I saw Chuck's statement earlier tonight on the other thread. I completely agree. To attract and recruit people, an organization or institution needs to have comparable pay. What we don't need are representatives that aren't representative of Oregonians. Lawyers, CPAs and doctors are all great professions, but they're not reflective of the whole of our state. We need to have the ability to elect people who are.

How would that pay scale factor in that the legislature is only in session for a few months every other year (excepting "special" sessions, like next year)?

I'm all for paying people well to do what is a tremendous job, i.e. legislate spending priorities (and more) for Oregon's multibillion dollar budget, but it seems like it should cover their time on that job, and not necessarily the other 18 months (roughly) when they're back at the main job. Or am I ignorant about this, because of the demands of meeting with constituents, educating themselves on the issues, etc., when out-of-session?

Most of all, it is a tragedy that we can't in fact have a citizen legislature because of the inadequate remuneration ... I wonder how much they get paid in other "citizen legislature" states.

Bravo for Butcher's smart idea; we can quibble about whether you should set the wage for a job held by an individual by using the household income level for a family of four, but the principle is excellent.

This is what we ought to be doing with judges as well -- right now there's a big campaign cranking up to raise Oregon judge salaries, albeit with no evidence that there's any actual problem filling seats on the bench, and if there's any incompetence on the bench then the bar is keeping mum on that, so it serves 'em right if no one will agree to a raise.

I've been so disgusted with the ever-escalating salaries in Congress that I long ago suggested that all elected officials should be paid in multiples of the federal minimum wage, and there should be no raises or COLAs for any of them unless the minimum wage folks get them too.

So if federal minimum is $7/hr, then you could have congress critters getting 10x (or 7x would be more like it, but that would be a big drop for the poohbahs), and states could do the same -- set all public official salaries as a multiple of the minimum. Presto, no more need for salary commissions and no more posturing and weird games where they get the raise if they don't vote to stop it.

it seems like it should cover their time on that job, and not necessarily the other 18 months (roughly) when they're back at the main job.

You might have a point; perhaps it should be pro-rated. Here's the payscale for our state representatives and state senators. To increase it to the median pay for a family of four would mean a 369 percent raise. I'm sure the voters would love us if we did that. In addition to the pay, prospective reps and senators have to raise the money to run. It's definitely a system set up to favor those who are already in positions of power and/or those who have connections.

I don't know how to go about fixing that. My hope is that the thoughtful people who can afford to serve our state outnumber the ones who are only running to benefit themselves and the well-to-do people.

Excuse me, I said 369 percent and I meant 269 percent. Oops!

Here's the problem with only paying them for the six months that they work every two years: It creates a legislature full of people who need to hold down a job that somehow allows them to be absent for six months every other year. That, or, people who are wealthy enough that they don't have to work. This means that a lot of good, otherwise qualified, folks are left out in the cold. The state of Oregon is missing out on a better legislature because the pay scale prevents a lot of people from even thinking about running.

Also, a lot of legislators serve on interim committees and otherwise attend to legislative business during the interim.

I agree with the theory that we must pay our representatives and other government officials much more than we currently do.

However, I couldn't let this comment pass:

George Seldes:

"This is what we ought to be doing with judges as well -- right now there's a big campaign cranking up to raise Oregon judge salaries, albeit with no evidence that there's any actual problem filling seats on the bench, and if there's any incompetence on the bench then the bar is keeping mum on that, so it serves 'em right if no one will agree to a raise."

***The issue isn't "filling seats on the bench", it's who fills those seats. When the person conducting a trial that could end in a person's death, if convicted, earns less per year than brand new, just-out-of-law-school lawyers, well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the bench doesn't attract the best and brightest.

"State of the Oregon Courts: Justice in the 21st Century Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz Address to the Salem City Club January 12, 2007

<hr/>

Judicial compensation in Oregon today is not commensurate with the important problem solving and leadership role that judges perform in our communities every day. Oregon judges at all three levels are faced with these facts: (1) they have not received an increase in compensation since 2002, not even a cost-of-living adjustment; (2) they rank at or near the bottom for judicial compensation nationally; (3) they earn less than innumerable other state employees; (4) they earn less than many of the public lawyers who litigate in our courts; and (5) they earn less than many young associates in Portland firms."

***I wouldn't say the bar is keeping mum about incompetence; there is plenty of back-channel chatter plus good old experience that teaches which judges are competent. One can hardly go public with commentary on the competence and ability of a judge before who you may again have to appear with a different client. For instance, I can tell you the Tri-County area judge who will always, always rule against men in divorce division of property cases and any divorce practitioner knows who that Judge is.

***"...it serves 'em right..." Sadly, it is not the lawyers who bear the brunt of an understaffed and poorly paid judiciary. It is the people who must appear before them.

***I don't want to paint with an overly broad brush; there are many excellent and bright jurists on the bench. With the incredibly low pay, those interested in replacing them may well be far dimmer.

***How to solve the problem? How about paying a salary equivalent to the average salary paid to junior partners at the three biggest law firms in the state?

Randy2

I guess some people have a hard time understanding how other people live. A couple of comments here make it sound like you can serve 6 months in the legislature in a two year period, and just go back to your job the other 18 months.

Well, that will work for a lucky few. I was once represented by a firefighter. He was let off work for the sessions, but welcomed back at the firehall between sessions.

Chuck Butcher and others, like me, are self-employed. If we are away from our jobs, our companies end business. If we are not working, except occasional days off, then the people that work for us are not working. Chuck is a housing contractor. House by house he agrees to build them. There is a period of lead up to construction, then the period of construction. You can't stop in the middle and expect to have the kind of reputation that will get you the next job. I'm a real estate appraiser. I work assignment to assignment. If my clients find I'm gone for six months, then they will find someone else to do the work. If I were to be gone for six months, then I would have to start my business over from the ground up when the session were over.

It just can't work to keep these positions, contractor or appraiser, on what amounts to a part time basis. Therefore, if people like Chuck or myself were to serve in the legislature, the pay would have to be enough to afford not only regular expenses, but a little more.

If Chuck from Baker City, or Steve from Prineville, were to serve in the legislature, we would need to maintain our residences in our home towns. And, we would need to have the ability to live in Salem during sessions, during the between sessions for various committee hearings, during emergency sessions, etc. In other words you'd have either a heck of a motel bill or you'd rent a house to keep expenses down. In either case, it still costs more money than what it would cost for the "average" family of four to live.

Chuck is exactly correct is showing us that the legislature is really there only for the wealthy or retired. A regular working guy, with a modest self-employment situation, can't afford to work for the people.

Thoughts to consider:

It would probably more difficult to get a full annual and realistic salary through the legislature. The Republicans most likely would prefer the current system which stacks the deck in favor of wealthier people, and the anti-tax brigade and others that fail to understand what a legislature should be would object. Accordingly, a six-month realistic salary would probably be easier to achieve. Unfortunately, that wouldn't help the likes of Chuck Butcher.

Another point to consider is that Oregon has grown considerably and more complex so it is about time Oregon switched to sessions every year instead of every other year. If that happened, paying a realistic salary for six months every year would open the field to many that are now excluded. These could include retirees, students and others who could get by on the half-year salary.

Disclaimer: I'm a retiree but don't have any interest in running for office.

What is the purpose of creating a salary commission to make the final tweak within the limits you established, Kari? Why not just bite the bullet and figure out the right multiple of poverty level (or minimum wage, or median income) in the first place. Salary commissions are the ultimate backroom/backscratching parlor. (In return for your excellent salary recommendations while on the salary commission, here's another appointment ....)

Randy2: I hear you saying that there's lots of incompetents on the bench now, but we should raise the salaries in an arms race with PDX firms (which see themselves in a salary race with SF, Seattle, which see themselves in a salary race with Chicago and New York) because, well, just because. The public, as you note, isn't privy to the "back channel chatter" about which judges are lightweights and which are solid--so why should the public support higher pay?

And it's interesting that you equate salary with smarts in the first place--every lawyer in public service makes a hell of a lot less than the private firm lawyers do. Somehow I think that they are not all dunces. Maybe the dunce move is to equate brains with salaries.

Kari writes, "I think we should pass a law that LIMITS legislative pay to no more than the median income for a family of four, sets a minimum of three times the poverty level, and then creates an independent commission to review pay within that narrow range."

Really?? Do you believe in term limits too?

Jeff Alworth properly puts the frame on this issue. We have a $7 billion going concern. And you want to pay the managers what is closer to a minimum wage than a managers wage.

Very Republican of you. Take that man's cup away at the progressive water cooler!

SB 456 passed this year which increased judicial salaries about 20%. Circuit Court Judges will make about $109,000 this year then it will go up to about $112,000/yr. ( I beleive the Chief Justice will get about $122,000/yr)

But one thing that is left unsaid is the Judicial retirement. A Judge's retirement is equal to 3.75 of the final average salary for each year she is in office. So for someone in office 10 years, their retirement is 37.5% of their final average salary. And a judge can opt to retire at age 60 if they are willing to work for 35 days per year for free for five years. Plus they get COLA's when the retire. You'd have to put away something like $50,000 per year in retirement to equal that benefit.

Judges were understandably upset about their relatively low salary of $96,000. But prior to this recent raise, some PSU grad students looked at ALL compensation Judges received, including the retirement, the medical insurance benefits and retirement and the salary, and it was found that Oregon Judges were slightly above the average with their package.

Now Legislators... they definitely need an increase. I agree it should be in the range of $65,000 (median family of 4 in Oregon). Thats the income the Fed government uses to determine if someone can file a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Seems that at the very least, we can avoid Legislators filing a chapter 7 then.

I agree that Legislators need a raise.

I would say that Kari's proposed range (~$60-67k) sounds good for the House, if it's indexed to inflation. I understand that making it equal to three times the poverty line on the low end, and to the median income for a family of four on the high end, accomplishes de facto indexing.

There should be some incentive to move up to the Senate, however, so perhaps it should be the House salary plus 20%? Or plus 30%?

Finally, I agree that Oregon needs to move to yearly legislative sessions. Perhaps it's still a good idea to allow the budget to run for two years... perhaps not... but there are clearly other bills that the Legislature passes that are not directly related to the budget, and budget amendments could also be a possibility.

Personally, I would also have trouble running for the Legislature given the current salary. A real salary would make it a job worth competing for. It's already a job to be proud of.

Kari writes, "Don't forget: many voters think that all politicians are rich -- to simply LIMIT the legislative salaries to something they think is reasonable reframes the debate from a pay raise to a pay cap."

Besides wondering how Kari knows what voters think???, I don't think $65,000 is a livable wage for someone in the legislature who cannot commute to work. Let's not forget that Salem is an easy commute being 45 miles south of Portland, 60 miles north of Eugene, and not that far from most of Oregon's population - but not close for those of us in Central, Eastern, and Southern Oregon. I'm about 150 miles over the Santiam pass away from Salem, and Chuck Butcher who started this debate lives about 350 miles from Salem. These are not easy commutes. (See optional geography statement at end of this post.)

Having to maintain two households, one in the home District, and one in Salem just costs more. While you would have our legislators have an "average" income, they have above average expenses. An average family of 4 doesn't have to keep two households to hold down the family jobs.

But, political reality is reality. Perhaps a base wage of $65,000 per year, plus per diem around $150 to $200 per day for legislators who have to travel more than 100 miles from their homes during sessions. (Perhaps the per diem would be $1 per day per road mile between the State capital and the Legislator's house.) If we end up with one 180 day session, and one 30/60 day session, then the compensation would work out to $80,000 to $90,000 average annual income or so.

Anyone in Central, Eastern, or Southern Oregon would see the sense in having to cover the expense of two households - and we have "many voters" here too.

But then again, I'm arguing against the Portland centric world view, and should probably just give up like us rural types are supposed to.

<hr/>

Optional geography statement. I'm looking at the back page of the Oregon Atlas and Gazetteer, which shows all of Oregon with a grid overlay. In the north/south dimension, Salem is at the line dividing the top 1/3rd of Oregon from the South 2/3's. In the east/west dimension, Salem is 1/7th of the way from the west edge of Oregon to the east edge. Salem is actually close to the center of the northwestern quarter of Oregon, but otherwise is very distant from most of Oregon. The geographic center of Oregon is a small cross roads post office, Post, about 25 miles by road southeast of Prineville. ~~~ I live in western Oregon, as I live in Prineville!

Our roads in Oregon unfortunately don't go straight anywhere except I-5. As the crow flies, Salem is just over 100 miles from Prineville, but by road it is 150 miles. From Baker City where Chuck lives, you have a driving choice of taking I-84 all the way up to the Columbia River, and then I-5 down to Salem (a little over 425 miles but a fast road), or going through the middle of the State by way of Hwy 26 to Hwy 126 to Hwy 22 - Prairie City, John Day, Mt. Vernon, Dayville, Mitchell, Prineville, Redmond, Sisters, Detroit, Mill City, and to Salem - about 350 miles).

Oregon is a big place - almost exactly the same size as England, Wales, and Scotland combined. Travel is both expensive and time consuming. It is very frustrating that people that ought to know better don't understand these basic facts of life.

Ultimately, it is a Veblenesque quandary of human psychology and the anthropomorphic cult of honorable distinction that drives many people to seek public office. Transfer of tax dollars to afford for them the pecuniary leisure and sacerdotal roles they crave will only exacerbate the agent-principal problem.

I;m real pleased to see a reponsible and thoughtful discussion of this issue, this time around. Well, Ted seems pretty impressed with his vocabulary while telling us people like to be powerful. Making the legislature a "hobby" increases the likelyhood of that outcome considerably more than paying a reasonable salary/per diem.

I didn't want to write a long winded comment on somebody else's story and I was dealing with fallout of this speculation at the time, so I didn't mention that such an increase should also be linked to annual sessions. I'd rather spend tax dollars on well considered and debated legislation than on rushed results.

Next time somebody gets the idea I ought to do something, please ask me first. I'm flattered and all, but I've been spending time putting out fires lit by this speculation, including a Baker City Herald reporter and an OR political heavy hitter. (not to mention, my own wife)

More good people should run for office. Of course that’s easier said than done. Money is a big factor.

In House District 60, where the voter registration is heavily Republican, it's hard for a Democrat to get elected even when there is no Republican incumbent. For Democrats, it helps to be a moderate, reach out to independent voters and moderate Republicans, too.

I grew up and later worked on campaigns in eastern Oregon , so I guess you could say I know a few things about the legislative district.

<h2>Instead of Democrats saying they can’t win, they should say they will give it a try and see what happens.</h2>