Reforms for raises

For a less-than-scrupulous person looking to wield some influence over the state Legislature, these would seem to be opportune times.

Here’s a body of 213 lawmakers who recently learned two things: One, they are about to be paid a lot less money than they had expected. And two, they can still hold a second job, if one just happens to fall into their laps.

Some legislators will no doubt be offended by the suggestion here — that their integrity and votes are for sale. To be fair, most of the people who serve in the Legislature seem to be honest, committed folks looking to make a positive difference for their constituents and the state.

But it’s hard to ignore the more than 20 lawmakers who over the past decade were expelled, jailed, or voted out of office, or who resigned under a cloud for various corrupt acts, including taking bribes, misusing public or campaign funds, or doing otherwise illegal things to enrich themselves or family members. It came down, in most cases, to two things: money and power.

This was one of the things the Committee on Legislative and Executive Compensation tried to address in 2018 when it issued its recommendations. It proposed an immediate $30,500 raise for lawmakers, to $110,000, to make up for nearly 20 years of stagnant pay, but conditioned two more raises, $10,000 in 2020 and again in 2021, on a good-government measure: Lawmakers’ outside income would be capped at 15 percent of their salaries, similar to a restriction in Congress.

A full-time salary, which $130,000 is by any reasonable standard, deserves full-time work. And when one is in a position of public trust, the public is entitled to be as sure as possible that lawmakers are serving only the public’s interest.

Lawsuits ensued. Some lawmakers didn’t like the loss of outside income or the loss of leadership and committee stipends. Some outside groups objected to the Legislature sloughing off its duty on a commission. The result of the court challenges: The commission exceeded its authority, so the restriction on outside income is gone, but so are the raises that were tied to it.

That’s essentially a $20,000 pay cut for any lawmakers who had counted on the extra money. Which raises the concern that some of them could be tempted by offers of easy, lucrative jobs in exchange for legislation or votes — as we saw in the recent past.

The solution here is obvious: Do what the commission proposed. Take the raises but also do the right thing — enact the cap on outside income. The political risk appears minimal; there was no great public outcry over the raises, quite possibly because the public expected that with them would come reforms that would help remove the cloud of self-dealing and corruption that hangs over the Legislature, and would make the claim that this really is a full-time job more credible.

And there is a potentially higher cost to doing nothing. With no reforms, the public might see salaries of $110,000 for what are only part-time jobs to be rather excessive. And that might make this an opportune time for another group with its eye on the Capitol: political challengers.