House Joint Resolution 1001 would have us vote in November on raising legislator pay from $6,000 to about $10,200 and pegging subsequent raises to changes in statewide median income. The House barely passed HJR 1001 last week, with the 38–26 vote crossing partisan, ideological, and geographical boundaries. The extremist armed theocrats (Frye-Mueller, Goodwin, Latterell, Marty) leaned against putting a pay raise on the ballot, but with notable exceptions (DiSanto, Haugaard). Democrats went Aye 7–2, with Ahlers and Ring opposed. The Muslim-puppet Sioux Falls delegation mostly approved, but with exceptions (Karr, Zikmund).
The District 19 tandem of Kyle Schoenfish and Kent Peterson both voted to put this matter to the voters. Their Senate counterpart Stace Nelson gives them both barrels for that vote:
HJR 1001 changes the S.D. constitution to give legislators a 70 percent pay raise, and automatic future raises. Our representatives Peterson and Schoenfish voted for this. I am adamantly opposed to this. Every legislator knew the pay when they ran. The pay is more than adequate and it is out-of-touch arrogance to push this when state employees are looking at another year without any cost-of-living or pay raises, and the state is facing a budget shortfall [Sen. Stace Nelson, “A Bad Pay-Raise Idea,” Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2018.02.05].
Schoenfish responds with this paragraph at the bottom of his February 6 recitation to voters:
One vote that has gotten some attention but also understanding from the people I’ve talked to is the bill which gives the voters a chance to weigh in on legislative pay, which I supported; I wouldn’t be surprised to see some typical politicians claim legislators voted to raise their own pay with that vote but it’s simply not true. They would only claim that if they are scared of competition that might result in more people being able to serve. When votes came up to raise legislative pay, I have voted against them consistently. The voters are our employers and in the real world employers decide their workers’ pay [Rep. Kyle Schoenfish, “Taxation Committee Faces Busy Agenda,” Yankton Press & Dakotan, 2018.02.06].
“Typical politicians”—boy, I don’t know whom Schoenfish targets with that remark, since Stace Nelson certainly is no typical politician. The more typical “politician,” if I deign to use the term negatively as Schoenfish does here, is the one who lacks the courage to use existing statute to provide future legislators with deserved higher pay that would make it feasible for more citizens to run for office and instead uses this back-door method to avoid taking responsibility for what he really supports.
That said, Schoenfish is right about HJR 1001. Better pay means more incumbents may face competitors in November. Better pay means legislators may be a little less beholden to the rich special interests who wine and dine them in Pierre and back home. And giving us a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment that isn’t an attack on initiative and referendum is fine and dandy.
Besides, while HJR 1001 increases legislators’ purchasing power, our approval of this measure would technically reduce the Legislature’s power, since it takes away legislators’ power to set their own salaries.
Let Senator Nelson vote Nay; I wouldn’t mind a chance to vote on HJR 1001 and to give him and Schoenfish—or better yet, their replacements—a raise for the first time in 20 years.
I don’t know how you justify giving a raise to legislators at this time. The last raise was justified based on the tremendous amount of work preceding sessions had done taking on very tough issues. Legislators had a jam packed calendar, working five or six days per week. They didn’t give themselves mini-vacations during session.
Further, legislators in the 1990s were less arrogant in the exercise of their power. Yes, arrogance has always been a problem under the Capitol dome, but that was a time when legislators and even the Governor, named Mickelson, welcomed citizen input and often incorporated ideas citizens brought to the table. And they respected citizen rights to bring their ideas forward through ballot measures, even if they grumbled about it. They don’t just grumble now. They’re trying to end citizen participation. The way G. Marky and others denigrate his bosses, the people who elected him, I would think he should be fired, not given a raise.
And they’ve failed at the one big issue they’ve tried to tackle: increasing teacher pay. Big goals require big effort over years, and there has been no effort put forward to try meet that goal. None. And that’s the raise they should get. None.
So, no raise for the Legislature. A message should be sent that citizen supervisors don’t think the Legislature is working up to its citizens’ expectations. You can’t insult and be so obviously insubordinate to those who elect you and expect they will open their wallets to subsidize that unacceptable performance and behavior. You can’t promise to raise teacher salaries, then forget about it. You can’t be so obviously lazy and incompetent, and expect money from citizens.
NO RAISE.
I’m not defending Schoenfish or Peterson and I think the timing is bad for a pay raise but Stace has to be a little more consistent.
While ripping Schoenfish and Peterson, Stace did the same thing on letting voters decide on SJR 1 requiring 55 percent for any constitutional measure to pass by a vote of the people. Stace stood on the floor of the Senate and said he was against SJR1 but the people should decide so he voted to do just that.
What’s the difference?
Owen, that’s the definition of political gutlessness. I saw it repeatedly in Pierre in the 1980s and 1990s, and it really hasn’t changed. If people wanted language like SJR 1 in the Constitution, they would simply initiate it. People shouldn’t be patronized by legislators, and patted on the head and told smarmy lies, while the same folks try to take away the people’s right to initiate.
In the past, I’ve been torn on this issue. In theory, the pay should be sufficient to allow those who aren’t independently wealthy to serve in the legislature. This is why I was previously in favor of a pay raise for legislators.
However, given the fact that the governor and legislature has implemented an austerity budget that impacts school funding, state employees and our investments in infrastructure, my thoughts have changed. If we are not going to fund important state obligations, why should we fully fund legislative pay? Let’s have everyone in Pierre share in our state sponsored austerity program.
I’ll agree, no raises for these idiots.
But I support higher pay for the better legislators we will elect this November… right, neighbors?