree that, you know, the 15 elected officials' salaries should be, on the average, not 16 less than -- take the average of Linda and Paula and 17 Jannett's salary, and maybe Barbara's salary, versus their 18 chief deputies and average that and say that, you know, on 19 the average, the elected official should make no less than 20 so many dollars above the chief deputy, which would take 21 care of Rusty's problem for this year. It doesn't skew the 22 data for everybody else. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's an exception to the data 25 because of -- 38 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And those could be -- 2 those would be notes that would be added at the end of the 3 thing, and -- and you -- what you're actually doing is 4 you're making adjustments on a particular issue. We'd have 5 to agree that it would be this chief deputy issue or the 6 chief -- any chief deputy. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's a policy issue, 9 and we could make corrections to the model; this model, 10 even. 11 JUDGE ELLIOTT: That's what I'm saying. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Very easily. 13 JUDGE ELLIOTT: An amendment to the model, 14 for example, for Paula. What she was communicating, you 15 know, I felt was certainly a -- if she wishes to make some 16 type of a request for an amendment to just say, simply, you 17 gave her a few days and she checked with those counties, and 18 she has a -- a 5-minute or 10-minute opportunity to address 19 the Court to say, "Listen, I respectfully request that you 20 omit these counties, because they don't do this job for my 21 particular position." And then you -- you guys could vote 22 to -- "Yeah, we're going to do that," or "No, we won't." At 23 least you'd hear her -- she has a vested interest in making 24 sure that data is equivalent from her county to another 25 county. 39 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If you do that, if 2 you get -- if you begin to do subjective analysis for one 3 department, you've got to do it for all of them, and you've 4 got to say, all right -- the Sheriff, for example, has a 5 department head has "X" number of employees; however, 6 another county the same size, same demographics, same -- 7 essentially the same basic tax structure, that Sheriff has 8 twice as many deputies, and he does this and this and this. 9 Once you start making subjective analysis on one department, 10 you got to make subjective analysis on all of them. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but I'm not sure that 12 it's subjective if you -- if you compare core functions like 13 Paula's talking about. I mean, it's does this county 14 collect taxes? No. Throw them out. 15 MS. RECTOR: The County then is not receiving 16 any revenue at all from those collections, whereas I collect 17 for the City of Kerrville. We had our City/County joint 18 meeting. I had the data right there that showed how much 19 revenue Kerr County receives from collecting for the City of 20 Kerrville. That's a shot in the arm for Kerr County, but I 21 receive no compensation whatsoever from the City, from 22 U.G.R.A., from Headwaters, from Hunt School District, from 23 any of the other jurisdictions that I collect for. I do not 24 receive compensation. And that's written in the law, that I 25 am not to receive compensation for that, but that still 40 1 should be taken into consideration. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paula collects taxes 3 from other agencies -- for other agencies. Linda has two 4 districts coming into her office. Two District Courts come 5 into her office. I get here in the morning before Bill 6 does. I mean, I guarantee you, you can pick this thing to 7 where you swerve completely away from what you're doing. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Dawn? 9 JUDGE WRIGHT: Rusty's a law enforcement 10 officer. Why can't the educational benefits and the 11 longevity benefits be addressed on top of what he would be 12 getting under this criteria? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know if he qualifies 14 for any. 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Thanks, Judge. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well -- and, again, I 17 think the point that Dawn's making is that's an adjustment 18 that we could handle separately in the model. But -- but, 19 see, that's a case -- that's -- and it's a -- in my mind, is 20 a particular case, because there is the chief deputy salary 21 problem. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But, Larry, let me ask 23 something. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: This is the consistent model, 25 with potential exceptions. The exception would be -- it 41 1 would be incumbent upon the elected official to bring to the 2 Court the basis for the exception and -- and the counties 3 that would be used for the comparison. I mean, if you -- if 4 you fine-tune your exceptions down to where the only county 5 that is comparable is Harris County, you know, we're not 6 going to go with that. But, if -- and that's ridiculous, 7 and I'm not trying to say anybody's going to do that. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Speak for yourself. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, if -- you would 10 have to be done -- it would have to be done on a broad -- on 11 a broad basis of categories. You couldn't get down to the 12 number of dollars collected, the number of child support 13 checks in and out. It would have to be on broad categories 14 that you could -- you could rationally understand the 15 differences. And I think where I'm headed is, if we stay 16 with the -- with a consistent model, which is what Larry set 17 out, and then let the elected official come and say, well, 18 in these four counties, the Tax Collector -- the Tax 19 Collector doesn't collect taxes, or doesn't do voter 20 registrations, and so you really can't compare the duties, 21 then that's information that the Court can take into 22 consideration; the Commissioners Court, when we go to set 23 the salaries. But I think what we have to do is start with 24 a consistent model and then allow for exceptions. The 25 discrepancy between the chief deputy and the elected 42 1 official, I think, is clearly an opportunity for an 2 exception, and a justifiable one. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Question. 4 MS. RECTOR: Another comment is, I think -- I 5 really think this model is the way we need to address this, 6 but even in just my case, by throwing in one additional 7 county, which mine has 13, it throws me being over what the 8 average should be. If I remove that county, it throws me 9 under. So, we need to be consistent and use -- if we're 10 going to say we're going to use these 12 counties, we need 11 the use these 12 counties to look at in all of the elected 12 officials. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think what Larry's 14 suggesting is that we identify -- I think he's got the list, 15 all of the counties which are in 15 percent -- and remember 16 that part of the problem was not everybody reported to TAC, 17 and all the people who reported to TAC didn't report all the 18 positions. So, if we say okay, we're going to look at these 19 18 counties, and somebody -- say, two people; maybe each -- 20 you know, two of your departments would volunteer 21 somebody -- are going to call each of those 18 counties. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nineteen. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Nineteen, whatever. 24 Nineteen, and ask the same questions. What is the base 25 salary for constables? Do they receive a travel allowance 43 1 which is not reimbursement? In other words, do they just 2 get $500 a month for travel? 3 MS. RECTOR: Well, give us a list of 4 counties. Give us the criteria, and we'll do it. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: What we want to do is -- I 6 think what we're getting at, if I understand Larry, is we 7 want to identify no more than two people -- two clerks, not 8 elected officials -- who will make all of the phone calls. 9 Because we want the same questions asked and the same ears 10 hearing the responses, so that the data that comes out is 11 consistent. Then we can take -- what Larry is saying is he 12 can take that data -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We update the model. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- put it back in the model. 15 MS. RECTOR: Then we take all of us out of 16 the picture and designate -- I think that's the way we need 17 to do it. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There are 19 counties, 19 plus or minus. According to the 2000 census, there are 19 20 counties that are all within plus-or-minus 15 percent of our 21 population. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge? 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, sir? 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: At one time, during some 25 of these talks previously, there was some talk about doing 44 1 it on a percentage basis of what a state judge makes or 2 something like that. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that -- 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What if you were to do 5 that, but in setting the percentage difference between, 6 like, the Tax Assessor and the District Clerk and that, if 7 at that point you consider in the duties; you know, you take 8 your 19 counties or whatever counties, get the base, take 9 a -- take a -- let the Tax Assessor say, well, my duties are 10 this and this, and figure -- and the Court set that 11 percentage below what the state pays, like, a district 12 judge. Okay? And that's what her salary, or mine or any 13 other elected official's is, is the percentage between, you 14 know, that one that stays -- stays there, and then every 15 time the State ends up giving the raise, the elected 16 official's percentage stays in that same -- it goes up that 17 percentage. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That would be a good 19 exercise to look at next year. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: But that exercise happens 21 after we decide on what the appropriate salaries are, if we 22 want to do that. Not before. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And maybe that would 24 work. We don't -- we would not have time to do that for 25 this budget year, even if we wanted to, because the first 45 1 thing we'd have to do is find out where should the salaries 2 be so we can compare them -- 3 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- to the District 5 Judge salary. And if we don't do something like this kind 6 of a model, we can't -- we can't -- we can't find out what 7 they should be so we can peg them. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What I'm saying is, your 9 19 counties that are in that percentage range, okay, 10 whatever their base salary is, their average salary, all 11 right, for that elected official, whatever that ends up 12 being, that's your starting place on the -- on your 13 percentage between that and your state judge. And then if, 14 overall, you know, Paula thinks, well, she does more work 15 because of these different things, it may go up instead of 16 the base, say, you know, 10 percent of what that state 17 judge's is. If she thinks she does more, between her and 18 the court, it equals out to where, well, maybe we'll up it 19 to an 11 percent. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but that gets to be -- 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And then it grows each 22 year and it takes it out of everybody's hands. When the 23 State sets the salary, it automatically falls back down and 24 sets it for the elected officials. 25 MS. UECKER: Except that percentage -- 46 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: I mean, yours is -- yours is 2 -- yours is saying let's peg it to the district judges and 3 then make adjustments, and what we're saying is -- 4 MS. UECKER: Same thing. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: What we're saying is, let's 6 make the adjustments and then, if we want to -- we haven't 7 decided this. This is just an option that we understand is 8 being done somewhere else. Then if we want to, we'll peg 9 it, but first of all, let's decide on where our salaries 10 should fall, and then we'll peg it. Not peg it and not peg 11 the median salary for counties our size. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: This kind of approach, 13 given good data, we can get an answer for this coming budget 14 year. The process you're talking about is -- is not a bad 15 thing to pursue and take a hard look at, but that's going to 16 take much, much longer to do than this. 17 MS. UECKER: Not to mention the fact that -- 18 that, you know, I don't say that that's not a good idea, 19 except that takes the budget figures out of the hands of the 20 Commissioners Court. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Absolutely. Sure 22 does. 23 MS. UECKER: Now, maybe the State has the 24 money to pay the judge that, but the Commissioners Court -- 25 the County may not have the funds to pay that percentage to 47 1 the official. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: You never take that power out 3 of the Commissioners Court, because there's no such thing as 4 an out budget. 5 MS. UECKER: Well, I know, but -- 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: We would have to find the 7 money to fund those. 8 MS. UECKER: The model is what I'm saying, 9 Judge. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: It would -- it would give us 11 a figure, but then we would have to decide if we had the 12 funds to -- 13 MS. UECKER: The funds to do it. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 15 MS. UECKER: But then -- but then you're 16 varying away again from that model, and that's not doing any 17 good, either. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question, 20 Judge. If, after expanding the data base to -- 19 counties, 21 is it, Larry? Nineteen? 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Nineteen. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would we still then 24 subsequently do a subjective analysis on each position, or 25 would that eliminate the need to do that? 48 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think what we're 2 talking about is -- is getting the data on the 19 counties, 3 just like Larry has collected it through TAC. Base salary, 4 salary supplements. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: And then if someone wanted to 7 come in and say, yes, but these counties really shouldn't be 8 counted because X, Y and Z, then we would look at that 9 request for exception and what effect it would have. And, 10 at the same time, we would consider Rusty's problem with the 11 discrepancy between the Chief Deputy and the -- and the 12 elected official's salary. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A follow-up question 14 would be that the corrective measure, if any, in those cases 15 would be adjustment of the equity adjustment? 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: 100, 105, 110, 120. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And what we do -- what 19 we can do is we can actually, on the model -- very easy to 20 add another column in there that says -- that says 21 Court-directed adjustment. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And we can have -- we 24 could have that kind of a thing where it's a -- the process 25 that Fred's outlined. That would be easy enough to do. 49 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Actually, I think what would 2 happen -- let's say we have 19 counties. And, since Paula 3 left, we'll pick on her, but also since she's brought 4 attention to the discrepancy in duties. Let's say she came 5 in and said, "These six counties don't do what I do, so, 6 really, only these 13 counties do what I do." And we went 7 back and verified that the six counties she's identified, 8 indeed, had substantially enough difference in duties that 9 you weren't comparing apples and apples. Then we'd throw 10 out those six counties. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Just -- 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Run the numbers again. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: -- see what it comes 14 out. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's where we come out. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All right. That's 17 fair. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because you can tweak the 19 model to keep you at apples and apples. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Providing that there's a 22 legitimate reason -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the base 24 which -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- for tweaking the model. 50 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That would be my 2 whole goal, is to keep -- try to keep it apples to apples. 3 I'm satisfied. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Here's what I'm going 5 to do, Judge, because I'm going to be gone to Austin 6 tomorrow, but be back tomorrow night, is on Friday, I can 7 quickly see, I think, a way to build a form for the data 8 gatherers, so that they can go right down the line and 9 fill -- it will just be a -- all they got to do is is fill 10 out the numbers. It will also have the questions to ask, 11 and I can generate those -- I could generate those by 12 Friday. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Don't you have to get 14 questions from these folks, though? 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. The questions are very 16 subjective. What is the salary? What is the salary 17 supplement? 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. You're not 19 going to get into the -- 20 MS. UECKER: No, that would be up to the 21 individual. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: Up to the elected official to 23 go and say, "These jobs aren't the same." 24 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We're just talking 25 about getting the numbers. And, I can -- and that needs to 51 1 be done consistently. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Needs to be on a form 4 so we can say, wait a minute, now. This one said before 5 that they had travel; now they say they don't have travel. 6 So, we'd want to cover all of those possibles. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what we want to do. 8 We're going to need two -- I mean, two clerical volunteers, 9 we're talking about. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They need to be -- 11 whoever it is needs to be sort of sharp, you know, and be 12 willing to -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: They could spend probably the 14 bigger part of a day each calling the counties on our survey 15 to determine what the -- what the numbers are. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: What we'd have is a -- 17 we'd have, for each county, all the positions listed on this 18 form. There would be 19 pieces of paper. 19 MR. MOTLEY: Going to be asking about last 20 year's figures? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, the current year. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Current year. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: What you're getting paid 24 today. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We want to -- and 52 1 that's very important. We don't want their budget figures 2 for next year. I want what those officials are making 3 today. 4 MS. UECKER: Current budget. 5 MR. MOTLEY: One other comment. I know it's 6 been mentioned, but I don't know whether they can do 19 7 counties for Judge Brown and myself, because half the 8 counties don't have County Courts at Law, and half of them 9 have a criminal D.A.; they don't have a County Attorney, or 10 some other arrangement. So, there would be no way to get 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We may -- but, see, we 13 don't know that -- I don't know how many of these 19 14 counties will respond. 15 MR. MOTLEY: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because I don't know 17 how many of them don't participate in the TAC survey. So, 18 they just -- they could have responded, but they didn't, you 19 know, or -- whether they just don't have a County Attorney 20 or whatever position, but we can find that out very quickly. 21 That's what this survey would tell us. And then, if we have 22 to open up the range a little bit -- 'cause, see, you'll go 23 higher and lower. If you have to open up the range a little 24 bit to get enough data samples, that's fine, because you're 25 going to take in some higher -- higher paying counties, 53 1 larger counties, and you're going to have to take in some 2 lower ones, but it should make a huge difference. 3 JUDGE ELLIOTT: But does -- I mean, for 4 example, I can understand you wanting to do that to make it 5 consistent with all departments, but since you have these 6 variations -- I mean, for all I know, if they're going to 7 spend -- they're going to have to some of the -- number one, 8 I think you're going to have to use a little bit of caution 9 when you call up and say, "We're doing a survey." They've 10 got all these pages of questions to ask -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's not pages. It 12 will just be numbers. It will just be numbers for the 13 positions. 14 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I understand. But numbers 15 for each department head that -- you may have it where the 16 County Attorney, David, may say, "Those numbers look fine to 17 me on mine. I agree with mine." The constables may say, 18 "We're happy with these numbers," or the J.P.'s may say, 19 "We're happy with these numbers; please just get the 20 travel." And you might be able to streamline this big 21 effort of calling 19 counties. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That goes back to the 23 data and the integrity piece of it, though. If you're going 24 to -- 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: You do it the same for 54 1 everybody. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: If you're going to do 3 it, you got to do it. And, yeah, it would be nice if you 4 could make exceptions, but then you lose integrity in the 5 data. You've almost got to be consistent. 6 JUDGE WRIGHT: Why weren't those 19 counties 7 used to begin with? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because they're not in the 9 TAC survey. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: See, if they didn't 11 give their information to TAC to put it in their database, 12 then you can query that county, which I did, and in every 13 case -- I queried all 19 counties, but what you see for each 14 elected official is what was spit out. That was the only 15 ones that were put in by somebody, and some of those aren't 16 right, as we know. So, it's -- it's -- that TAC survey is 17 not as good -- and they put that out in book form. A lot of 18 you that have been here longer than I have know that. 19 They've been -- 20 JUDGE WRIGHT: And that cost us what? 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've been putting 22 that book out for years. And, if the data is no better than 23 that, than what I've seen on the online system, it never has 24 been worth much, then, because they've got old data. 25 They've got inconsistent data. They've got projected data. 55 1 And -- 2 MS. UECKER: I have a question about a 3 comment Dawn made, and this may or may not be to the format, 4 but was it or was it not the Court's decision last year -- I 5 know they installed the longevity and education for the 6 employees, but shouldn't that always apply to the elected 7 officials? 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: We didn't address that, 9 and -- and -- 10 MS. UECKER: I mean, if you've been here long 11 enough as an elected official to have been elected several 12 times, that, to me, would constitute longevity. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's -- 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, and one of the 15 things is that the approach that -- that this model takes, 16 is that you're basing it on comparison with other counties, 17 so that that gets factored in, but it's factored in 18 indirectly, because all of these counties have some range -- 19 let's take just the District Clerk. They -- that salary is 20 going up over time, probably, and so we're comparing where 21 we stand with the average District Clerk. 22 MS. UECKER: Who may be a first-termer. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah, it may be. May 24 be COLA's, it's been merit raises, longevity, whatever. It 25 all ends up in there. 56 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: It all gets washed out in the 2 data, because if the county has a longevity policy, their 3 salary will be higher. It gets reflected in the data. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Then it bumps the 5 whole thing up. That's what we're going to do, is keep 6 staying on the average. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's right. 8 MS. UECKER: But that didn't address my 9 question. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, the issue is whether 11 the Court wants to adopt a longevity policy for elected 12 officials. That's just something we'd have to debate and 13 look at. Just -- 14 JUDGE WRIGHT: I can see that becoming a 15 political platform. Let's elect somebody new; we'll save 16 money. 17 MS. UECKER: Yeah. That's true, too. 18 (Laughter.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Are we -- 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let me quickly -- have 21 you just very quickly read those, because I don't -- I'm 22 sorry, I'll have to get this to everybody else, but just to 23 satisfy your curiosity, perhaps, the 19 counties with a plus 24 or minus 15 percent, are -- and these are in descending 25 order of population: Wise, Lamar, Van Zandt, Hardin, Rusk, 57 1 Maverick, Cherokee, Navarro, Val Verde, Kerr, Rockwall, 2 Wharton -- so there is only 18, because we're one of those 3 19. Did I say Wharton? Then Polk, Hood, and Jim Wells, and 4 Medina, Atascosa, Matagorda, and Brown. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We may not want to include 6 all of those. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Be careful what you ask for; 9 you may get it. 10 MS. UECKER: Yeah. But Matagorda -- I mean, 11 that one alone is going to -- 'cause they pay their elected 12 officials real good. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way -- 14 MS. UECKER: Maverick, on the other hand -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: By the way, if you 16 have a large enough data set, then the pluses and the 17 minuses tend to cancel each other out. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason you 20 take a large sample. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we're going to improve the 22 model, we're going to have to have, again, two volunteers, 23 two clerical officials -- clerical employees volunteered by 24 their department heads to do this, and it's going to have to 25 be done next week. I mean, a week from Friday is the 58 1 absolute latest we can have this data and have any chance 2 of -- of working on a budget for this year. 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I'll have the forms 4 Friday. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you know, you all need to 6 confer and -- and somebody needs to volunteer -- two of you 7 need to volunteer one employee each. I don't think it would 8 be, you know, equitable to take two. And the other thing 9 is, they're going to do the data, and then the data comes 10 directly to Larry. Doesn't come through the elected 11 official, doesn't come through me, doesn't come through 12 Thea. It comes directly to Larry, and -- but let's don't -- 13 if we're going to do this, let's make sure that we maintain 14 the integrity of what we're doing here, because the data 15 that Larry has, we know it's -- it's -- whatever the 16 adjective is for integrity, because he pulled it out of a 17 computer model. Now, it may not have gone in well, but 18 there's no subjectivity to it, so we need to make sure that 19 the data that we collect is as pure as we can get it in that 20 sense. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Unfiltered. 22 JUDGE WRIGHT: Will we get a copy of the 23 new -- 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 25 JUDGE WRIGHT: -- data? 59 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: After it's run, you'll get a 2 copy of the same thing we have here. 3 MS. UECKER: The problem some of us may have 4 is post-legislative conference next week, which I'm going. 5 I think Jannett's going. Are you going? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You are? You are 7 too? 8 MS. UECKER: Paula's going, Larry's going. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: It has to be done next week. 10 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we don't have it by a week 12 from Friday, we'll either go with this or -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I can plug the numbers 14 in real quick. I mean -- 15 MS. UECKER: Well, as soon as you get the 16 form to us, we'll wait on the form and then we'll sit and 17 make a decision as to who -- 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: We want -- we want you to -- 19 y'all decide. You all identify who it's going to be. I 20 want you to let Larry know who it's going to be. We want 21 two people so we don't have one person making three calls 22 and one person making four calls. Again, because the -- you 23 know, the data -- the integrity of the listener as well as 24 the person giving the information to the -- to the other 25 side. So, we want -- 60 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got to have the 2 time to do it. I mean, it can't -- I think to do this, 3 and -- and in a day or two, is going to take their time, so 4 it needs to be somebody who's not going to have to get up 5 and go do something else once they get started in this 6 process. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's impossible to 8 find, but what I think elected officials can find is 9 somebody -- I think the elected officials can find somebody 10 they know has the experience and the training and the 11 ability to work this in with their other duties. 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, but what I mean 13 is that they don't do it an hour right now, and then what 14 I'm saying is go off and do something else the rest of the 15 day and spend one hour a day at it. That ain't going to 16 work. 17 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I thought -- 18 MS. UECKER: We understand. 19 JUDGE ELLIOTT: -- you're asking for the 20 departments to do this? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, I'm asking for two 22 departments to volunteer one person each. 23 JUDGE ELLIOTT: Okay, thank you. 24 MR. MOTLEY: I have another question. Are we 25 going to ideally, then, meet again, this group of people, to 61 1 discuss something? Or is it going to be a handout, or how 2 is this going to proceed from this point? 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Let's get the rerun 4 model for sure, and then at that point, I think we can 5 determine -- the Judge can determine whether or not we get 6 need to get together as a group. 7 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can you go ahead and set 8 another one of those workshops, just like we're having? 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, that's -- that's almost 10 impossible to do at the time we're going to -- 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Because of the 12 post-legislative -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm going to schedule a 14 meeting for the 21st in the afternoon. Not a workshop, a 15 meeting to just talk about budget, because we have got to be 16 in a position where we're going to have to start making some 17 decisions. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: The ability to have another 20 workshop like this, you know -- 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I just wanted some 22 time we can put in some input. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know when we could do 24 it, because we really are getting short on time, because 25 we've got the -- we've got a lot of things yet to consider. 62 1 And we have this time frame that we'd have to -- you know, 2 we have to -- we have to approve a budget. We have to give 3 notice of the hearing, which takes -- you know, you have to 4 give -- provide notice. It has to have so many days between 5 the first notice, so many days between the second notice. 6 You get where you get down to the lick-lock (sic). You've 7 got a 3- to 5-week process once you really agree on things 8 before you can adopt a budget. 9 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I think I just -- what I'm 10 unclear about, maybe what Rusty is asking is that once this 11 data is collected and you have another model with accurate 12 data, because it's been telephone-verified, and you mail 13 these out or you disburse these out, and if the elected 14 official goes, "Oh, well, wait a minute. This is -- I need 15 to go and appeal the issue of this category or 16 what-have-you," isn't that what we talked about a while ago? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. But, in my own mind, 18 without getting further into the process, I'm not sure how 19 that works, other than I think we're going to agree to -- to 20 consider that. And I think the way that would work is -- is 21 that elected official would provide that information to 22 Larry, and -- and he would just go ahead and -- and verify 23 the data. 'Cause I don't think it's going to happen that 24 much, hopefully. Rerun the numbers and then provide the 25 Court with a comparison that the elected official could talk 63 1 about. Remember that if you change elected officials' 2 salaries, even if all we do is a COLA, there has to be a 3 public hearing. 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: But you have to give the 5 elected officials time to actually look at those and see 6 what the different duties are. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, I mean, if nothing else, 8 there is a public hearing at which the elected official can 9 come and say, you know, "I provided you with the 10 alternative, and I think the alternative should be adopted, 11 as opposed to the model, because of X Y and Z." 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I think -- 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: So, we'll get that 14 hearing; there will be an airing of that. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Whether we have another 16 workshop or not will depend upon time and our flexibility 17 and -- 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't see us having 19 another workshop. I think -- I see us having regular 20 meetings, so that we can be in a decision-making mode. We 21 have to get in the decision-making mode. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's what I'm saying, 23 Buster. As soon as we get back from the post-legislative 24 conference, we have the 20th, which is the day that Trott 25 has promised to give us a recommendation on the radio. So, 64 1 the next afternoon, what I'm planning on scheduling is 1:30 2 on budget, and I'm talking about consider and discuss. We 3 can't approve it. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can still have 5 discussions like this. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Exactly. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But we can also make a 8 decision. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: We'll be in the position 10 where we can legally take a vote. 11 MR. MOTLEY: And would it include these 12 issues? Would that be appropriate? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: It will be "consider and 14 discuss budget issues." 15 MR. MOTLEY: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's -- this is 17 budget issues. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Whatever I decide, we need to 19 talk about. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Guess he told you. 21 MS. PIEPER: I have a question, though. The 22 majority of us are up for reelection. Does this salary 23 increase not bother y'all? Or am I the only paranoid one 24 here? 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that's a discussion 65 1 for outside the courtroom. 2 MS. PIEPER: Okay. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: You know, it's something we 4 have to consider. I think our role as Commissioners Court 5 is, we realize -- as I said at the beginning, we hold key to 6 the checkbook. We hold the checkbook. 7 MS. UECKER: Yeah. This should be -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: We have -- the newly elected 9 official can -- can return a salary increase. I don't think 10 they can -- I think, legally, they can't not accept it, but 11 they can return it to the County. Or they -- 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Yeah. You don't have 13 to accept the money if you -- if anybody, for whatever 14 reason -- 15 MS. PIEPER: I like to eat, too. Let's don't 16 get crazy. 17 (Laughter.) 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think that applies for a 20 whole lot of us. 21 MS. UECKER: I think our timing is bad. This 22 should have happened last year, or next year, so it would be 23 between -- you know. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Putting it off till next year 25 means we rock and roll along where we are. 66 1 JUDGE ELLIOTT: I think it's good that we do 2 it before the voters. I mean, that's -- 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. There's a 4 group of people in my precinct that I go and talk to about 5 -- about these things, and I have nothing but positive that 6 the officials in this county -- it's time that they start 7 being paid what they -- for what they do. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: And that's the beauty of what 9 Larry has done, and what we really owe him thanks for, is 10 this is totally objective. 11 MS. UECKER: Yeah. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: And -- 13 MS. UECKER: And all we're doing is bringing 14 the elected officials' salaries in Kerr County, by the 15 proposal, up to the median. That is the average of elected 16 officials in counties our size. You know, we're not trying 17 to be the highest-paid officials. 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the bottom 19 line. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: But, by god, we deserve to at 21 least be paid at the average, 'cause we're better than 22 everybody else. 23 MS. UECKER: I'm a state champion, so -- 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's true. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Buster's kid's a state 67 1 champion. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right. 3 And I still get here before Bill does. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. If there's nothing 5 else, thank you all. Bob? 6 MR. TERRILL: Specific line item, if I may 7 approach the -- 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: If that's what you and I 9 talked about, Bob -- 10 MR. TERRILL: Yes, sir. I have an official 11 request. I can just give it to the Commission. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't you, just real 13 quickly, tell us. 14 MR. TERRILL: What it amounts to, since we're 15 going to go down, we're going to eliminate travel, we're 16 going to eliminate gasoline. Everything comes under salary, 17 and all the pre -- I understand each precinct constable is 18 to have an equal amount of money allocated to that precinct 19 for salary. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Correct. 21 MR. TERRILL: That's correct. I'd just like 22 to change the line item for my deputy over down to where -- 23 to the different figures than what we have. We're currently 24 under for the 2002 fiscal year. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, what you're -- if I can 68 1 say what you and I have talked about, which is a suggestion, 2 is you would like to transfer some of the money that -- 3 MR. TERRILL: Correct. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- would be budgeted for your 5 salary to the deputy's salary. 6 MR. TERRILL: Correct. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: So that the total would be 8 the same as Constable Ayala or Constable McClure makes. 9 MR. TERRILL: That's correct. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anybody have any 11 questions about that? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Larry? 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 16 MR. TERRILL: May I submit this, sir? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes, you may. Thank you, 18 Bob. I appreciate it. Anybody else? Okay. Let's go home. 19 (Budget workshop concluded at 5:20 p.m.) 20 - - - - - - - - - - 21 22 23 24 25 69 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 2nd day of October, 8 2001. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25