BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEDNESDAY MARCH 1, 2017) — Everyone knows THE PLANET‘s position about the egregious pay raises our “profiles in courage” on Beacon Hill gave themselves. We loathe the measure, for a number of reasons:

• It was the first matter taken up by the House and Senate in the new session.
• It passed with record speed.
• It passed on the sly, with no public discussion or input.
• They made it effective immediately, not waiting until next term.
• By including judicial pay raises, our heroes made it immune to citizen recall via initiative petition.

That being said, we do respect new Sen. Adam Hinds decision to share his rationale in voting for the measure. As a newbie, even your Aunt Edna’s pet poodle knows that Hinds had no other choice but to vote with the leaders. We also know that in all likelihood, Hinds would have grabbed for the money in any case. Who wouldn’t? Are you going to refuse a pay raise if it comes your way? At least he share his thinking — unlike Gail Cariddi, Paul Mark, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, or Smitty Pignatelli. Those four reps were content to hide in the fog of arrogance.

Here’s Hinds’ remarks. THE PLANET presents them, unedited, for your edification and with the question: Are you buying it? Does this convince you? Please address in your comments, knowing that it will be read by the “right people.”

ADAM HINDS

[Recently] the legislature voted to update compensation for legislators, elected constitutional officers, and the judiciary. It was not an easy vote or one I anticipated this early in my first session. So I thought I would take you through some of the details and my thinking.

— It was based on a 2014 report created by a bipartisan commission that included public and private sector representatives.

— This does not impact base pay for legislators. That pay is governed by a constitutional amendment tying salaries to the median household income of the state. The base salary for legislators remains the same ($62,500).

—The increases mostly impact the stipends given to leadership of the legislature. The House Speaker and Senate President stipends have not been adjusted since 1982. They are the ones receiving the big increase everyone is hearing about, bringing their pay well above the rest of the legislature. (Interestingly their stipends still increased at a rate below that of inflation since 1982).

—This package removes the per diem that legislators currently get for traveling to Boston (274 miles round trip in my case) and replaces it with a stipend for travel, running district offices, etc. Believe me, it does not cover the cost of having a district office (and a second part time office in the district to cover the 52 towns) so I will also be covering that through campaign funds.

—There is an increased stipend for Committee Chairs from the current $7,200 to $15,000. -It was important to me that there were no new appropriations for these changes. They will come from within the existing Senate budget. All other changes will come from within the existing budgets of those agencies (Judiciary, Treasury, etc).

—There are important additional elements, including the fact that the leadership and constitutional officers (eg. Attorney General and Treasurer) cannot receive outside income any more.

—The vast majority of the raises go to the Judiciary. Of the $18 million package, $12.4 million for the judiciary, $2.8 million is for the legislature, the rest is for the constitutional offices.

It is clearly a flawed process when there is not a mechanism for incremental change and instead decades without movement are made up in one swoop. I also genuinely felt this vote was not about me: since I only started one month ago this was about colleagues who have seen no increases for years while the salaries of other public servants have increased.

It has raised an interesting question: how much do you think those in public service should make? Many reports show that increased pay to public servants results in attracting more qualified candidates, making them less susceptible to outside money, and increasing performance. Many people have told me they do not run for the legislature because they worried about the impact on their family’s overall income. I hope this opens up democracy and increases the number of people who choose to run for office.

The Governor said he will not take the salary increase, but Governor Baker is also a millionaire. Right now a majority of the members of the US Congress are millionaires (for the first time ever). I believe people who represent us should be like us. They should not just represent independently wealthy people who can enter public service because they have the means. For this reason the League of Women Voters supported the results of the commission.

The bottom line is there is never a good time to vote on adjusting stipends. But on balance I felt it was the right vote.

——– 000 ——–

THE PLANET thanks Sen. Hinds for his remarks. To his question: “How much do you think those in public service should make?” we wait for our readers to answer.

——————————————————————————

“What this country needs if a good ten-cent nickel.” — Groucho Marx

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in the comment section or opinions published within the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not those of PLANET VALENTI or endorsed in any way by PLANET VALENTI. This website reserves the right to remove any comment that violates its Rules of Conduct, and it is not liable for the consequences of any posted comment, written word, or information from any source other than PLANET VALENTI as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and PLANET VALENTI’s terms of service. All users of the services of PLANET VALENTI agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice.