Citizens Commission delivers what amendment required
By Roy Ockert Jr.
Feb. 10, 2015
What really did we expect when we passed Issue No. 3 in the November general election? Now that it’s being implemented as Amendment 94 to the Arkansas Constitution, some suggest that we the people didn’t know what we were doing.
Granted, Issue No. 3 was complicated. The full bill, referred to us by the Legislature as House Joint Resolution 1009, was 22 pages and more than 7,500 words in length, some of which deleted previous laws. So naturally, when it passed to the surprise of many, including me, the most common explanation was that people didn’t know what they were voting for.
Wait, wasn’t that always the explanation when we voted against “good” issues? “When people don’t understand an issue, they just vote against it,” it was said.
Whether we understood it or not, we passed Issue No. 3 by more than 40,000 votes. That margin came largely from healthy endorsements in counties with the best educated voters, including Craighead (plus 3,700), Benton (plus 11,100), Pulaski (plus 9,400), Washington (plus 11,800) and Pope (plus 2,500).
While some have tried to blame Democrats, it was solidly bipartisan. HJR 1009’s two co-sponsors were a Democrat and a Republican; it passed both houses, controlled by Republican majorities, by overwhelming margins; and was signed by a Democratic governor.
Issue No. 3 in action is already changing Arkansas government. After all, its popular name is “The Arkansas Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment of 2014.” That name doesn’t hint at its most controversial provision — extending the term limits of state legislators.
But what is stirring people up right now is a financial reform, namely the salaries of state legislators, judges and constitutional officers. As provided by the new law, an Independent Citizens Commission, comprised of non-officials, was appointed to set salaries of those state officers, and it has been studying the current situation for a couple of months.
Essentially, the law gave the commission 90 days to overhaul the existing salary structure. After this initial review the panel will be able to adjust salaries by no more than 15 percent at a time, though the law doesn’t really limit how often that can be done.
Therefore, last week the commission offered recommendations which raised some eyebrows. Here are some:
• Legislators, from $15,869 a year to $39,400;
• the House speaker and president of the Senate, from $17,771 to $45,000;
• the governor, from $87,759 to $141,000;
• the attorney general, from $73,132 to $130,000;
• the secretary of state, from $54,848 to $90,000; and
• the auditor, treasurer and land commissioner, each from $54,848 to $85,000.
The commission also recommended health pay bumps for all judges from district court level to the Supreme Court, with a pay scale ranging from $140,000 to $180,000.
No raise was recommended for the lieutenant governor, who makes $42,315 a year. Prosecuting attorneys, omitted from the law in error, will have to wait for corrective legislation.
The process now allows 30 days for citizens’ comments on the recommendations, and a public hearing has been scheduled for 10 a.m. March 2 at the University of Arkansas System Administration Office-Cammack Village, 2404 North University Ave., Little Rock. You can review all recommendations and make comments through a special Web site, http://citizenscommission.ar.gov.
After that, the commission can finalize its salary recommendations, and they are not subject to legislative or executive review.
A deal struck between the commission and legislative leaders is especially interesting. In exchange for the whopping pay increase, the house speaker and president of the Senate promised to do away with the monthly office-expense payments lawmakers have been getting.
The commissioners can’t guarantee that because legislators retained for themselves the power to give themselves perks like that. The commission is not recommending any changes in the current per diem rate ($150 a day for meals and lodging while on duty) or mileage reimbursement (57.5 cents per mile).
If everything stands as recommended, the legislators will have a net gain of about $9,000 a year. However, they would do well to make further changes in their expense reimbursement process. Their mileage rate should be the same as other state employees, and it should be paid only if incurred. Reimbursement for meals and lodging should be made only upon documentation.
Another provision of Amendment 94 is causing lobbyists to host more meals for all legislators, or large groups such as a committee, instead of entertaining them individually. For example, Tuesday’s Senate calendar listed eight events, almost all of which involved food and-or drink.
Do we really need to pay for meals if the lobbyists are feeding our legislators so well?
The amendment calls for documentation. Make that happen, and the higher salaries will be more palatable.
Otherwise, the commission’s salary recommendations are what we could expect from a salary review, especially for the constitutional officers. The governor would be making more than his counterparts in Iowa, Louisiana and Missouri but less than those in Tennessee and Oklahoma. Other comparisons produce similar results.
We didn’t ask the commission to determine whether we actually need a treasurer, auditor, land commissioner or lieutenant governor. That’s the legislators’ job, and we should expect more if we pay them better.
Roy Ockert is editor emeritus of The Jonesboro Sun. He may be reached by e-mail at royo@suddenlink.net.