Arlington’s legislative delegation — Rep. Sean Garballey, Sen. Ken Donnelly and Rep. Dave Rogers — voted with the majority — in favor of raising their stipends. They also cast votes to override Gov. Baker in this matter. YourArlington asked each to explain. Here are their responses:
Rep. Sean Garballey, Feb. 13:
“The Special Advisory Commission Regarding the Compensation of Public Officials organized in September of 2014 and consisted of seven commissioners. The Special Advisory Commission conducted public hearings in Boston and in Springfield.
“The recommendations provided in the report by the Special Advisory Commission was the foundation for this legislation. The legislation recently passed by the Legislature contains lower amounts than what was recommended by the Special Advisory Commission Regarding the Compensation of Public Officials.
“The impact on me as a state representative is not an increase in base pay, which is established constitutionally.”
Sen. Ken Donnelly, website statement, Feb. 6
Last Thursday [Feb. 2], I voted “yes” to increase pay for judges, court employees, constitutional officers, and legislative leaders in the state of Massachusetts. I know that many of you are angry and frustrated by this vote, but please allow me to explain my reasoning. There is no good time to vote a pay increase for legislators; however, I do believe that it was time for the increases for a variety of reasons.
First, please know that the vote for a pay increase was not a rash or hastily made decision, but rather the product of several years of thought and research. In 2014, the legislature created an independent commission to review to review the compensation of the legislature and state constitutional officers. The commission included two people in senior positions at the University of Massachusetts, one from the Governor’s budget agency, two from good government groups (i.e. League of Women Voters and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation), and two from the private sector (i.e., one from the Business Roundtable and one a former Federal Reserve executive).
The commission compared pay rates of Massachusetts officials to those in other states and ultimately recommended substantial pay raises for the state’s senior elected officials in the final report. The commission further reported the need to attract more skilled leaders to work in the public sector, specifically those who are not independently wealthy.
The commission’s report came out in December of 2014 during the middle of the Patrick-to-Baker transition, which would have been an inappropriate time to hold the vote. As such, my colleagues and I voted last Thursday [Feb. 2], at the beginning of this session when legislative leadership roles have not been assigned, and as such, legislators were not put in a position to vote on particular stipends associated with their own positions.
Second, legislator salaries have not kept pace with inflation. In fact, as you can see in the “Comparison of Legislative Proposals and Historical Compensation Levels” chart [in the website version of this response] compiled by Senator Will Brownsberger, it has been 35 years since the stipends for legislative leaders have been increased. This is a long time to go without a change.
Many of my colleagues face a choice of having to find outside sources of income or leave their legislative positions because of financial pressures and the need to make ends meet. Serving in state government is more and more becoming a job for the independently wealthy. Under the legislation, my colleagues can depend less on other sources of income and will be able to devote their time and energy solely on their work as state legislators. Further, better compensation opens the possibility for more people to run for office because compensation will be more in line with what it takes to live here in Massachusetts. If more qualified candidates run for office, our democracy becomes stronger and the public is better served.
Finally, it’s important to note that Thursday’s vote did nothing to change the base compensation of legislators, which is governed by Article CXVIII of the Massachusetts Constitution, which causes it to rise and fall with the state’s median household income. As you can see in the chart below, base compensation was $61,440 in 2009 when I was first elected and has moved up and down over the years since then.
Year: Base salary
2009: $61,440
2011: $61,133
2013: $60,032
2015: $60,032
2017: $62,547
The vote I took on Thursday was in favor of raising legislative stipends, which are used to cover incurred expenses related to legislative business affairs and additional responsibilities for legislative leadership positions. These expenses include office supplies, travel costs, work-related meals as well as lodging and activities related to various district or statewide events, such as the Commonwealth Conversations tour.
I hope my explanation has, at the very least, provided you with some greater context for why I voted the way I did. If you are still angry or resentful, and want to discuss this issue further, I respect that and am happy to meet with you one-on-one either in the State House or in the district.
I have always been grateful for the opportunity to serve the Fourth Middlesex District. Your input is important to me and while we don’t always see eye to eye on every issue, I care very much about your thoughts and concerns.
Rep. Dave Rogers, Feb. 7
Set forth below are my thoughts on the legislator compensation issue substantially as they were laid out in my February newsletter.
State Leaders’ Compensation
A. Background
Late last month, I was asked to review, consider and vote on legislation that would increase the compensation of state legislators, constitutional officers (including Governor Charlie Baker and Attorney General Maura Healey) and also our state judges. Over the last decade or so, there have been commissions appointed to study this issue, with the most recent exhaustive study conducted by a panel of outside experts in 2014. If you would like to read the 2014. Here is a link to that study: umb.edu/academics/mgs/special_projects/masspubliccomp/report
Importantly, the commissioners who conducted the most recent study were from groups outside state government, including two from “good government” groups (the League of Women Voters and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation). The report is quite thorough, and its findings were unanimous. The gist of the recommendations is that the pay of senior legislative leaders and constitutional officers should increase for a variety of reasons.
So it’s important to note that this did not come “out of the blue.” Independent groups outside the Legislature have studied the issue more than once over the past decade.
Then, acting on the commission’s report, last month a hearing was held on the issue of compensation for legislators and then the relevant committees of the Legislature deliberated and developed the plan on which we voted. Those who wanted to weigh in were welcome to come testify or offer their thoughts about the concept of increasing compensation for legislators, and indeed there was testimony, both pro and con.
Then a vote was taken at a formal session, with full roll-call votes and time for all members to offer amendments and debate the issue on the floor. And again, the issue has been pretty widely publicized in the press, although the facts at times have been muddled.
B. The Numbers
As may not be widely known, the base pay legislators receive is established in the state Constitution and is tied to the median income in the state. In other words, the Legislature cannot vote to raise its own base salary. It would be unconstitutional. Base pay is currently about $62,000. In my first term, the pay actually went down based on the median-income formula. This term it went up. But it has stayed in the same general ballpark during my four years in the Legislature. To be clear, the vote we took does not change the base pay of any legislator.
In addition to base pay, legislators get an allotment for office expenses. That amount is currently about $7,200 annually and has not been adjusted for about a decade. The vote we took increases the office-expense category to $15,000 from $7,200.
The other main adjustment to legislator compensation was in the form of leadership stipend increases. In most cases, the stipends have not been adjusted since 1982, so for about 35 years. Leadership stipends are paid to those in more senior positions in the Legislature. So for instance, if a legislator is a chair, a vice chair or in more senior leadership roles, then that legislator receives extra compensation to account for the extra workload associated with the leadership position. And the extra workload can be significant.
Currently, chairs get $7,500 extra, except for the chairs of the busiest committees who get $15,000. Those amounts will go up to $15,000 and $30,000, respectively. Most vice chairs will receive a total of $5,200 in additional compensation per year. I am currently a vice chair. Committee assignments come out in the next couple of weeks, and whatever stipend I receive, if any at all, will be determined by my committee/leadership assignment.
Next is the part that I think caught the public’s eye. The very senior-most leadership positions like the Speaker of the House, Majority Leader and a few other positions receive higher leadership stipends. In fact, that is where the independent commission specifically recommended big increases due to the demands of those jobs. In the case of these senior-most positions, I have seen up close that they are really quite demanding and come with big responsibilities. The stipends added to base pay for these senior positions increased substantially. But again, those amounts had not been adjusted for
literally decades, and the increases actually are substantially less than what was recommended by the commission.
It would seem that the public may be under the impression that all legislators received these larger increases. We did not. And in fact the substantial majority of the funds authorized by our recent vote will go to compensation for the judicial branch of government, not the Legislature.
C. How I Voted and My Thoughts in General
I voted for the compensation adjustments and believe they are in the public interest for a variety of reasons. I have given this issue some considerable thought over the years I have served.
Putting aside the personal financial situation of any particular legislator, there are some broad public policy reasons why I think this action makes sense, many of which were noted in the report of the commission. I believe this constitutes good public policy, and here’s why.
First off, we do not want a Legislature composed of only the wealthy, who can serve regardless of compensation. The wealthiest among us can serve regardless of the pay, like the billionaires being appointed to Trump’s cabinet. But I believe having only wealthy individuals serve is a recipe for very bad public-policy outcomes. Every day that I am in the job, I see how, and why, it helps shape better policy if people from varied socioeconomic backgrounds have the opportunity to serve.
Another reason I support these changes stems from the need to first attract, and then retain, well-qualified people to the important work of lawmaking. During my relatively short time in the Legislature, I have witnessed a significant number of colleagues leave specifically due to financial pressures. Many of these legislators were among the most talented people in state public service, several with advanced degrees, a strong work ethic and tremendous leadership abilities. This “brain drain” is not in the public interest.
Finally, and equally important, I think it is important that lawmakers do not face inordinate financial strain as they undertake public service, because it well might leave them open to undue influence. Many individuals and groups come to make their case before the Legislature, some of them well-financed and hoping to sway the opinions of state lawmakers. If the legislator they are seeking to influence is struggling just to make ends meet in our very high cost-of-living state, I worry about bad outcomes, and that should concern everyone interested in good government.
Of course, I know this action brings up a broader conversation, as it should. On the one hand, public service is just that — a service to the public — and one should not enter it with the expectation of personal gain. I am happy to report to you, after getting to know most of my colleagues in the Legislature reasonably well over these past four years, the great majority of them are in public service for all of the right reasons. On the other hand, while most are motivated by altruistic goals, we are human and face all of the same financial pressures that most of our constituents do.
With all of that in mind, I believe the compensation adjustments we voted on are logical and reasonable. If I thought they were not sensible and in the public interest, I certainly would not have voted for them. I love my job and do not do it for the money. However, I do think that public-service positions should pay a living wage and also believe there are larger societal goals achieved through the adjusted compensation package recently approved.
As with any other issue, I welco style=”padding-left: 90px;”me and encourage questions or comments from my constituents. I am highly accessible and always ready to engage on any issue. Most constituents with whom I have discussed the issue so far generally support the increases.
Two views about the raise
Joan Venocchi, Feb. 7: Lawmakers take care of themselves
Scot Lehigh, Feb. 2: King Robert (DeLeo) and the Beacon Hill Pay Heist
These viewpoints were published Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017.
