- In 28 states, lawmaker salaries declined when adjusted for inflation.
- The average salary in the 9 legislatures classified as full-time was $67,077. Exclude California's $110,880 salary, and the average drops to $61,601. Of the 9 full-time legislatures, 4 are Eastern states, 4 are Midwestern states, and one, California, is a Western state.
- The average salary in the 23 states classified as having lawmakers working at least two-thirds of full-time, but less than full-time, was $22,907. This average equates to a full-time salary of $34,343.
These findings raise several important questions about the operations of state legislatures.
What impact do these salaries have on candidate recruitment? The author of the report argues that we should expect the political parties to have difficulty recruiting candidates when potential candidates can earn more money in other professions. This concern may be valid, although there are certainly those who would turn down higher salaries in other occupations for the unique variety of non-monetary benefits of serving in the legislature. Such non-monetary benefits include the ability to work in a leadership role within the community, the ability to help others, and the ability to determine public policy. This is not to say that the money is unimportant; rather, that there surely are other factors that play an important role in a citizen's decision to run for legislative office.
What impact do these salaries have on the representative characteristics of the legislature? There likely is some point at which legislative pay is so low as to result in an increase in independently wealthy individuals and retirees running for office. Presumably, this result is more likely in states where the time demands of legislative office are greater, making it less possible for legislators to maintain careers outside of the legislature.
What impact do these salaries have on the competency of legislators? It may be argued that low pay results in individuals of lesser talent running for office. If this argument were correct, one would expect contemporary legislators to be less talented and capable than those of the mid-1970's. After all, salaries have declined in many states when adjusted for inflation. From my experience, this argument just doesn't ring true. The lawmakers of today are no less capable than those of the mid-1970's and, in many cases, are probably more able to handle the complex problems presented by contemporary lawmaking.
What impact do the salaries have on management within legislative institutions? In those legislatures with professional staff, it is likely that the staff in many cases earns a higher salary than the elected officials for whom they work. This circumstance is not unique in legislative service. For example, local elected school boards earn less pay than the school administrators they employ. However, it poses problems with regard to accountability.
In a typical workplace, those with more authority and responsibility are compensated at a higher rate, with the individuals in leadership positions earning the highest pay. Thus, pay becomes a symbol of worth to and sway within the organization. To some extent, the pay reinforces the organizational protocols. In legislatures, this dynamic is put on its head because the boss often earns less than his or her staff. Although it is important to compensate professional legislative staff competitively with executive and judicial branch positions, the gap in pay between legislative staff and those whom they support must be understood and managed. For example, structures must be put in place to ensure that staff remain accountable to the elected officials, particularly if the staff are organized bureaucratic legislative agencies. One would expect these accountability structures to be even more necessary as the gap between legislator and staff pay widens.
No comments:
Post a Comment