October 2011
Lake Travis
Economic Impact Report

Where is the Truth-O-Meter?
By Karen Huber, Travis County Commissioner, Pct. 3

I applaud the Statesman for raising questions about Travis County’s proposed pay increases.  This should be done and taxpayers should be thoroughly informed so they can make their own qualified decisions.

I do take issue, though, with much of what is in the editorial of August 2, 2010 (Can they justify their pay hikes?).  First, a notable omission is that I waived any increase in my own salary several weeks ago when the salary increases were before the Court.

Next, it is true that Travis County has proposed a pay increase that would give rank and file employees a 2.5 percent cost of living raise.  I strongly believe that the Commissioners Court needs to hear from constituents on this, but the rationale for considering this increase, which has already been made public by the County, was not included in the editorial. 

The costs of healthcare benefits have gone up dramatically in the last several years. These costs are shared between the County and each employee, but the County has absorbed these costs in recent years and not passed the proportionate share on to the employee. This year, the County is having to increase the employee’s share of the cost.  Since there were no salary increases last year, increasing health benefits cost to the employee without a corresponding pay increase would effectively result in employees taking a cut in take-home pay.
 
Regarding other points of issue with the editorial, the argument was set forth challenging the staffing for the Judge and Commissioners, noting that county “jurisdiction has been slowly eroded by city annexations.”  Granted, county government is probably the public body least understood by most citizens, and apparently some editorial writers, but this statement of eroding jurisdiction is simply untrue.  (Where is the truth-o-meter?)  The majority of the county responsibilities as reflected by the budget are countywide, regardless of municipalities.  The largest segments of the budget for the County are the Judicial System, Corrections and Rehabilitation, Public Safety and Health and Human Services. The needs of these grow, directly in proportion to the population of the County as whole, regardless of municipal jurisdictions.           

By way of further correction regarding the responsibilities of the five-member Commissioners Court, these elected officials do not fill exactly the same roles as city council members.  Rather, the Commissioners Court does have direct administrative responsibility over county operations.  It “is” the administrator for county business and there is no staff position, past or current, for a “county administrator” as stated in the editorial.  The Commissioners Court functions much as a hired city manager does, but also has the added responsibilities for policy, like that of the city council.  Furthermore, as Travis County continues to urbanize in the unincorporated areas the challenges of meeting the expectations of those residing there have increased exponentially – whether they be emergency services, law enforcement or growth related.

No wonder the taxpayers are incensed with government and elected officials.  In this instance, I would be too if the only information I used to formulate my opinion of Travis County’s proposed pay increase came from this Statesman editorial with its significant misinformation.  I would hope that in the future, the editorial board would do a better job of vetting or investigating their arguments.  We all owe it to taxpayers to help keep them fully and accurately informed.

HOME
COMMISSIONER
STAFF
LEGISLATIVE
CALENDAR
CONTACT US
COUNTY CONTACTS
INPUT
COMMENTARY
2009 YEAR REVIEW
SNAPSHOTS

Sign up for our Email Newsletter