The Legislature may be working up the courage to vote for its own long-delayed pay raise.
On Monday, with little discussion, Senate State Affairs tabled (not deferred to the 41st day, not killed outright, just tabled) House Joint Resolution 1001, which would have placed on our November ballot a constitutional amendment that would have taken away the Legislature’s authority to set its own pay and instead would have written into our constitution a formula pegging legislator salaries at one fifth of the median household income in our fair state. Committee chairman Bob Ewing said little beyond noting that the sponsor wasn’t present to testify for the bill before Senator Ryan Maher moved to table it. One might have inferred that the tabling was simply a move to put the bill off until a later hearing when either prime sponsor Speaker G. Mark Mickelson or Senate prime Brock Greenfield could attend, but Senator Maher is saying he wants to discuss the problem in house:
The Senate State Affairs Committee voted unanimously Monday to table the resolution. It would have gone to November voters. But senators will instead debate the proposal in bill form, which would require Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s signature.
Assistant Senate Majority Leader Ryan Maher says it’s not the responsibility of voters to raise lawmakers’ salaries [“South Dakota Senators Shelve Constitutional Amendment on Lawmakers’ Pay,” AP via KTIV-TV, 2018.02.27].
The Legislative alternative is House Bill 1311, which passed the House last week 50–16 and awaits hearing Senate State Affairs. Aside from being statute rather than law, HB 1311 differs from HJR 1001 on two key points:
- HB 1311 specifies that the median household income be determined by Census figures and the State Board of Finance.
- HB 1311 would adjust the salary “on the first day of January of each year.” HJR 1001 set the salary “during the regular session,” which suggested that it would have stayed the same for both years of a Session.
I’ll stay consistent: we need better pay to recruit better legislators as surely as we need better pay protections to recruit and retain better professors. We should let the Legislature raise its salaries for the first time in twenty years and index those salaries to some sensible economic figure. We voters should then make sure we replace the lunkheads who don’t deserve that raise with new legislators who do.
My wife (retired teacher) thought maybe the legislator pay raise should be tied to the median SD teacher pay (50th in the nation) rather than median household in SD.
Forget all that one fifth median income stuff. Temporary, part-time state employees should be entitled to the same pay raise as permanent, full-time employees, no retirement or healthcare participation though.
Alan F, That’s the right idea: tie legislative pay to the state ranking of teacher pay. South Dakota’s rank in teacher pay is 50th. New Mexico’s rank in legislative pay is 50th. New Mexico pays a salary of exactly $0.00 to legislators. That’s the pay legislators deserve.
The idiots purposefully want to keep the pay embarrassingly low so no one with good ideas will ever want to run. I know that’s what it is. The fat old farts in there now are in it to stroke their fat arrogant egos.
The fear they would have if they doubled the pay and young folk with bright progressive ideas would start to run and god forbid, win races.
Honestly, they should really think about giving these obese idiots standing desks on the floor. At least it would have their fat asses standing and losing some calories.
Wouldn’t I love $123 purrrrrr deem? That is at least 3x my SS per day budget.
Won’t make snide remarks about the worthiness of mostly worthless legislators, but, I am worth it.
Low pay keeps working people from serving. We also need to require an employer to hold a persons job while they serve in Pierre, like the federal government requires when someone enlists in the military. This would help to make ours a true citizen legislature. One that represents all walks of life.
Should legislator pay be tied to an index factor they directly control, like the increase in target teacher pay or the state employee raises, or should it be an economic factor that is only indirectly if at all tied to specific policies for which they might vote?
We don’t have the pay yet, Tim, but we o have the legal protection you speak of. See SDCL 2-4-1.1: “An employer shall grant a temporary leave of absence without loss of job status or seniority resulting therefrom, to any employee who is a member of the Legislature in order that such employee may perform any official duty as a member of the Legislature. Such temporary leave of absence may be with or without pay within the discretion of the employer. Any agreement between an employer and an employee which, as a condition precedent to employment, promotion or benefit enhancement, restricts the employee’s right to serve in the Legislature is void as a matter of public policy.”
Mr. Mike, I realize you are from Iowa, but you really need to get your numbers right. Your $123 number is confusing with that old bill, 1.2.3.4, that would have paid good teachers more. The legislatures in South Dakota get a lot more than $123 a day for eats and treats. Go back and re-read that law they passed.