Wage Replacement: toward a true citizen legislature

By Robert Harris of Hillsboro, Oregon. Robert is the founder of the Harris Law Firm and has served on numerous local boards and commissions. A full bio is here. Previously, he contributed "A liberal critique of PERS".

Rep. Dan Doyle may go to prison for diverting (that's the white collar term for stealing) money from his campaign for personal use on ten different occasions. Apparently he stole somewhere between $50,000 and $200,000. Prison seems OK with me, and I presume with Doyle's Republican cohort. After all, under Oregon's mandatory sentencing laws, if someone joy rides in a stolen car twice in Oregon they get 13 months mandatory prison. Seems like a thief who steals ten times, with the total theft equaling a heck of a lot more than a couple of old Honda Accords, should get at least 13 months.

But Doyle's excuses did make me think about an idea I had a couple years ago. Instead of paying Legislators a salary, why not simply replace their lost wage during the time they are serving in session? So if a dentist or teacher or factory worker wanted to serve as a citizen legislator, they wouldn't have to suffer financially.

There would be a lot of details to work out, such as:

* A base replacement wage (perhaps equal to the current salary?).
* A maximum wage replacement (perhaps equal to the maximum subject to social security, or 90% of the Governors salary?).
* How to compute the income replacement wage (only count W-2 earned income and perhaps use the average of the last three years earned?)

Wage replacement promotes the ideal of a citizen legislature. It allows almost any citizen who works for a wage in the private or sector, people who I submit are largely underrepresented in the legislature right now, to serve the public interest without having to sacrifice their families financial well being. This should attract a larger pool of potential candidates, which, one would hope, produce an improved legislature.

More than other proposals to raise legislators wages, it would discourage the professional politician. Simply raising the salaries of all legislators would risk attracting people who seek the position because they need a job and politics is what they do. Under wage replacement, in order to get the higher salary, someone would actually have to go out and find out what it's like to earn a living before they would be entitled to any significant compensation as a legislator.

Granted there are problems. Would people campaign on the slogan 'vote for me, I won't cost you as much'? There are undoubtedly constitutional questions to be addressed. But I would submit that the benefits far outweigh the detriments.

Lets not romanticize Oregon's founders vision of the 'citizens legislature'. In their time it essentially meant white, largely landowning, men. People who could afford to take the time off to make laws and set policies. If we want a true citizens legislature we need to make the office available for everyone interested in serving without requiring destitution for themselves and their families. Wage replacement could do that without establishing a new cadre of professional politicians.

  • ron ledbury (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Don't get your panties in a bunch.

    Suppose anyone in Oregon said just give me some money, just because. I might use it to run for office, I might use it for an initiative campaign, than again I might not. The only requirement is that the gifts are not claimed as a tax deduction as a charitable gift and that the gifts come from real live people who must also supply their occupation and consent to posting of the gifts on the internet.

    I might just buy a big house or a fast car instead. So what.

    Match the above to the claims against Mr. Doyle. Was his failure merely the honesty about how he would use the money? That issue can be addressed right up front, as in "I want gifts to go buy a big house and fast car," you just have to tell the whole world about the gifts on the internet.

    The above might make it easier to trace the link between big money and the elected officials and their legislative choices. We might have some legislators making a cool million selling their votes, not unlike today through various indirect promises of business deals and other lucrative future employment deals, but at least it would be out in the open. Our vain little politicians are really getting quite a pittance, personally, to act against the personal interest.

    How will a proposal for higher pay for legislators actually result in more "public interest?" I can only see just a different version of self interest.

  • Chris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Interesting idea. I like the intent and the creativity behind it.

    In the end however, I would probably oppose it. If a well-to-do dentist or entrepreneur isn't motivated enough to give up his career for a few years to sit in office, then maybe he shouldn't be in office. Although... maybe they need that money to pay someone else to hold down the fort for them while they are away. Taking a few years off to serve can essentially kill a successful practice or business if you can't afford to hire somone else to carry the torch while you're away. And this certainly does limit the pool of potential candidates.

    However, it seems that this system would actually be a great inroad for the wealthy to make politics their "career". Would that have positive effects on the compositon of the legislature? It seems that it would further entrench the wealthy and well connected who aren't representative of the people.

    Additionally, I doubt many people run for office simply becasue they need a job and love politcs. It is a grueling process and the public scrutiny and criticism isn't for most; even those who love politics. For every hundred politically involved people I know, only one is or has been in office.

    Interesting concept. Not sure I feel comfortable with the unforeseen consequences.

  • Lefty Fitzpatrick (unverified)
    (Show?)

    See, you have this thing all wrong Harris. Public service is about that -- service. Public servants are supposed to put their service above themselves. Yeah, it sucks to take a pay cut. Yeah, you could undoubtably make more in big world outside the marble halls. Still, just as American soldiers have been sacrificing themselves for freedom since 1776, elected officials have a calling to do the same (sans the dying part). You don't go to Salem or Washington to line your pockets (unless you're Doyle) or expect that the public's tax dollars should give you exactly what you're getting now. Where's the sacrifice there.

    Fully realizing that this is Lefty Fitzpatrick talking here, but c'mon, welfare for legislators? This is not a good idea. Harris, are you conteplating some kind of run here?

  • (Show?)

    I wouldn't agree with this type of pay, as some people would make more, and some less, all for the same job. I don't think it should matter what kind of job you gave up and what pay it made.

    What I do support is a pay increase for state legislators.

    It is absolutely ridiculous that we pay such a low amount to the people who are supposed to help run this state. With their newest raise, they'll make $1,437 a month (it was $1,283 during this session). During the session they also receive $91 a day to defray costs, such as travel to Salem and a place to stay near Salem.

    That's $15,396/year before the increase and $17,244 after the increase.

    By contrast, the average is about $30,000 in the 40 states that give lawmakers annual salaries, according to 2004 figures compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    What happens is you end up with people who are independently wealthy, retired, have jobs they can still do or leave easily for long periods of time, etc.

    You keep a lot of people who would make great legislators from running for office. If a person is going to go into the hole just to be a legislator, that's a problem. And I'm not talking about extravagant expenditures. I'm talking about gas, child care, a place to stay for those too far from Salem, etc.

    I'm not saying we should pay them $100,000 a year. But $35-50,000 would be a much more reasonable amount. Of course, I'd also add on that our legislature should meet every year, as opposed to every other year.

  • (Show?)

    I should note that I've made more a year than that to do things like:

    • register young voters

    • monitor online forums

    • work a cash register

    • input voter registrations to the county's database

    I think our legislators should make more than that.

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As someone who until recently was working for the state legislature, I agree the legislators are paid too little. As an LA, my base pay was more than my Rep's (although they get per diem and mileage, which LAs don't). I personally think the following:

    1. Legislators should be paid in the range of $35-50k a year, as suggested above. Public service does mean sacrifice but it should not mean digging into your savings in order to serve. This is particularly true for those Reps and Senators who come from places like Ashland or Coos Bay or Pendleton and only go home on weekends (if that often).

    2. Sessions should be held annually. A suggested model I've heard bandied about is a session to deal with just the budget in odd numbered years and a session to deal with substantive law in even numbered years. I think this would actually reduce overall session length and would additionally help find fixes in substantive legal areas (such as M37 or Civil Unions).

    3. I would consider increasing the size of the chamber by 10 reps and five senators. Why these numbers? Oregon already has one of the lowest rates in the country for direct represenation (about 55-57,000 for Reps and 110-115 for Senators). I think an increase at this level would increase citizen involvement while not unduly burdening the state with additional costs.

    4. On an slightly unrelated note, Oregon should adopt a model similar to Iowa's for redistricting. In Iowa, a nonpartisan commission redraws the lines every ten years without regard to such factors as incumbency. Their legislature then either rejects or accepts the whole package and may not modify it. Redistricting is a sham right now and putting in a nonpartisan commission would promote competition and increase fluency in the legislature, which I think would be good.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm with Jenni and David on this.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Really like # 4. Also, if the salaries were going to be raised there should be an enforced open meetings law, no more of what Kate Brown called "the negotiation room". And if we are to have a partisan legislature (an open question in my book) both parties should be involved--not just the caucus the whole party. And they should both compete for NAV voters instead of just saying this is R vs. D.

  • (Show?)

    I'd like to see a pay rate for legislators that actually makes it possible to be a legislator without having to be independently wealthy or subsidized by an industry or spouse.

    That said, I'd also like to see the pay rate tied to some outside measure of performance - like say, the median income for a family of four in Oregon. Last I checked, that was in the mid-$40k range.

  • Ramon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What's the problem, again?

    Increasing legislative pay is an answer in search of a problem. If you are concerned about attracting more diverse and more qualified people into seeking elective office, consider a suggestion -- restore competitive elections.

    How? Make sure that there is a regular supply of open seats. Then, lots of qualified candidates would step forward to seek the office. Why? Because there's a chance they could win, so it's worth the individual effort. Want proof? This actually was the way it worked here in Blue Oregon, from 1992-2000. Legislative pay was not a problem that kept otherwise qualified candidates from running.

    Before then, incumbency was the problem. It's still the problem. Most of today's rank & file legislators owe their career in the legislature to this revolutionary era but don't realize it. The senior leaders who survived the interim re-arrogated power based solely on their seniority. Under the current system, they won't lead, won't follow, and won't get out of the way.

    That's the problem.

  • (Show?)

    No, pay is definitely a problem. There are a lot of people who would make great legislators, but they can't afford the cut in pay.

    We shouldn't be discouraging good people from becoming legislators just because we pay just above $17,000/year in the "off year" (when legislators should be holding town halls, working on legislation, etc.) and not a whole lot better than that during Session. It's even harder for those legislators who are from central, eastern, and southern Oregon-- they can't drive home every day.

    There are a lot of people who would make great legislators, but they can't afford their mortgage, bills, etc. on a legislator's salary. And I'm not talking about people who bring in over $100,000 a year. I'm talking about people who are in the $30,000 to $60,000 range. And not everyone has a job where they can just take off for a huge chunk of a year, plus any time needed for special sessions.

    We've got to do something so we can increase the diversity of the people representing us. And that's not going to happen until we pay enough so that a person can reasonably support themselves and a family on their pay.

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Public service as civic responsibility" is such a quaint notion nowadays.

    Time is money.

    Ass, grass or cash, no one rides for free.

    While we're at it, we should also require commensurate pay for work missed performing jury duty.

    Maybe I'll send a bill to the government at the end of the year for the time I spent voting.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks Jenni. By underpaying legislators, we'll just get bad legislators.

    Why we think a multibillion dollar company (the state of Oregon) can be run by the barber the baker and the candlestick maker, I'll never know.

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great point Paul, and while we're thinking in those terms:

    Why would a multibillion dollar company want the opinions of a bunch of barbers, bakers and candlestick makers in its hiring decisions for CEO and other top officers?

    Given the size and complexity of the state, maybe the average person just isn't qualified to vote for its leaders anymore.

  • (Show?)

    Pancho,

    Nope, you're going too far on that one. First, multibillion dollar corporations do want the opinions of all their stockholders, regardless of their occupation. We are all "stockholders" in government.

    Second, this is a democratic system, right? So while I want to help citizens learn to recognize the importance of experience and expertise, I am not going to substitute my wisdom for the democratic process.

  • TimC (unverified)
    (Show?)

    David wrote: I would consider increasing the size of the chamber by 10 reps and five senators. Why these numbers? Oregon already has one of the lowest rates in the country for direct represenation (about 55-57,000 for Reps and 110-115 for Senators). I think an increase at this level would increase citizen involvement while not unduly burdening the state with additional costs.

    California has about 850,000 residents per state senator. There are 12 US Senators who represent less residents than that! New Hampshire has a state representative for every 3,000 residents, a true citizen legislature. Connecticut (identical population as Oregon) has 36 senators (95k) and 151 representatives (22.5k). I would enjoy seeing a chart with all 99 state houses ranked to see exactly where Oregon falls.

    Honestly, I don't see what difference it would make to add a token number of additional legislators. However I fully agree that redistricting should be taken completely out of the hands of politicians everywhere.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A couple of points not otherwise covered.

    This notion of giving up money for public service is nonesense. I worked for 20 years in social service agencies doing just that. I figure that I gave up about $250,000 of salary/benefit over what I would have earned in the private for-profit sector - and I was at the top of the social service field as an Administrator making for the most part the top dollar in my field. Giving up that kind of income affects your family, your overall security, and decreases your potential retirement. It is not a thing we should talk about so casually. Taking a pay cut for public service ultimately is not good for the public.

    Second point - The proposal was about wages. In the last 11.5 years since I left social services, I haven't been paid wages. Lots of people aren't paid "wages". I run a small business as a real estate appraiser. I am strictly paid by the job. $400 here, $350 there, and an occasional $600 wow! If I were to take the step to run for the legislature, every day I was running, would be a day I wasn't working. There are only so many hours in a week, and one does have to sleep sometimes. It would cost me money to run in terms of lost business. If elected, I would take a massive hit. Those clients that send me those jobs at $350 to $600 a shot, would learn that I had gone away for six months. They would find someone else to do their appraisals. Once the session was over, I'd have to rebuild my business - and I'd be hurting for money for at least a half year to rebuild it.

    I am by no means a wealthy person. Can I and my family afford the kind of financial hit this public service would cost? No way.

    Income replacement is an interesting concept, but how it would be managed would be difficult at best. Do you put a cap on it? Let's say that someone made $500,000 a month. Do you pay them $3,000,000 of tax payer money for a six month session? Let's say someone is running a mid-sized company of about 100 people. They go off to the Legislature, and their company gets along without them, not making a penny less revenue. Do you pay them nothing?

    The concept needs more work.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    RE: Steve Bucknams comments

    I know the concept needs a lot of details worked on. But some of your concerns were addressed in my original post. For instance, I suggested a cap on payment. As to wages, perhaps I should ahve said earned income. (as opposed to interest, dividend and investment income) That would address your situation as well as the factory owner situation. The idea there was that you'd only have legislative replacement wages (or earned income) if you received income subject to SSI or Self employment taxes.

    I agree with you, any many others, that someone shouldn't have to sacrifice everything to perform public service. (we're talking about government service here not a religious calling and a vow of poverty) But, I also don't think we need to necessarily establish dozens of new full time career political positions. The earned income/Wage replacement option would increase the universe of people willing to serve without establishing new career political seats.

  • (Show?)

    Robert,

    I'm not sure why you oppose career politicians. Don't we want to establish a system that encourages people like Steve to stay in public service? Don't we want a system that encourages legislative expertise? At the most basic level, isn't the best way to encourage a larger pool of potential legislative candidates is by increasing compensation, not capping it?

    I realize that a "citizen" legislature has a very populist ring to it, but have you really thought through the implications? Conventional wisdom among political scientists is to the degree you weaken legislative expertise or power, you end up empowering interest groups and lobbyists (these novices must get their information somewhere), the executive branch, and the bureaucracy.

    Is that what you want?

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lousy pay for legislators creates a problem for the voters, not only the legislator's family. As with campaign fundraising, penury makes legislators more open to financial support by well healed interests, whether in the form of contracts, low demand employment, junkets, or dinners. Financial insecurity erodes the independence needed by legislators to serve the voters' interests.

    To Ramon...term limits is the wrong solution to the problem of the reelection advantage of bad incumbents. The right solution is campaign finance reform.

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul,

    I don't necessarily oppose a larger cadre of career politicians. But thats not really what a citizens legislature is all about, and is often cited as one of the rationalles for opposing an increase in legislators salaries. An increase that I'm glad to see is generally supported.

    Your point is well taken about weakening the knowledge base of elected officials, but I don't see how an earned income replacement necessarily does that. In fact, I'd suggest it could help retain qualified people because they'd know that they could serve longer term without suffering income loss over a period of time. However, I do see where someone who was a legislator for a while would consider leaving for several years to build up her "earned income average" before perhaps returning. But that may be good. And, that happens now with the low salaries, and they may never come back.

    I'd finally note that people could always decide to make "state Legislator" their career choice as I didn't propose cutting salaries for State Legislators.

    Like I said....lots of details.

    Rob

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "term limits is the wrong solution to the problem of the reelection advantage of bad incumbents. The right solution is campaign finance reform."

    Term limits impacts one person's "right" to run for a specific office after serving in it a certain number of years.

    Campaign finance reform impacts every person's right to communicate political messages to large numbers of people (usually through donations or paid media).

    Amazing how progressive are offended by the former but see no problem embracing the latter.

  • (Show?)

    Let me venture to metaphorland on this one Pancho. Let's put 100 people in a field to represent the citizens around election time:

    Less than half of the crowd is paying any attention at all to the election. They are carrying on loud conversations about SUVs,soap operas, penis enhancers, wrinkle creams,drugs (legal and otherwise), sports, music, the weather, etcetera. Occasionally one or two mention that as far as Gummint is concerned, "They're all crooks". These guys are overhwelmed by the whole idea of thinking about anything relating to controlling their own political welfare, but they do create a loud and persistent background noise.

    Over on the left side of the field you have about 15 or 20 earnest social engineers that have studied the issues so intensely that they are sure that they know what would be best for society. They yell out their talking points to anyone who might listen, stopping from time to time to bemoan the ignorance of those who refuse to listen or worse, disagree.

    Over on the right side of the field you have two groups of 10 people. Group "A" is being harangued by a wild-eyed preacher with a bullhorn. Through constant repetition he has convinced his audience that they should be very fearful, constantly worried that those guys on the left are trying to destroy their way of life.

    Group "B" is a bunch of well dressed guys smoking large Cuban cigars and 5 of the 10 have bullhorns just like the preacher. They are also focused on the group "A" guys, but not exclusively. Eight of these guys know exactly what they care about. Profit. Period. They also roam among the other groups yelling through their bullhorns about the dangers of listening to "ivory tower intellectuals". Two of them are also eanest intellectuals like the guys over on the left side of the field but with an opposite POV.

    No outside observer would honestly argue that everyone on the field has an equal chance of making their POV heard.

    <hr/>

    The idea that Money=Speech has no basis in the Constitution. Back in the mid nineteenth century, the Supreme Court ruled that money did not equal speech, but a political hack related to the railroad barons who had a patronage position as a clerk, actually wrote into the notes that the court had decided the opposite. Enough case law was written on this erroneous "decision" that it did indeed become the law of the land. Prior to 1886, it was a felony for corporations to attempt to influence elections or candidates.

    Thom Hartmann (KPOJ 620) has some great stuff on the Origin of Species (The Corporation becomes a Human Being). Here's a quote:

    "I was amazed to learn that America’s founders and early Presidents specifically warned that the safety of the new republic depended on keeping corporations on a tight leash - not abolishing them, but keeping them in check. When I showed early drafts of this book to different people, most of them were surprised to see how prophetic those early presidential warnings had been." and a link. It's really fascinating stuff regardless of your POV.

  • KariCallsMeSpam (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Public interest attorneys get paid well when they win a case against the citizens. We could make them live by the same terms of pay that are applicable to legislators, or the reverse. Just what it is that constitutes the public interest need not be resolved to address the issue of the pay disparity between attorneys that are given public money versus mere legislators. I would surely not expect a low paid "expert" lawyer/legislator to address this particular piece of special privilege that favors their class. I do recall hearing calls in the past to require that a legislator must be a lawyer first. The call for experts over the average man, to me, sounds about as foolish as doing away with the right to a jury of one's peers in a criminal case.

    [Kari, if you pull this comment then pull all comments I have made to this site; and declare your yourself a formal Political Action Committee subject to suit on such terms. RL.]

  • (Show?)

    KariCallsMeSpam--

    As your posting is off topic (we're discussing how to pay legislators), I wouldn't be surprised to see it pulled. Stay on topic and maybe your posts will stick around for a while.

  • KariCallsMeSpam (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I thought the pay level that a judge can award to a public interest attorney is a good one to compare to a legislator, which is presumed to work in the public interest. It affords an opportunity too to advocate for legislator pay that would have a matching upper limit that corresponds to that of such public interest attorneys. A judge can sometimes merely double the award based partly on the class of person on who's behalf a case was brought.

    It is an argument in support for higher pay.

    I want some bloke to pointedly say that a lawyer is "special" and deserves higher pay for doing good; above and beyond a mere "citizen" legislator; perhaps even a burger flipper who rises through the political ranks to represent the interests of burger flippers.

    And Jenni, you cough up the notion that there is no nexus between the two. Huh?

    I tried to draft an explanation here but don't know if that will hit pay dirt either.

    Who is most capable of advocating that injustice is unfair than the person who actually feels or experiences that injustice? The only pain felt by a professional class is that of guilt and the vanity of potentially losing status and privilege.

    I may be too Chavezista-like here, in advocating for the downtrodden, for the quaint blue folks here to see.

    <h2>Ryan, follow the link.</h2>
guest column

connect with blueoregon