A challenge and an offer

2023-05-08

Dear friend,

Please be sure to read to the challenge and offer at the end of this update...

But first, a report-back on S.39.

I didn't want to vote on S.39 - An act relating to compensation and benefits for members of the Vermont General Assembly.

I've been telling supporters of the bill that I don't think the time is right to take up legislative pay. I would have liked to see this bill stay "on the wall" -- State House lingo for killing a bill passive-aggressively.

The motivation to pass the bill is to address the fact that legislative pay is low by any measure. We are paid $811 per week in taxable income. That hits my checking account as about $687/week after taxes.

Per diem expenses (mileage, housing, and meals) comes to my checking account as $978/week in taxable income. (Prior to President Trump, that was not taxable.)

With a per diem, in theory if you don't spend it you keep the difference.

I spend it. The gas, wear-and-tear on my car, and the cost of lodging and meals adds up. Meanwhile, my mortgage payment, property taxes, utilities, and all the rest of my expenses at home don't go away.

That's why I summarize the pay of a Vermont legislator as $13,000 ($687 times 19 legislative weeks, after taxes) plus expenses. [Editor’s update 5/17/23: The math in the original post referred to the pretax income, and has been fixed to refer to after-tax, as intended.]

In a recent social media post, a resident mentioned "other perks" of being a State Rep.

What else is there? No healthcare, which would make a big difference for some. We get a state employee badge and a State House parking pass and an access to a Delta Dental plan that we pay the full cost of. A legislator license plate, for those that want it.

I'm not raking in the compensation from being your Windham-6 State Rep. But I didn't expect to, so I prepared for a dry spell in the income department.

And while I've been taking it as it comes, now comes S.39 down the pike. In all the discussions I've heard, the best argument for increasing legislative pay is that it would increase the diversity of the Legislature. If your Representatives and Senators were paid closer to what an average Vermonter makes for the same time (full-time Tuesday-Friday, January-May, plus constituent work at home), and had access to health insurance, then the Legislature would contain more average Vermonters, and would better represent Vermonters.

Serving in elected office is a privilege, and carries a lot of responsibility. Ideally, it should be equitably available to all. Candidates for office should be able to run and win on their ideas and what they would bring to the office, not on their financial security.

Should legislators be scrimping and saving to serve? Several residents wrote in response to The legislative pay issue to say "No."

"I have no problem with Reps being paid a livable wage/salary for the hard work they do," wrote one resident.

On the other hand, I'm also hearing an argument that paying legislators less will improve the output.

"Let me point out that once you make this position desirable, either with benefits or pay, then the wrong kind of person begins seeking it out," commented one resident. "For reference, just look at Washington, D.C., at career politicians. It's meant to be a true service to your state, your community. Not a way to rack up millions of dollars and perks. Or in the case of state lawmaking, thousands of dollars."

I'm sympathetic. Legislators shouldn't get too comfortable in the job.

And yet, if lowballing leg pay was a starve-the-government strategy, is it working?

Vermont voters keep electing a Democratic Legislature with a penchant for big, ambitious initiatives.

If you're looking for another party to help, the Republican Party in Vermont doesn't have a competitive message or organizational strategy, according to recent commentary by some of its own members. The Republican legislators that I've been working with day to day aren't showing up to the table asking for smaller government, overall.

A mostly Republican group stands for a recent vote.

A hazard of any occupation is to see the world through the lens of that profession. For legislators, the complaint about politicians is that they can get "out of touch."

To prevent this as much as possible and keep Vermont's government focused on serving Vermonters, accessibility of anyone to serve should be a plus.

The provisions of S.39 are a moving target, so my vote decision will come down to the final wording of the bill. Some of my principles would be:

--any increase in pay and compensation should only take place after the next election, at the soonest
--keep the position and pay part-time
--pay and benefits should not exceed a livable wage
--let's take a look at the whole system and look for other ways to improve access

The current proposal is that under S.39, pay would rise to $1,000 a week in 2025, $1,100 a week in 2026 and $1,210 a week in 2027, plus annual COLA adjustments. (All figures are before taxes.) These figures are based on moving the pay closer to an average Vermont salary.

Please email me ASAP if you have any comments on this bill!

***
​What would it take for you to run for office?

What are your obstacles? Financial? Work schedule? Appetite for toxicity?

I'd love to see more candidates run for State Rep in my district and all over. I was grateful to have an opponent in the 2022 election. It sharpened me to have competition. More participation makes a better system.

I will give 1 hour of my time (at a minimum) over phone and email in mentoring to anyone in any district who wants to talk about what it takes to run for State Rep and serve.

Besides an integrity check, I don't care about your views or ideology. You have the right as a citizen to run. I'll help answer your questions about what it takes.

Go ahead -- do a mental catalogue of why you would never run, and shoot me an email. Let's see if I can talk you off the sidelines.