Editorial: Pay raise will be met skeptically

Monday, Dec. 21, 1998 | 10:35 a.m.

No one denies that state legislators, who have gone without a pay raise since 1985, deserve some boost, which currently is set at $7,800. But our representatives in Carson City have been their own worst enemies in getting support on this issue. In the past decade they have sought to boost their compensation through questionable means.

In 1989, for instance, the Legislature tucked a 300 percent pension increase inside a bill dealing with the public employees' retirement system, hoping no one would figure out the complex formula used to calculate legislators' pensions. But controversy erupted after it was disclosed the increase was being sought. Still, legislators overrode Gov. Bob Miller's veto of this controversial legislation. Once they got home, however, the public outcry was so great they begged Miller to call a special session so they could repeal the hike.

Also during the 1989 Legislature, Southern Nevada lawmakers took advantage of a loophole in state travel law, allowing some to get reimbursed three times what it actually cost them to fly home on weekends during the session.

The backlash from these shenanigans so spooked the legislators that they swore off any attempts at increasing their compensation. Except that in the closing days of the 1997 Legislature the Assembly passed a bill increasing legislators' daily pay from $130 to $250 for the first 60 days of the legislative session. The measure died in the Senate, though.

While some business and labor groups are sincere in saying it is good public policy to set higher compensation in order to attract better candidates, skeptics will note cynically that some lobbyists might favor a hike in order to get favorable treatment in return from the lawmakers.

Legislators should receive additional compensation, but the case has yet to be made that $15,000 is justifiable. On top of the $15,000 they would still get reimbursed for lodging and food. In addition, the plan would also provide them with $100 a month in the off-months to reimburse them for phone calls, stationery, travel and other related public expenses.

Certainly Southern Nevada legislators and those representing rural Nevada are hit particularly hard, having to leave their businesses and maintain residences in both parts of the state. But before they get gung-ho with this idea the 1999 Legislature should hold public hearings and compare compensation levels with other states that meet once every two years. If legislators fail to forthrightly make the case before the public why they need this increase, this plan will certainly be doomed, and they will only have themselves to blame.