Galveston County Annex, Calder Road League City
GALVESTON COUNTY — Proposed revisions that could significantly change vacation and sick leave benefits for Galveston County employees are drawing concerns from workers ahead of a Commissioners Court meeting where officials are scheduled to discuss the changes and then consider their adoption.
The Aug. 17 Commissioners Court agenda includes two separate items concerning revisions to the county’s HR008 Time Off Plans policy. The first calls for discussion of adopting revisions to the policy, presented by Human Resources. A separate item immediately afterward calls for consideration of adoption of the revisions, also submitted by Human Resources.
The agenda therefore allows commissioners to discuss the proposed changes and then consider taking action during the same meeting. No changes have been adopted at this time, and it remains unclear whether commissioners will adopt the proposal as currently written, modify it, postpone action or take another course.
Commissioner Joe Giusti told KGTX 7 that nothing has been decided and said he does not agree with everything contained in the proposal as currently written.
“Our employees are our greatest asset,” Giusti said. “We’re not the highest paid folks around, but we’ve always touted the great benefits they do have. I don’t wanna particularly see us change them that much. Should we change some things? Yes. But not all of it.”
What is being proposed?
Under the proposal as currently written, vacation would be awarded annually rather than accrued biweekly. Full-time employees would receive 80 hours of vacation annually after their introductory period for one to four years of service, 120 hours for five to nine years and 160 hours for 10 or more years.
Employees would be required to use their vacation within the award year. Unused vacation could no longer be carried into the following year and would be forfeited at year-end. The proposal states that would replace the previous policy allowing up to 150% carryover.
The proposal would also eliminate payouts for unused vacation upon separation, retirement, death or any other event. According to the proposed policy, the change would eliminate the previous payout system that allowed up to 120 hours or 150% of an employee’s annual entitlement, depending on hire date.
Sick leave would also be awarded annually rather than accrued biweekly, with full-time employees receiving an annual allotment of 80 hours.
Unlike vacation, unused sick leave could continue to carry over from year to year. However, an employee’s sick leave balance would be capped at 320 hours, or 40 days.
The proposal would also eliminate existing provisions allowing certain employees hired before Oct. 1, 2011, to receive partial payouts for unused sick leave. As currently written, the policy states that no employee, regardless of hire date or status, would receive a payout for unused sick leave upon separation, retirement, disability retirement, appointment or election to an official position, or death.
The preliminary policy would also require employees seeking to use sick leave on the workday immediately before or after a county holiday to provide medical documentation and receive approval from their department head.
The provisions represent revisions currently under consideration by Commissioners Court and could be modified, rejected or otherwise changed during the process.
County cites financial liability
Giusti said the county is examining changes to its leave policies because accumulated employee leave creates an unfunded financial liability for the county.
According to Giusti, when employees accumulate leave without using it, the financial obligation associated with that time can increase and could potentially affect the county’s bond rating.
KGTX 7 has asked county officials for the current dollar value of the county’s accumulated leave liability, how much the proposed revisions could reduce that liability and whether a bond-rating agency, bond counsel or financial adviser has specifically identified accumulated employee leave as a concern.
Those answers were not immediately available.
Giusti said he was unsure who originally developed or requested the proposed revisions but said they were brought to his attention by the county’s Human Resources Department. Both items on the Aug. 17 Commissioners Court agenda identify Human Resources as presenting or submitting the revisions.
Employees raise concerns
KGTX 7 has received calls from multiple county employees expressing concerns about both the proposed revisions and how information about the potential changes was communicated.
One county employee, who asked not to be identified, told KGTX 7 they learned about the proposed changes from a coworker. According to the employee, that coworker had heard about the proposal from someone else who happened to review the Commissioners Court agenda.
“I just feel like this was very sneaky, because no one that I know was told about this in advance,” the employee said. “There were no emails or documents given ahead of time, or even questions like, ‘Would you be opposed to these preliminary changes?’”
The newsroom has not independently confirmed what notice, if any, was provided to county employees before the proposal was placed on the agenda.
The employee also raised concerns about how changes to accumulated leave could affect workers who need extended periods away from work, pointing to maternity leave as one example.
The employee questioned what options would be available for a worker who needs an extended absence but does not have enough accumulated paid leave to cover the entire period.
KGTX 7 has not independently determined how the proposed revisions would interact with maternity leave, medical leave, the Family and Medical Leave Act, short-term disability or other benefits that may be available to county employees.
Commissioners could consider adoption Monday
Commissioners are scheduled to first discuss the proposed revisions before taking up a separate agenda item considering their adoption.
Giusti told KGTX 7 that employees or their supervisors can attend and voice their concerns during the discussion.
It remains unclear whether Commissioners Court will consider adopting the HR008 revisions exactly as currently written or whether changes will be proposed during the meeting.
The proposed policy itself states that vacation payouts would be eliminated regardless of hire date or employee classification and that unused sick leave payouts would be eliminated regardless of hire date or status. Questions remain about how the county would implement those provisions for employees with existing leave balances and what would happen to vacation balances when the proposed use-it-or-lose-it provisions take effect.
KGTX 7 has reached out to the Galveston County Human Resources Department and County Auditor’s Office seeking additional information but had not received responses as of publication.
The newsroom also contacted the Galveston County Judge’s Office seeking additional information about the proposal and its financial justification. The judge’s office referred KGTX 7 to a communications representative, who has been contacted for comment.
KGTX 7 is also reviewing additional public financial records related to the county’s compensated-absence liability and bond rating and will update this story as that information is independently verified.
This is a developing story. KGTX 7 will provide additional information as it becomes available.
Correction: An earlier version of this story stated the proposed HR008 revisions would first go through a workshop before commissioners made an ultimate decision and identified the grandfathering of existing payout eligibility as an unanswered question. The Aug. 17 agenda includes discussion of the proposed revisions followed by a separate item for consideration of adoption, meaning commissioners could consider action during the same meeting. The proposed policy also states that vacation and sick leave payout provisions would be eliminated regardless of hire date. The story has been updated to clarify both points.
