Port Arthur council members press for clearer budget treatment of reclassified positions

Councilman Doucet pressed Port Arthur staff on Thursday about how reclassified jobs are shown in the city's proposed budget, saying the city manager "does not have the authority to change range and pay" without council approval and urging that positions with newly increased pay ranges be listed as new positions in the budget.

The discussion, held during the council's final budget workshop before adoption, centered on whether reclassifications that raise a job's pay range must be treated as new, funded positions. City Manager Dr. Thigpen told the council the city follows Personnel Policy 17-57(b), which delegates final reclassification decisions to the city manager after human resources and wage-and-compensation review, and that reclassification is a process that can include compensation adjustments.

The exchange grew from a review of the personnel schedule. Doucet said that reclassified jobs with larger ranges are effectively new positions because they were not funded in the prior year's schedule and therefore should require council action to appropriate additional dollars. Dr. Thigpen and staff responded that the budget differentiates between positions that are numerically new and reclassifications of existing positions, and that some reclassifications carry no additional budgetary impact because duties remain equivalent.

Council members also asked for a corrected and final personnel schedule to be delivered before the council votes to adopt the budget. Finance staff confirmed a summary report of positions'new positions, reclassifications and title changes'was distributed at the meeting and that the final personnel schedule would be updated and provided before the September 23 meeting.

Council members said their concern is not reclassification itself but how money is appropriated and tracked. "This is about budget," Doucet said, emphasizing that if a position is not funded in the approved budget, adding new compensation should come back to council for approval. Other council members urged staff transparency and said the paperwork requested by council had been produced.

Staff agreed to deliver the corrected personnel schedule in time for council review prior to the scheduled public hearing and vote. The council did not take a formal vote on any personnel item during the workshop; the discussion concluded with an agreement to provide updated documentation.

Ending: Council members reiterated that the personnel schedule must be current when they vote on the budget and directed staff to supply the corrected schedule before the next meeting.