« Ind. Law - "Election official bows out of lawmaker's residency dispute" | Main | Environment - Carroll County residents frustrated with dairy plans »

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Ind. Gov't. - "Pay raise is risky business for lawmakers"

Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star has a comprehensive story today on legislative pay and benefits.

For background, see this ILB entry from 11/26/06 and this one from 11/28/06.

The latter entry includes a chart from the National Conference of State Legislatures comparing legislators' pay after separating the states into three categories. "Full-time" or professional legislatures are those where the members spend 80 percent or more of a full-time job on their legislative work. Legislators in these states are paid enough to make a living without requiring outside income. These states include Michigan and Illinois.

Legislatures in the second category of states, according to the NCSL, typically say that they spend more than two-thirds of a full time job being legislators. Although their income from legislative work is greater than that in the first category, it's usually not enough to allow them to make a living without having other sources of income."

Where is Indiana? According to the NCSL, it is farther down the scale, with the other "citizen legislatures." According to the NCSL: "In [these] states, average lawmakers spends the equivalent of half of a full-time job doing legislative work. The compensation they receive for this work is quite low and requires them to have other sources of income in order to make a living. They are often called traditional or citizen legislatures and they are most often found in the smallest population, more rural states."

At the end of the 11/28/06 ILB, the question is asked:

One might look at this table and conclude that, as part-time legislators, Indiana members at $45,000 a year including expenses, already are paid a good deal more than part-time legislators in other states (where the average, including expenses, is $15,984). So perhaps the question should be: Do we want to go to a professional legislature, one where members are paid perhaps $66,000 a year, as is our Secretary of State (who presumably, although I can't say for sure, receives the same health benefits and retirement as other state employees) - enough that their legislative service is not a second job?
A sidebar to today's Star story makes the same point, but I disagree with its premise:
Indiana's legislators spend less time in the Statehouse each year than their counterparts in surrounding states and, accordingly, are paid less.

Indiana: Base bay of $11,600, plus expense pay of $137 daily when the legislature is in session and $54.80 when out of session. Indiana has a part-time legislature.

Illinois: Base pay of $57,619 per year, plus expense pay of $102 per day. Illinois' is considered a close-to-full-time legislature.

Ohio: $56,569 per year, no expense pay. Ohio's is considered a close-to-full-time legislature.

Michigan: $79,650 per year, plus $12,000 in an annual expense allowance. Michigan's is a full-time legislature.

Kentucky: $170.17 per day plus $100.10 daily expense pay. This is a hybrid legislature, closer to full than part time.

The 11/26/06 ILB entry concluded:
So the two factors - "compensation" on the one hand, and the issue of "full-time vs. citizen legislature" on the other - would seem to be inextricably tied. Like the chicken and the egg, the question is: which comes first.
Shall we make the decision by default -- i.e. raise the compensation and thus create a full-time professional legislature, or shall we make the decision head-on -- that this is what we want/need for Indiana at this point. And if it is to be a full-time legislaure with professional members, then what shall we expect from them?

[Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana has also posted on the Star story this morning.]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 4, 2007 11:02 AM
Posted to Indiana Government | Legislative Benefits