[Speed Gibson,
Friday February 22, 2008 at 8:52pm]
The Full Time Legislature - II
I doubt this problem is unique to Minnesota. No matter what the state Constitution says about its Legislature being part time, career legislators will work the edges to create a defacto full time Legislature.
Minnesota is a prime example. Yes, the time when they can actually pass Legislation is limited, but that doesn't stop it from creating make-work for the off season, as in endless committees. There are seminars, presentations, and conventions to attend and junkets to see other cities' light rail, stadiums, etc.
If I understand this new Transportation Contingent Appropriations Group (TCAG) concept, the Legislature has now granted itself some off-season Executive authority over transportation projects. For the first time, they have also announced their desire to call themselves into session.
The war is over. We essentially now have a full time Legislature. It's for the wrong reasons, DFL reasons in fact, because this arrangement suits their chosen and/or preferred life style: public sector employment.
If we're going to remove this bias, which is to say return to the spirit of the citizen legislature envisioned 150 years ago, we have to make it feasible for most citizens to consider running for the Legislature.
Currently, base salary for a Legislator is a little over $31,000 I believe, and it hasn't been adjusted for some time. It's probably too low. It obviously precludes many talented people who make significantly more from considering Legislative service.
The perfect plan as proposed by economist Dr. Walter E. Williams would be to pay them $1 million a year IF they agree to stay away from the Capitol! That would more than pay for itself. But seriously, what if we set the pay at, say, $250,000? Almost anyone could afford to serve at that salary (and no per diems at all). But we'd never get rid of them.
I think we should focus on entry and exit. What if we set the pay at the your second highest income the past five years, or $35,000, whichever is higher. Further, you get a generous severance when you leave, like 10% per year served, up to one year's worth. Maybe more, but whatever is sufficient to allow you to transition back to your old life or profession.
Yes, that means some Legislators would be paid significantly more than others. But today's equality of pay is creating great inequity of service. And as we've seen, the pay really isn't equal today, thanks to per diem abuse. Let's look at it as buying hours, and some people's hours cost more than others.
One other detail: pensions for Legislators should be eliminated even if we change nothing else. Create 401K style alternatives so they can continue to fund their retirement directly.
I know it will never happen as I've described, especially when you have to get the Legislature, the majority of whom like the current system, vote on it.
Minnesota is a prime example. Yes, the time when they can actually pass Legislation is limited, but that doesn't stop it from creating make-work for the off season, as in endless committees. There are seminars, presentations, and conventions to attend and junkets to see other cities' light rail, stadiums, etc.
If I understand this new Transportation Contingent Appropriations Group (TCAG) concept, the Legislature has now granted itself some off-season Executive authority over transportation projects. For the first time, they have also announced their desire to call themselves into session.
The war is over. We essentially now have a full time Legislature. It's for the wrong reasons, DFL reasons in fact, because this arrangement suits their chosen and/or preferred life style: public sector employment.
If we're going to remove this bias, which is to say return to the spirit of the citizen legislature envisioned 150 years ago, we have to make it feasible for most citizens to consider running for the Legislature.
Currently, base salary for a Legislator is a little over $31,000 I believe, and it hasn't been adjusted for some time. It's probably too low. It obviously precludes many talented people who make significantly more from considering Legislative service.
The perfect plan as proposed by economist Dr. Walter E. Williams would be to pay them $1 million a year IF they agree to stay away from the Capitol! That would more than pay for itself. But seriously, what if we set the pay at, say, $250,000? Almost anyone could afford to serve at that salary (and no per diems at all). But we'd never get rid of them.
I think we should focus on entry and exit. What if we set the pay at the your second highest income the past five years, or $35,000, whichever is higher. Further, you get a generous severance when you leave, like 10% per year served, up to one year's worth. Maybe more, but whatever is sufficient to allow you to transition back to your old life or profession.
Yes, that means some Legislators would be paid significantly more than others. But today's equality of pay is creating great inequity of service. And as we've seen, the pay really isn't equal today, thanks to per diem abuse. Let's look at it as buying hours, and some people's hours cost more than others.
One other detail: pensions for Legislators should be eliminated even if we change nothing else. Create 401K style alternatives so they can continue to fund their retirement directly.
I know it will never happen as I've described, especially when you have to get the Legislature, the majority of whom like the current system, vote on it.