24.
Commissioners Court - Regular Session
- Meeting Date:
- 10/10/2023
- Title:
- Policy exception for SVU VAC position salary
- Submitted By:
- Grace Frias, District Attorney
- Department:
- District Attorney
- Agenda Category:
- Regular Agenda Items
Information
Agenda Item
Discuss, consider, and take appropriate action on a policy exception for a new hire for the new SVU VAC position in the District Attorney’s Office.
Background
The District Attorney requests a policy exception on the newly created Special Victim Unit Victim Assistance Coordinator position (PCN 2110) to successfully recruit an applicant with extensive experience as a Victim Assistance Coordinator to facilitate the integration of the Special Victim Unit with the felony trial teams. The addition of an experienced individual with a directly relevant skill set is critical and necessary for the most optimal transition and integration between the Special Victims Unit and the felony Trial Division. This exception request seeks to keep the position grade at B.24, but with a salary of $58,000 to match the applicant’s current pay.
As precedent for this policy exception, see this Court’s unanimous approval, without discussion, of Item 37 on the September 26, 2023 Agenda, granting a salary that is 33.5% above the B-Grade minimum for the Risk Claim’s Administrator position in the General Counsel’s Office. Item 37 was submitted by Hal Hawes, General Counsel. There was no indication that the item was submitted to HR for a recommendation or that HR made a recommendation. There were no attachments to item 37 and there was no discussion by the Commissioners before the 5-0 vote approving.
The District Attorney’s policy exception request precisely mirrors the General Counsel’s agenda item. If there was other consideration given to the General Counsel’s item, by HR or otherwise, it was not provided with the agenda item request nor was it discussed by the Court in the Open Meeting. The one and only apparent difference between the General Counsel’s Agenda request and the District Attorney’s Agenda request is that the General Counsel is your employee and the District Attorney is not.
In the past, the HR Director has declined to present or recommend any policy exception for the District Attorney’s Office. If there is a new policy that requires the HR Director to review and make a recommendation concerning policy exception requests, for purposes of transparency and compliance, that policy should be published.
The District Attorney’s requests for B-Grade assignment and attendant salary increases was presented to the HR Director in the Cycle 5B Salary Study, just completed in 2023. The District Attorney requested a B-26 Grade for our Victim Assistance Coordinator positions. With a total fiscal impact for two positions of $0.00. The HR Director rejected the request. I have repeatedly voiced the deficiencies in the Salary Study as applied to the Office of the District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District. See attached memo on salary study concerns.
The District Attorney subsequently submitted a Reclassification Request in the Budget process, presenting his Salary and B-Grade recommendations. The HR Director rejected the Reclassification Request and the Commissioners refused to consider the District Attorney’s Reclassification request in the Budget process. Had the District Attorney’s reclassification request been approved in the Budget process, the salary for this new VAC position would be $58,582 ($54,243 minimum + $4,339 (8% allowed by current policy).
By allowing the HR Director sole and unchecked authority to reject the District Attorney’s Salary Study requests without review by or appeal to the Court, and by then compounding that rejection by refusing to consider the District Attorney’s Reclassification Request during the Budget process, the District Attorney’s only avenue to public presentation of his requests for consideration by the Court is by policy exception – one by one.
In the alternative, the District Attorney requests that the Court approve the District Attorney’s reclassification request to change the VAC B-Grade from B.24 to B.26 resulting in no fiscal impact to the District Attorney’s Budget. This position could then be funded, within policy at $58,582 (B.26 minimum + 8%) – making a policy exception unnecessary.
This matter was submitted to and discussed with Rebecca Clemmons (HR) and Ashlie Holladay (Budget Office). Attached is Ms. Holladay’s loaded budget figures.
Attachment: District Attorney’s Budget Reclassification Request Summary - VAC
Memo on Salary Study concerns
Line Item Transfer Amount
As precedent for this policy exception, see this Court’s unanimous approval, without discussion, of Item 37 on the September 26, 2023 Agenda, granting a salary that is 33.5% above the B-Grade minimum for the Risk Claim’s Administrator position in the General Counsel’s Office. Item 37 was submitted by Hal Hawes, General Counsel. There was no indication that the item was submitted to HR for a recommendation or that HR made a recommendation. There were no attachments to item 37 and there was no discussion by the Commissioners before the 5-0 vote approving.
The District Attorney’s policy exception request precisely mirrors the General Counsel’s agenda item. If there was other consideration given to the General Counsel’s item, by HR or otherwise, it was not provided with the agenda item request nor was it discussed by the Court in the Open Meeting. The one and only apparent difference between the General Counsel’s Agenda request and the District Attorney’s Agenda request is that the General Counsel is your employee and the District Attorney is not.
In the past, the HR Director has declined to present or recommend any policy exception for the District Attorney’s Office. If there is a new policy that requires the HR Director to review and make a recommendation concerning policy exception requests, for purposes of transparency and compliance, that policy should be published.
The District Attorney’s requests for B-Grade assignment and attendant salary increases was presented to the HR Director in the Cycle 5B Salary Study, just completed in 2023. The District Attorney requested a B-26 Grade for our Victim Assistance Coordinator positions. With a total fiscal impact for two positions of $0.00. The HR Director rejected the request. I have repeatedly voiced the deficiencies in the Salary Study as applied to the Office of the District Attorney for the 26th Judicial District. See attached memo on salary study concerns.
The District Attorney subsequently submitted a Reclassification Request in the Budget process, presenting his Salary and B-Grade recommendations. The HR Director rejected the Reclassification Request and the Commissioners refused to consider the District Attorney’s Reclassification request in the Budget process. Had the District Attorney’s reclassification request been approved in the Budget process, the salary for this new VAC position would be $58,582 ($54,243 minimum + $4,339 (8% allowed by current policy).
By allowing the HR Director sole and unchecked authority to reject the District Attorney’s Salary Study requests without review by or appeal to the Court, and by then compounding that rejection by refusing to consider the District Attorney’s Reclassification Request during the Budget process, the District Attorney’s only avenue to public presentation of his requests for consideration by the Court is by policy exception – one by one.
In the alternative, the District Attorney requests that the Court approve the District Attorney’s reclassification request to change the VAC B-Grade from B.24 to B.26 resulting in no fiscal impact to the District Attorney’s Budget. This position could then be funded, within policy at $58,582 (B.26 minimum + 8%) – making a policy exception unnecessary.
This matter was submitted to and discussed with Rebecca Clemmons (HR) and Ashlie Holladay (Budget Office). Attached is Ms. Holladay’s loaded budget figures.
Attachment: District Attorney’s Budget Reclassification Request Summary - VAC
Memo on Salary Study concerns
Line Item Transfer Amount
Fiscal Impact
| From/To | Acct No. | Description | Amount |
|---|
Attachments
- DA Budget Reclassification Request Summary - VAC
- Memo on Salary Study concerns
- Line Item Transfer Amount
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| County Judge Exec Asst. | Becky Pruitt | 10/05/2023 03:51 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Grace Frias
- Started On:
- 10/05/2023 11:46 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 10/05/2023