Lawmakers vote themselves a raise, citing the need to make job more attractive
Action inspired by words of Groton Rep. de la Cruz
In February, on the legislative session’s opening day, state Rep. Joe de la Cruz, D-Groton, announced he wouldn’t be running for reelection, and said legislators need to make more money. On Tuesday, one day before the session’s final day, the state House of Representatives agreed.
The House passed a bill that would raise lawmakers’ salaries to more than $44,000 base pay from $28,000, by a vote of 95-53 with three representatives absent or not voting. The Senate passed the bill 23-13 mostly along party lines, with one Democrat voting against and one Republican voting in favor. Gov. Ned Lamont has said he would support the bill if passed.
House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, mentioned de la Cruz by name when describing the impetus for the bill, as did others on the House floor Tuesday afternoon during a short debate, the reason being his remarks on the session’s opening day.
At the time, de la Cruz said he thought he was going to run for reelection as recently as one week before the session started. But days before the session began, he called a meeting with his wife, Tammy, his lawyer and his retirement adviser.
“The $35,000 we make for this illustrious job is truly not enough to live on or retire on,” de la Cruz said of being a legislator. “I want to remind you of all the voices that never made it here that would sound like my voice ... because of the limitations we have.”
Legislators on both sides of the aisle largely shared de la Cruz’s point of view, with 11 Republicans voting in favor of the bill. Ten Democrats voted against it.
De la Cruz said Tuesday that he felt $40,000 was still a little low, but noted that it would be tied to the economy and inflation and would be increased accordingly.
As for whether he would have supported the bill had he been running for reelection — “I would’ve fought for it anyway. I was the guy who fought for tolls.”
“If we recognize a problem or we can make something better, that’s the reason we ran. I had colleagues from both sides of the aisle reach out to me after I said what I said,” de la Cruz continued. “I really think people are being silenced. The reason our government works so well is because we have so many voices involved, but those voices have disappeared over the last 30 years.”
State senators and representatives serve two-year terms and are paid the same salary for their positions. Though the legislative sessions are held for only part of the year, many lawmakers go to events and advocate for issues outside of the sessions. De la Cruz and others said they had difficulty trying to find a replacement for their party to run for a soon-to-be-empty seat.
“My hope in the end is if you’re a 30-year-old teacher or construction worker and you feel like you could do something good and change something, you should be able to step away from your career for a couple years,” de la Cruz said. “The problem is, you’re not guaranteed this job. You could only be there for two years and not get to go back. I tell everyone this is a parttime job, but it’s actually a seasonal job.”
State Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, rose in support of the bill. Like de la Cruz and others, Dubitsky argued that there isn’t enough job diversity among lawmakers at the Capitol.
“We’ve got this system in place that is designed to limit the type of people who can do this job. And I think that’s wrong,” Dubitsky said. “With this change at least people other than this limited group of retired people, lawyers, independently wealthy, etcetera, can look at this and say, ‘Well, perhaps I can do that instead of doing something else.’”
“For some people it’s the difference between deciding to run, and deciding not to run,” Dubitsky said of legislative salaries.
Dubitsky described the problem: “I do not think this chamber, or the chamber upstairs, truly represents the best and brightest this state has to offer,” he said. “And the reason is because this is a hell of a job to take. We’re not parttime, and we’re not full-time. We are too much of each, and not enough of either.”
State Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Waterbury, referenced de la Cruz’s remarks on opening day, saying, “members are leaving because they can’t afford to stay here.” He, along with other legislators, argued that being a state representative is a full-time, not a parttime, job.
“The low amount of compensation makes it very difficult to recruit candidates,” Godfrey said. “When I was first elected, members of the legislature, one was a plumber, one had just come off an assembly line ... We lost that because people in those income levels, working, middle class, just can’t afford the time off in order to do the full-time job up here.”
Godfrey pointed out that legislators demographically lean wealthier than the rest of the state, “and you could probably make the argument” that this fact “sways considerations on legislation.”
Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said during debate on the bill that it provides “a long-overdue pay raise.”
“We all know the struggle to balance obligations enabling us to be up here doing the work that we love on behalf of the people of the state of Connecticut. We know of many talented legislators who had to leave to provide for their families,” Looney said. “We want to attract able people who will come, make a contribution, and will not be driven regretfully to leave before they otherwise would because of financial considerations.”
Senate Minority Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, said to reporters Tuesday that he didn’t think it appropriate to vote in favor of the bill because “Connecticut families are struggling” right now, adding, “We’re dead last in job growth and income growth.” He argued that if the state led the country in those categories, then a “yes” vote may be justified.