TGC COMMISSIONERS COURT
Tom Green County Pct. 4 Comm. Shawn Nanny pulled a consent agenda item for further discussion after going over some of the salary math ahead of the meeting.
The item in question regards County Judge Lane Carter hiring someone out of the district attorney’s office as an administrative assistant.
“I would just like to have explained to me the salary for the position of the county judge’s admin assistant,” he said, “If the HR director could walk me through the path…”
“The way I read our current policy, as far as promotions go, it starts out at the base of that salary scale, and we can add 4 percent. So, I don’t follow the math.”
Human Resources Director Julie Ratekin came forward to explain.
“What you’re looking at, if we look at Section 5:204, regarding promotions, the rate of pay for employees promoted to a higher-level position… it will either be the minimum of the new range, or it will be a pay adjustment to their current salary.
“In this case it would be considered “Clerical, Paraprofessional,” which is at 4 percent pay adjustment of their current salary,” Ratekin said.
Nanny said he didn’t see the “current salary” clause in the policy.
Ratekin explained in more detail.
“Historically — and this has been across the board with all of our promotions — it is either going to be minimum starting salary, or the percentage above their current salary — whichever is greater.”
Nanny again told her he didn’t see that explicitly spelled out in the policy.
“The way I read this,” Nanny said, “If you’re being promoted under (Section 5:204), setting pay rates for promotions, the rate of pay for an employee being promoted to a higher-paying position, which is what we’re encountering here — will be the minimum of the new range of the following, whichever is greater…
“So, you start at that minimum of that scale, and then we can add the 4 percent adjustment on top of that. That’s what I read in the policy. Am I incorrect?
Nanny said he just wanted to make sure everything is handled consistently.
Pct. 2 Comm. Chad Decker then asked about the cost-of-living adjustment scheduled to go into effect Oct. 1, inquiring as to whether it was being applied to the people who’ve only been working for the county a short time, and was informed that was the case.
That seemed to wrinkle some feathers, as Comm. Nanny echoed his concerns about that.
Comm. Hoelscher said when he was first elected to the court, they didn’t have any set pay scales and it was a mess.
Human Resources Manager Nate Southard agreed the verbiage could use some improvement, but said he felt that similar moves had been handled consistently over the years with his interpretation of the policy as it is written.
“If we treat this position differently, then we would not being fair and consistent with the way we’ve handled our workforce up to this point, Southard said.
As Judge Carter was hoping to conclude the discussion, Comm. Nanny said he really needed to see the worksheet math on how this employee’s salary was arrived at, and asked to table this one personnel action for a week.
County Treasurer Diana Spieker told the court that she actually needed them to figure this out now in order for her to process the payroll going out presently.
The discussion continued with Nanny asking about how the job was advertised, salary wise, and Southard told him they advertise each job opening at its base salary.
Commissioners Nanny and Decker both said they would like to see all the relevant salary figures and adjustments associated with any personnel paperwork going forward.
After agreeing to move that item to the end of the meeting while someone from HR went to find the relevant salary figures for Comm. Nanny the court proceeded.
Returning to Item “D” at the end of the meeting, a further 10 minutes of discussion followed, beginning with Southard’s rundown of the salary particulars.
A supplemental salary portion of $92.31 bi-weekly, or $184.62 monthly, appeared to be causing some confusion, as the employee, who has more than a dozen years of service with the county, was paid in part through grant money specific to her position, which would not carry over to another department.
Southard said, “I did want to make a comment about the policy. You know, the lateral and promotional policies are in place so that we can recognize and reward tenure and merit that individuals have accumulated over the years through continuous service to Tom Green County. That’s why those policies are in place.
“If we’re proposing to treat this individual separate from how we’ve treated other individuals in the past, we would be ignoring their tenure and their merit and their cost-of-livings that they’ve accumulated over the years, and I think that’s counterintuitive to what we’ve been trying to stand for over the years.
Comm. Nanny said he comprehended what Southard was saying, but he still didn’t see where it fit with the policy “in black and white.”
Southard again agreed there was probably a better way to phrase the policy, but ultimately it still has to make sense at the end of the day.
“If the lateral (transfer) policy is clear — that you would come over with the same salary that you have from another department– so, are we suggesting that we should treat a promotion as less than a lateral?
Nanny then wanted to discuss specifics, and called Southard up to the dais to look at the sheet.
Pct. 2 Comm. Rick Bacon asked if there could be a hybrid promotion/transfer policy or form that could take care of this situation, and Southard said he thought that was a good idea.
Judge Carter then made a motion to accept the personnel actions as presented, and asked for a second, which came from Bacon.
When the vote was called for there were three ‘Aye’s and one “Nay” from Comm. Nanny.
Comm. Hoelscher then allowed that he was a little confused about how this transfer qualified as a promotion, based on pay, at which point Carter provided a short recap and explained that it’s a promotion because the employee’s classification is changing from S-11 to S-13.
“Do you know what we’re doing?” Carter asked earnestly, “I’ve hired a new administrative assistant, who’s sitting over to your right, and we are talking about her path, on what the pay will be. For her.”
Carter then started going over the whole thing again, explaining that this employee is actually giving up some money to move into the new position (2 precent of merit income, according to Carter), as Comm. Decker leaned over and helped Hoelscher with the figures.
Carter reminded the panel that there was a vote on the floor, and asked Comm. Hoelscher if he was an Aye or a Nay.
“Well, what’s the question here?” Hoelscher asked, “The salary will be the same.”
Carter confirmed this and Hoelscher decided that was OK with him.
“That’s an ‘Aye’ Carter said, announcing the 4-1 decision.
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY
Bacon Sheds Light on the Proceedings
Comm. Nanny’s scrutiny would seem to indicate they are watching the nickels and dimes pretty closely when it comes to payrolls and expenditures, although they all felt the need to vote themselves a decent raise this year — and why not?
Prices are up for everyone and everything. Including the cost of the entire local criminal justice system — by far the costliest element of local government.
When discussing the Texas Indigent Defense Grant, Pct. 3 Comm. Rick Bacon once again took the opportunity to speak briefly about the pressures that Texas counties face in trying to manage all of the governmental services they are statutorily obligated to provide without a corresponding ability to raise taxes.
“I just want folks to understand, as Chad (Cook) said, our expenses were over $1.1 million, and out of that, the state reimbursed us $82,000, out of that.
“Years ago, before we had the public defender office, that was seven-figure numbers, so this is what our (Texas Indigent Defense Grant and our public defender office saves the county, by having them fund almost 80 percent of our budget on that…
“So, I just want people to understand that, before, we were averaging a return of about 7 percent on what we were spending on indigent defense.
“This is a requirement that the state has laid upon the counties that we have to fund, and this is the repayment we get from the state.
“And the state should be funding 100 percent of that.
“So, when we talk budget… and when you hear about what’s going on, and the politics; local government and the spending that local government does, a lot of that is forced on us because the legislature knows that ad valorem tax can be moved around, and can be adjusted so that counties can cover that, and the state doesn’t have to.
“This is what we deal with on an annual basis; every two years, because of our legislatures… and everybody wants their taxes cut — and I understand that — but we have to understand the difference between what the county has to do, and your school taxes.
“We are a very small part of your property tax bill, and the legislature is already in the works to cut us back some more on what we can do. So, they’re going to get harder on us, to try to meet these kind of requirements.
“I just want the public and everyone to understand what we’re under, as a court, every two years when the legislature comes in and does these things, and they say they’re helping you, but — in fact — they’re putting it down on us.”
Based on changes from the Big Beautiful Bill things on this front can only get worse as the Trump Administrations flagship legislation, in addition to making it more difficult for folks to get assistance, also shifts an additional 25 percent of the administrative costs of S.N.A.P. (states used to pay half) and other programs to the states this year, which is set to rise to 100 percent in the near future.
