Officials review pay hike debate
HARRISBURG – Not surprisingly, no one in state politics is talking about another pay raise right now, nevertheless some are thinking about how to handle the next one, whenever it comes. After more than a year of pay raise furor, debate about how to better deal with future pay increases for state officials has been largely overlooked. But candidates, faced with a still-angry public, have begun to address the question in the context of reforming state government.
Gov. Ed Rendell answered a reporter’s question on the topic at last week’s debate in Pittsburgh, saying he believes a citizens’ commission should be set up to evaluate and recommend salaries and benefits for public officials, similar to what was done in Philadelphia while he was mayor when city council wanted a raise.
Republican opponent Lynn Swann chose not to answer that question.
William Earnesty, a Republican candidate for the 52nd Legislative District seat in Fayette County, said he thinks all future legislative pay raises should be put to voters. And by voters he means a district-by-district vote on whether individual lawmakers should get a raise.
“The bottom line is, a pay raise comes from tax money and tax money comes from the people,” Earnesty said.
He admitted, however, that voters probably would never approve a pay raise.
While the 2005 pay raise was by far the most scandalous, lawmakers in the past have repeatedly had to address the unpopular issue. The state had a Commonwealth Compensation Commission in 1972 and 1976, which studied salary and benefit levels of top state government officials in the three branches by comparing them to other states and private industry.
Interestingly enough, at that time the commission advised lawmakers to “improve legislative performance” and “modernize” state government by increasing salaries by 60 percent to a more respectable level than their annual $7,200. The 1972 commission recommended a $19,200 legislative salary, identical to California’s.
“The commission believes that it is necessary to say bluntly to the people of Pennsylvania – your state legislators are underpaid and understaffed and they have been for years,” noted the 1972 commission report. “And the commission believes that it is necessary to say bluntly to the members of the General Assembly – unless you persuade the people of Pennsylvania of a recognition of your true responsibilities, you will be at the very center of a spiraling crisis in state government.”
But the Legislature rejected that recommendation, opting instead for a $15,600 salary and kept to that amount even after the 1976 commission report.
The commission then disbanded, never to arise again in public debate until now.
“It was eliminated by the General Assembly because of public unhappiness with the commission process, which was viewed as an insider process,” said Steve MacNett, the Senate’s chief counsel and a longtime Harrisburg political observer.
MacNett said a new commission still would be plagued by questions of who the legislative appointments are. He said lawmakers would still, in the end, likely be voting on its own pay because the state constitution requires the Legislature to decide pay levels.
Public unhappiness over subsequent pay raises in the 1980s eventually led to the 1997 enactment of annual automatic cost-of-living increases, based on an inflationary index. Lawmakers at the time trumpeted COLAs as a way to never have to vote on a pay raise again.
The COLAs still exist – state officials will be getting another one this December – but by 2005, grumbling was heard anew because it was felt that low inflation in the 1990s didn’t raise salaries high enough.
Another option, voter referendum on all future pay raises, could run into legal issues because of the limited circumstances proscribed in the state constitution for direct voter involvement, MacNett said.
“This is frankly one of those government processes where there’s no happy home for it,” MacNett said.
Other states have established similar methods to what Pennsylvania has tried, mainly in the way of independent commissions and automatic COLAs. Some states have dealt with the issue by avoidance, including New Mexico and New Hampshire, which haven’t had a legislative pay raise in 100 years, according to Tim Storey, a spokesman for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
For some in Pennsylvania, the larger question is not a pay raise itself but the process by which it would be enacted in the future. Barry Kauffman, executive director of the Pennsylvania chapter of Common Cause, said his good government organization supported legislative pay raises in the 1970s and 1980s to better the candidates for public office.
“We are on the record supporting these things in the past,” Kauffman said. “If this had just been about the money in 2005, I’m not sure Common Cause would have been involved. Our involvement was because they violated the constitution in doing it.”
Kauffman said his organization has kicked around the idea of upping legislative salaries and doing away with all the other benefits as a way to make lawmakers feel the pain of everyday working people on, say, rising health care costs.
Others have urged a solution be found soon so that Legislature gets out of the pattern of passing pay raises only after a decade of pressure builds when double-digit increases are wanted.
“Look at the branches in consecutive years and recycle,” said Tim Potts, coordinator for Democracy Rising PA. “So you’re constantly churning this stuff and you don’t come up with sticker shock.”
Still, Bucks County Rep. Dave Steil, who’s leading a House reform effort from rank-and-file lawmakers, said he doesn’t see addressing pay raises at the top of the reform list in the New Year.
“We have a tough road to hoe on the whole issue of rules reform,” Steil said, mentioning internal changes to how the House conducts business. “And we’ve got to see where the leadership battle comes out. After we get all those things done, we can address compensation and benefits.”
Still, Chris Serpico, the Democratic candidate for the 10th Senatorial District in Bucks County, wonders why there’s even a need for the discussion since lawmakers already get annual COLAs.
“When that was enacted, I thought that was supposed to end it,” he said. “If that’s the solution then leave it at that.
Alison Hawkes can be reached at 717-705-6330 or ahawkes@calkins-media.com.