--July 29, 2005
In all the legitimate uproar surrounding the wee-hour assault on the State Treasury by the Pennsylvania General Assembly the morning of July 7, 2005, there is one political absolute that neither the most caustic critic nor the most ardent advocate has confronted to this point. That is the truism that there is never…never, ever…a right time to raise the salaries of elected officials—even when done in the right way.
For example: Right after the 1986 gubernatorial election, departing Republican Governor Richard Thornburgh was approached by his legislative leadership. They wanted to know if he would sign a pay raise bill if one were approved by the General Assembly in the crush which traditionally accompanies the final adjournment of the biennial session. He declined, and properly so. Who could blame him for not wanting to sign a salary bill as one of his final acts on his way out the door? That would have been some legacy to his service, wouldn’t it?
But the legislature was not to be so easily denied. When Democratic Governor-elect Bob Casey made a pre-inaugural good-will visit to the Capitol, his legislative leadership broached the subject of a pay raise him. He probably wasn’t thrilled with the idea. But not wishing to put himself at odds with the legislative branch before he even took his oath of office, he said he would consider signing one under certain conditions. First, the level of the raise would have to be justifiable; second, the Legislature would have to demonstrate they earned it by faithfully tending to the legislative business before them; and third and most important, the increases would have to be prospective in nature.
“Prospective” in this case meant that no one—no legislator, no governor (or member of his cabinet)…no one got a raise until after he or she stood before the electorate at the ballot box. For the General Assembly, the raises, if approved (and they almost always are) would not take effect until after the 1988 elections, a year and one-half away. For the Governor and his cabinet, the increases would be delayed for three and one-half years until after the 1990 gubernatorial election. (Judicial increases could take effect immediately under Pennsylvania law since the judiciary, technically, had no control over the salary paid to its sitting members—another subject for another day.) Thus it came to pass that Governor Casey signed a prospective pay raise bill in mid-1987, his first year in office.
In the process, the electorate was fully forewarned. The next time they went to the polls to choose a legislator, an attorney general, a governor, whomever…the person they chose was entitled to the higher compensation provided in the 1987 salary bill. On this issue, that’s about as textbook as it gets. The “right way,” so to speak…above board, straightforward, a matter of public record. It should have been a walk in the park. It wasn’t.
In January of 1991, after Governor Casey’s resounding re-election (by over a million votes, lest we forget, the largest margin ever afforded a gubernatorial candidate in this state), the Commonwealth was facing a massive fiscal deficit brought on a 1990 Fall collapse in the national economy. A substantial, yea massive, general tax increase seemed inevitable. It was in this climate that Casey was approached before his second term inauguration by a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer who asked if, given current fiscal conditions, he would accept the higher salary of the office as provided for in law.
He said he would. His cabinet in particular, he reasoned, after four years of loyal service, was entitled to the higher compensation provided in the law. And if this decision was to prove controversial, he would not as governor attempt to distance himself from the controversy.
Controversial it was. It immediately became joined in the intense partisan debate that waged for eight months over taxes and the 1991-92 state budget. Casey was the point person for the critics. It just went with the territory. His lieutenant governor, Mark Singel, only inflamed the rhetoric—and undoubtedly irritated the Governor in the process--by publicly commenting that the Administration would have been better advised to defer on the raises until the Commonwealth’s fiscal situation was stabilized. Auditor General Barbara Hafer, Casey’s vanquished gubernatorial opponent, also enjoyed some small political payback of her own by announcing she was going to defer on her increase while the Commonwealth grappled with its fiscal predicament. It was not a happy time in the Capitol.
Which only goes back to the point: Is there ever a right time, even when implemented in the right way, to raise the salaries of elected state officials? The 1991 experience tells us no.
As one who served on the senior legislative staff for over a decade in the 1970’s, early 1980’s, I am generally inclined to be sympathetic to the members and their actions. But this 2005 salary action was so egregious, so onerous in so many ways, it defies rationalization let alone justification. Let me count just some of them:
--Was it necessary? That’s debatable. The fact is the General Assembly in 1995 passed legislation providing automatic salary adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index-- guaranteed raises, so to speak. A former Capitol reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer remembered the late House Speaker Matt Ryan (R-Delaware) telling him at the time, he’d never again report on the legislature voting to increase its salary. “Never again” lasted a mere decade.
--Will Governor Rendell minimize his political complicity in the process by announcing he would not accept the higher salary set for Office of Governor if he is re-elected in 2006? Probably not. His pronouncement strikes many as a transparent attempt, pure and simple, to distance himself from the fallout of the salary furor.
--Was it appropriate for State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, a leading if not the leading advocate for the salary plan, to publicly inject himself and his office into the post-raise debate with a stern defense of those legislators who voted in favor of the pay proposal? Again, absolutely not. With litigation challenging the legality of the raises all but inevitable, how can any appellate court be viewed as objective and judicial in weighing the argument now that the “Chief” has spoken? As one press pundit put it to me, “You just can’t make this stuff up.”
--Finally, how appropriate was it for the General Assembly to resort to a court-tried-and- tested system of “unvouchered, unaccountable legislative expenses” so that the members could get their money immediately, even though the State Constitution expressly prohibits an increase in their compensation during their existing terms in office. This, perhaps, is the most unconscionable feature of all in this sorry episode.
In some respects, we must admit, we have come miles on this subject. The ever-vigilant media had been reporting for almost a month that legislative and executive salaries linked to a federal pay scale were very much in play in leadership and administration negotiations on a 2005-06 state budget. The public knew, or should have known, the salary question certainly was on the table.
It was not always thus. In the 1970’s, before enactment of the Commonwealth’s Open Meeting Law, one opportunistic Senate committee chairman convened an after-session gathering of his panel to quietly and quickly approve legislation to increase legislative pensions. The meeting occurred while the bipartisan leadership of the Senate was hosting the Legislative Correspondents Association at a dinner in a hotel some 15 miles from the Capitol. Once the existence of the bill became known, the correspondents, understandably, never believed there was not a cause-effect relationship to the dinner and the committee meeting. (There were, incidentally, no more dinners of this sort. And it was actually a House leader who tipped the press off to what was going down after the proposal made it to that chamber.)
There was also the case from the same era of the western Pennsylvania House Democrat who represented a swing district and, therefore, could not risk his political career by supporting any proposal to raise legislative pay. But, being the good fella that he was, and a licensed pilot, to boot, and, I suppose, just wanting to be helpful, he volunteered to his leadership to fly any “Yes” vote into the Capitol if necessary when a bill was called. We were told it never came to pass.
So where does that leave us? Well, that’s for the electorate to decide. That means you and me. When we next go to the polls, the person or persons we select to represent us in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives or the Pennsylvania Senate will receive a salary ranging on the average between $81,000 and $89,200.---some leaders even substantially higher. The question each of us must answer, particularly in the case of incumbents who voted in favor of said pay raise, is whether they’re worth the money.
# # # #
Copyright (c) 2008 VPC, L.L.C.