Just a start: More state legislature reforms needed
Taxpayers should realize that the internal changes made by the state Senate regarding car leases and health insurance are merely a step in the right direction, not a final destination. They amount to a change in policy, one that can easily be reversed, and they do nothing to put the legislature under the state open records law where it should be. Before rejoicing too loudly over the changes, look at the facts. Only 10 of the state’s 50 senators were using the vehicle allowance anyway, so four out of five of them are feeling no pinch by giving up the perquisite. And contributing 1 percent of the annual salary of $72,187 for rank-and-file members toward health insurance means a $722 yearly contribution, or $60 per month. Still, when the senate’s 1,000 employees are factored into the equation, that’s a savings of $450,00 in tax dollars, and it does bring all senate employees, including those who hold elective office in that body, more in line with a realty faced by most taxpayers.
However, when Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer, a pay raise architect who lost in this year’s Republican primary, says, “We want to be more parallel with what the private sector does,” he should be aware that private sector employee health care contributions are two to four times more than the state Senate’s 1 percent.
That tidbit comes from Tim Potts, cofounder of Democracy Rising PA, a citizen activist group that’s a key part of a good-government coalition of eight groups formed in the aftermath of last year’s middle-of-the-night pay raise. In the latest Democracy Rising PA newsletter, Potts has two very interesting questions to ask of state House members: “Do you support the cost-savings changes in the senate?” And, “Will you raise the ante by curtailing even more perks such as catered meals (on top of per diems) when you’re in session?”
Those are good, solid questions, ones that each of you should be asking your incumbent state representatives, which in our area include Democrat H. William DeWeese of the 50th District, Republican Jess Stairs of the 59th District, Democrat Peter J. Daley II of the 49th District and Democrat Ted Harhai of the 58th District. As House Minority Leader, DeWeese controls a special leadership account that he taps at nearly $1,900 per pop to purchase catered meals for legislators when they’re in session, even though they each get a daily reimbursement of $141 to cover lodging and, you guessed it, meals. We’d like DeWeese to explain why that isn’t double-dipping, big-time.
A Calkins Media review of DeWeese’s leadership account spending earlier this year showed that most meal receipts give few or little details – an obvious casualty of the legislature not being bound by the same open records law it has imposed on other elected officials and state agencies. But one bill for $3,420 covered 150 people at a downtown Harrisburg pub restaurant, where they chowed down on filet, salmon, salad, “hawg wings,” vegetable medley and roasted potatoes. In a two-month period, DeWeese authorized spending $45,178 of your tax money for meals.
How would you feel if your county commissioners, township supervisors or school board members spent that kind of cash on food, but the receipts overall provided few or little details? Would that be acceptable to you?
We don’t believe the state legislature should be any different than any other public agency. State legislators, in the House and Senate, should hold no special status when it comes to public accountability of how they spend tax dollars.
The open records law should cover then, and many more of their kingly perks should meet the chopping block.