Senator explains need for pay hike

The question all along should have been who should be responsible to pay the cost of wages for public officials? Instead it became, ‘What do you think of public officials stuffing their pockets with your tax dollars?’

Not only was this the most contentious vote of the year, it was also the most skewed by the mass uninformed.

I read today in the (Baton Rouge) Advocate the legislators’ comments on their rationale for voting for or voting against. I understand each of us has a different constituency and there are myriad reasons for positions taken on all legislation. But even most voting against commented that something had to be done with legislative pay.

I not only voted for the raise, but was one of the chief negotiators. Our goal of $38,000 came in just $500 less. Almost everyone within the legislature feels that this is a fair compensation. My previous $16,800 base with expense allowance came to $25,552, according to my 2007 Senate W-2.

Being a legislator in Louisiana isn’t part-time and isn’t full-time. The National Conference of State Legislatures refers to Louisiana as a hybrid. We have regular legislative sessions every year and our governors call us into special session more than most states. This year we’ve been in session since January.

Additionally we run full-time offices in our districts that do business five days a week, 50 weeks of the year.

We each serve on three or more committees, attending meetings in Baton Rouge and on request all over the state. Serving five parishes, I attend periodic meetings with those parish governments, levee boards, school boards, etc., to help them through the state and federal bureaucracy.

I get invitations to speak at Chambers of Commerce and business organizations and always accept. I serve as chairman of the Senate Retirement Committee, overseeing the four statewide retirement systems along with nine local and municipal systems and usually carry their legislative package. In addition, I serve on numerous commissions and committees internal to Louisiana and also as a representative on multi-state panels. Much of the landmark legislation coming forward over the past decade came from such interactions.

While the issues of legislators differ, the workload is fairly consistent except for some very wealthy major metropolitan districts where the residents neither need nor want help from state government.

How am I able to serve?

Marilyn and I have done better than average in business. I have been blessed with business partners and employees who have covered for me during my extended absences. In return, I have voluntarily given up pay at least equal to my legislative pay.

Although my income didn’t improve through legislative service, it didn’t suffer either. That is not the case of most legislators and certainly not a possibility to the average Louisiana working citizen. If you are an employer reading this, will you consider allowing a talented employee to serve a minimum of half the year in Baton Rouge in return for he or she giving up half of their pay? If the answer is yes, let your better people know this. Encourage them to run. We need qualified, young, educated and talented people to serve.

I requested legislators to give me one or two lines on the challenges of serving and I was astounded at some of the replies. One young attorney came to me and said that he didn’t want to write or have it made public but he had no idea what a sacrifice it would be when he ran successfully last year. He had lost clients and found himself for months trying to catch up working nights and weekends, but had finally succumbed to fatigue. He is living on meager legislative pay and his wife’s wages and losing ground every day.

I heard stories from others of utilities being cut off and being qualified for food stamps but being afraid of being seen using them.

In a commentary I wrote last October, I predicted that interest serving in legislative office will continue to fall. Now having 48 legislators elected to office unopposed, seven without previous legislative experience, we have reached not only voter apathy, but now, candidate apathy.

With financial disclosure taking effect this year even with reasonable compensation we could be faced with a legislature of wealthy, retired and/or crooks looking to influence their way to wealth. I see this as stepping back. What makes legislatures work is having a cross-section reflective of the population.

While I had angry calls and e-mails on the pay raise issue, I also had great encouragement from friends and those familiar with my work. I appreciated the latter and excuse those who simply cling to the rhetoric of media looking to increase advertising rates through Arbitron ratings.

If you believe that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh or liberal host Randy Rhodes don’t exaggerate their positions for entertainment sake and to rile listeners, you’re listening to way too much talk radio. At the same time, I compliment the political writers who stuck to the facts in their reporting but their numbers are few.

So what is the right answer to the question of who should bear the burden of cost of legislator compensation? Should it be the legislator’s business partners or employer at the time of their election? Should it come from their individual independent wealth? Should it be from whatever deal they might broker for their influence? Or should it be commensurate with the service provided to the public? You decide. In the end, we get what we pay for and we always get what we deserve.