How much will the pay increases cost? About $80,000, which even with a tight budget, is chump change. Giving lawmakers more money may be grist for the Howie Carr’s for the world, but if it reigns in our public authorities and boards, it’s worth the fiscal and political cost.
Lawmakers who lead committees or serve as top deputies to the House speaker and Senate president are paid $7,500 to $15,000 on top of their annual salaries of $55,569. The leaders of the two Ways and Means committees receive an additional $25,000.
The deal, according to the Globe, gives the legislative leaders more power.
The deal under negotiation would allow DiMasi and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini to beef up the stipends and give them to more lawmakers, according to sources. In so doing, they can expand their influence, creating a stronger band of loyalists.
In return, Gov. Patrick would gain more control over several agencies. Originally formed to be independent from politics, they are now widely considered to have run amok and beyond the control of the democratic process. These agencies, often like fiefdoms, have been the domain of hacks across the state from James Keriasiotes, who ran the Big Dig for the Weld Administration and ordered the sandblasting of Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s computers, and Matt Amorello, a Swift appointee, who installed surveillance cameras in the MTA offices.
On the target list are such high-profile agencies as the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the MBTA’s governing board of directors, the various boards that oversee the state’s education policies, and the authorities that control and finance economic development projects for the state. Patrick is not expected to include the Massachusetts Port Authority on his initial list.
Removing political influence from these agencies isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but when elected officials lack any control over these boards, voters lack control as well. Unless, for example, the heads of these agencies can be removed by someone we elect, they are accountable to almost no one.
Patrick’s instincts are right on this issue. My guess is there is more money to be saved by reining in this agencies than the immediate or anticipated costs of increasing the pay of some lawmakers by $80,000.
The political fallout will be minimal, like the monetary cost, and it comes early enough in Patrick’s tenure so the benefits will be remembered before he faces re-election.
–Mb
gary says
Why not just pay a bonus directly to the Legislators: $5K per vote for each Rep who votes for the Patrick programs.
<
p>
Why, maybe that’s even a strategy to pass the equal marriage amendment. Just have the majority vote a bill that pays off the ney-sayers if they change their
votesminds.amberpaw says
I bet a lot of you were surprised that a “rank and file” legislator is paid $54,000 a year and change. About what a teacher earns in most school districts. Given the total loss of family privacy, the moldy and uncertain office space, and work days that are often 18 hours long, frankly, these folk are woefully underpaid. Further, the rank and file legislator is totally dependent on the leadership [which can stick them in a moldy attic garret] or deal out those “chairmanship upgrades” that might help with daycare or college tuition. How about bringing legislative salaries into the twentieth century?
sharpchick says
It’s the staff too. The amount staff is paid varies, but the starting salary in the house for a legislator’s aide (most house members have only one aide) is $24,000 last time I checked last year (sorry, no source, just inside the building stuff, but I’m sure it’s available). In the Senate, it seems to be a little bit better (on the $28s-low 30s) and it certainly fluctuates a lot more (some really senior staff are paid more than legislators), but we shouldn’t forget that staff is even more underpaid than the legislators.
frankskeffington says
…but in the spirit of historical accuracy, it must be noted that Mitt was engaged in his job as Governor for at least a year. He balanced the books by raising fees, cutting programs and local aid. During this time he probably noticed how stupid Bush was and figured if Bush could do it, so couldn’t he. That’s when Mitt turned the job of Governor into a spring board to Washington.
stomv says
Deval Patrick is bribing the lege with $80,000 of our money so he gets the initiatives he wants.
<
p>
I don’t know if I should be more offended with him, or with the legislator wouldn’t be willing to change the way government works for free, but would do it to make a few thousand dollars more each year.
<
p>
If Patrick’s suggestions are good ones, the legislature should do them for free. If they’re bad ones, the legislature shouldn’t do it for a $100,000/year per legislator pay raise.
<
p>
If Mitt Romney made this offer four years ago, I’d have been absolutely howling.
amberpaw says
It would be very useful if someone in the know could post “the rest of the story” about this so-called “raise” – or rather “perks for positions” discussion, if it is even a reality.
jk says
I am a support of Mitt and if he was bribing the legislator to get his agenda past I would have been pissed!! And Deval is doing it with OUR MONEY.
<
p>
How is it that any of the people blogging on this think this is a good thing?
<
p>
Not only that, I remember when Mitt took heat for taking his pay and dividing it up among his staff to raise their pay. And that didn’t even cost the state any additional money.
amberpaw says
For example, Governor Romney waived his salary, but the Commonwealth paid to set up a hair salon and “advance team” quarters for 13 in the State House basement, and for troopers to accompany Governor Romney as he campaigned out of state.
<
p>
I am very curious what the average cost per year was for Governor Romney’s staff, State House renovations, travel & troopers, compared to Swift, Weld, Cellucci, and Dukakis. Does anyone know?
<
p>
The salary, it seems to me, is the least of the cost to the taxpayer, per governor.
amicus says
Largely because he and the LG didn’t take salaries, but Romney was a hawk about holding his own costs down as an example for other state agencies in the fiscal crisis.
<
p>
This is a tough one: knowing that legislators are more often motivated by shiny objects rather than doing the right/correct thing, Governor Patrick is testing the waters with a pro-legislative idea: completely cut out the Executive branch in a matter of internal legislative leadership pay. It’s practical politics, for relatively short money, and boils down to this: Does Deval Patrick want to accomplish anything or be a purist on being right? If it were a dictatorship, I’d say do the right thing. But in a democracy, he needs to use all the tools in his toolbox to accomplish change.
<
p>
Another tool to keep an eye out for is Clerk-Magistrate positions: Romney elevated female and minority candidates who worked their way up within the system but were historically cut out by politics. Ironically, DP might find his legislative agenda more favorably received if he has Clerk-Magistrate positions to add to the mix–especially if the mandatory retirement age of 70 for Judges is statutorily applied to Clerk-Magistrates (which would open about 26 vacancies for appointment in the next two years alone!) Stay tuned.
amberpaw says
Umn, well, I understand your loyalty to Gov. Romney if you are who I think – but all the same, when the Glob ran its article about the hair salon in the State House basement I went and found it. Not accepting $150,000 a year may cover a few sets of troopers on presidential-primary type junkets and a couple of underpaid staffers at $24,000 a year – but, really, the costs of those State House renovations and 212 days or so of junketing? It would still be interesting to really be able to compare.
alexwill says
I was rather shocked by the Globe article this morning. It’s Frank Phillips, so I took it with a grain of salt, and reading the above I think it’s not quite as bad as I had thought: when I first read it, I thought it was pay raises targeting only those legislators who vote a certain way, whereas my impression now is that it’s a general pay raise being offered as part of a deal with the leadership, but it’s still very sketchy. The governor is in a strong enough position politically that he shouldn’t need to try these games to get Sal and Trav to do what he wants: Patrick’s the head of the party now, not them. The reining in of quasi-independent agencies may be a good thing, and there probably is very good argument for a pay increase to legislators and their aides, but to link them up like that comes across very quid pro quo.
amicus says
In fairness, other than the total size of budgets, the Legislative branch has no control over the salaries internal to the Executive branch. How do you think the Connector Board management gets 7 figure salaries? Or Executive press spokespeople at $150K a pop? This initiative would simply extend parity to the Legislative leadership to compensate their leadership team as they see fit as does the Executive. If Gov DP can leverage it to accomplish fast and meaningful change, is that such a bad thing?
dunster says
It’s not. This isn’t about $80,000. This is about how Massachussets is governed.
<
p>
In 2003 Finneran successfully passed very similar raises for legislative leaders. The raises were opposed by many good-government groups, vetoed by Romney, and the veto held.
<
p>
The opposition to the raises wasn’t the actual money involved. The opposition was because the raises were one of Finneran’s tool to squelch dissent. If you voted with Finneran every time, you could get a raise. If you didn’t vote with him, you were relegated to the minimum salary.
<
p>
I don’t think of this as paying $80,000 to get approval Patrick’s agenda. I think of this as a short-sighted deal with painful long-term consequences.
<
p>
I blogged about this earlier today.
heartlanddem says
Your points are appreciated and I will throw in one more fiscal consideration…each raise inflates the potential pension debt. I don’t think we can afford to look at government raises on any level without calculating and budgeting for the pension increases, so I read 80K and then some.
<
p>
I would support immediate raises for staff and aides.
<
p>
Disclosure: not a state employee
bob-neer says
Triple their salaries as far as I am concerned, or more. They should make what CEO’s make: legislators are critically important to our collective well being.
afertig says
But legislators aren’t CEOs or CEO-ish, nor do they have the same type of responsibilities. CEOs are supposed to keep an eye on the entire organization and lay out a vision for growth in the future. Yes they both deal with the massive budget, but the influence of one state rep’s power on the budget is watered down by other legislators and interest groups (not to mention the governor); a CEOs? – not so much. Seems that if you want to compare a CEO to Beacon hill, the Governor is the CEO, and the Legislators are the board.
<
p>
Legislators are critically important to our collective well being and ought to be paid more, but it’s a false analogy to compare them to CEO.
massparent says
is the details of shifts in board accountability that Patrick wants.
<
p>
We’ve had Republicans appointed to most positions of power in the state for 16 years, and it would be a shame if the are able to hold Massachusetts hostage for most of the next four years. But what are the details of what Patrick wants changed?