OK – so much for memory from 5 years ago. As stated, I did vote against creating the salary commission when it came to the House on final passage – i.e. on whether it should become law. I voted no for the reasons I stated in my other post.

I mangled who else voted No. And my memory was off on my votes when it was in the House earlier that session. When the bill came up a month or two later, for a final vote, and whether it should pass both houses, I had become convinced the bill was bad policy, and voted against creating the salary commission.

I never voted to increase my salary or for the commission that raised it, as the blog post states. That bill (creating a salary commission that can raise salaries without a legislative vote) came up three times. On the first vote I voted against the bill. A day later when it came up on “reconsideration” I was convinced the positives outweighed the negatives and voted “yes”. Fortunately, I got to consider the pros and cons for more than a day – when it came back from the senate for a final vote later in the legislative session. I voted against it on the final vote (by that time it was rolled into a larger bill on state employee pay increases. While I supported those, I did not support the salary commission bill that was added to the periodic employee pay raise bill, and voted “No”.

I had reached the conclusion, and still conclude, the negatives (potentially no public debate or vote before a legislative salary increase took effect) outweighed a argument by the sponsor (he fairly argued that that if a legislative vote to raise legislative salaries were required, salaries would rarely be raised).

The bill passed with a handful of us on both sides of the aisle voting against it. From memory the no votes were myself, Rep. Stolze (R-Chigiak), Rep. Kawasaki (D-Fbx) – and a few others, I think. I do remember my vote. I’m going from my memory of the roll call – on a bill that passed 5 or so years ago – on the other “no” votes.

Thanks, Les for brings the facts to the discussion.

First, for the past year, since it’s inception , I opposed turning a hefty sum (at least for urban legislators with low travel costs) of $16,000/yr. of Legislative office account money into “Salary” which legislators don’t have to account for. That was an ill-conceived change, and I have fought it since last December. A few weeks ago it was finally reversed. Rep. Kawasaki and I introduced legislation that has now been adopted by the Legislative Council. Legislators no longer get to keep leftover funds – something we have asked to be corrected all year by letter and in our bill. Office funds must, starting Jan 1 with the new change, and per what we proposed in our bill – be only spent on approved office expenses, and extra funds go back to the state’s general fund, so they cannot be kept by legislators as salary. Letting legislators not account for, and potentially keep, $16,000 in office account funds was wrong in my mind, and at a minimum caused voter to wonder if legislators were keeping this money that is, by statute, intended to be spent on office supplies and expenses.

Second, the commissioner pay argument has gotten convoluted. Last year the Governor introduced a bill for commissioner pay increases for 2014 and 2015 – presumably one which he studied before introducing. We passed it. Commissioners were already getting the Governor-recommended pay increase for the next 2 years. The raises the Salary commission recommended after we passed that bill – and that the Governor wants to add now, are roughly 8% for 2014. This extra $7,000 (approx.) raise is above the raise the Governor recommended and that the Legislature passed earlier this year.

That needs to be discussed – why is a governor who studied and proposed raises we passed, now asking for larger ones that what he told us just this year were the proper raises? I have also publicly said I am willing to listen – I think a case can be made for a larger raise for the one or two commissioners who have overwhelming workloads. But not for all 14 commissioners, most of whom just took their jobs in the past few years. For most, who take these jobs to protect the public interest, not because of money, I think $136,000 plus benefits and travel and lodging costs is a pretty good salary.

We’ve asked if our colleagues would want to join as co-sponsors.

I did, and still do, think the Governor, who makes over $140,000 a year should not get a pay raise in times of austerity – when schools, for example, are going to be asked to cut teachers/staff a fourth year in a row as proposed by the Governor’s budget. That’s a hefty salary my most Alaskan standards, and I don’t want a Governor who wouldn’t take the job unless s/he gets paid more than a salary that is likely at least triple what most Alaskans wage earners get paid.

Happy to hear all sides, especially if folks address these facts as well. Les Gara