The Star-Bulletin belatedly editorialized this week against the boost in legislators’ salaries recommended by the Commission on Salaries.
Interestingly, one of the major criticisms is the lack of publicity given to the commission’s recommendations, which by law go into effect unless rejected by the Legislature. But the Star-Bulletin certainly can’t cast blame elsewhere for the lack of public attention to the commission’s recommendations, since it paid virtually no attention to them since the report was issued in mid-March.
I noted the report here on March 31st, and commented again a week later on the paucity of reporting on its wide-reaching recommendations.
Instead of disputing the commission’s methodology or criteria for assessing legislative salaries, the Bulletin instead goes directly to an ad hominem attack, i.e., assuming that the commission should be rejected because a majority of its members are appointed by the House Speaker and Senate President. It seems to me that’s name calling and not the kind of analysis and discourse we should be able to expect from the state’s second largest daily newspaper. It also is quite an insult to members of the commission (Benjamin Kudo, Paul Oshiro, Barbara Annis, Doris Ching, Michael Irish, Stanley Shiraki, and Wayne Yamasaki).
The S-B calls the commission’s recommendations “an outrageous money grab” without even the slightest nod to its actual work evaluating legislative work loads and job responsibilities, or its assessment of salaries for comparable positions.
The commission notes, for example, that if legislative salaries had kept pace with public employee salaries between 1993 and 2005, when salaries at the capitol were frozen, they would already be around $50,000. So the level of salaries being recommended are not out of line with past practice, despite the Star-Bulletin’s blustering.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
$50,000 ain’t bad for a few months work.
I would agree that $50K isn’t bad for a few months work. But here’s the rub: can anyone name a legislator who only works a few months?
I can’t but I’ve only been following politics for less than 30 years so I’m relatively new at it.
Burlingame should do this: call his representative/senator and see if he gets a response prior to next January when the session opens.
My hunch is that he won’t have to wait seven months.
It’s the same silly argument people use about teachers; after all, they only work nine months of the year and besides they quit work at 2:15 pm when the students are out of school.
Does anyone still believe this?
Heck, you could argue that newspaper journalists are overpaid; after all, they crank out one 800-word article a day (if that) and then they’re off to the bar for a few cold ones, right?
Now I don’t know if legislators are effective or efficient but I don’t know of one who simply closes shop between sessions.
You’ll get a response because the legislative offices have staff. The legislators themselves are off at their other jobs, selling real estate, handling auctions, being lawyers. The first “full-time” Hawaii legislator I recall is Neil Abercrombie, who pretty much lived in his Rep office year-round — and because he genuinely enjoyed doing the people’s business.
And hey, writing an 800-word article is a lot harder than writing a 1,600-word article.
Wish I could afford a cold one. The legislators make more than we do.
I would like to echo the thoughts of Charles. Although the legislative session may span about four months, legislators have important public duties that occur in the interim period.
The Commission report notes (see pg. 20):
“During the interim period between legislative sessions, legislators are often involved with community meetings, addressing community issues,
handling legislative inquiries, conducting site visitations and research, researching and drafting of legislative bills and resolutions, and the
handling of constituent inquiries and concerns.”
But beyond that, one of the more important points is that legislators did not have any increases from 1993 through 2005. Indeed, if you simply
adjusted the salaries for inflation over that period, and took nothing else into consideration, the inflation adjusted salaries would exceed the
Commission’s recommendations.
I believe the majority of citizens feel it is important to attract and retain the best possible individuals to be legislators (and other government officials and judges).
I also believe that people who enter into government service do not hold salaries as the only, or even the most important, reason to do so.
But if we are to attract the best and brightest, having a salary that does not reflect the work required or does not even keep even with inflation
can only act as an impediment towards that goal. YMMV. Insert disclaimer here.
Aloha – Dan
Burl, we’re gonna disagree on this one. I don’t know of any legislator that allows a staff person to respond to a constituent or to do their work without input from them. I also don’t know of any legislator who doesn’t show up at all for the months between sessions.
I’ve also gone to school events, neighborhood board meetings, etc., and the area legislators are there. And this is during the off-session.
I’m surprised to hear that journalists don’t make $36,000 a year. Hard to believe guys like Depledge and Shapiro and Burris work for less than that but I’ll take your word for it.
Again, Hawaii has a part-time legislature. Other states with part-time legislatures have average salaries of $16,000. (Those in Rhode Island earn $100!)
California has a “full-time” legislature, and the legislators earn about $99,000, plus a per diem that pushes it to about $140,000. But if California were a country, it would be one of the largest in the world. Hawaii is not California. Hawaii is not even Oklahoma.
You’re right, the pay raise should have been passed on the grounds of inflation, but instead it was sold on the argument that our legislators are really full-time workers in a part-time legislature. Anything that spends taxpayer dollars is worthy of examination, yes?
And again, it isn’t the level of the salaries, ikt’s the level of service. Our session was devised when Hawaii was small and primarily agrarian and many infrastructural decisions were made by the Big Five. It’s time we had lawmakers who serve all of the people, all of the time.
And, on ethical grounds, it would be great if legislators really did stick to their salaries and didn’t work at careers that might have conflicts.
This is one of the central conundrums in a representational democracy — we want, and need, civilian legislators with real-world experience, but the world has become so complex that we also need legislators who specialize in legislating. The trick is striking a balance.
The higher salary, hopefully, means we’ll attract a higher calibre of candidate. You get what you pay for.
BTW, the $57,800 salary passed won’t be fully implemented until 2014. Hopefully, by then, average salaries at my newspaper will be comparable. The Honolulu Advertiser pays considerably more. We haven’t lost good people to the Advertiser because it’s such a great place to work!
On the other hand, I just had a fruitless trip to the Department of Health, where the government employees leave at 2:30 p.m.