Where I stand—Mike O’Callaghan: Pay raise long overdue

Thursday, April 19, 2001 | 8:35 a.m.

TIME FOR NEVADA LEGISLATORS to come out from under the rocks that buried many of their colleagues following the 1989 session. That's the year they voted themselves a 300 percent increase in retirement benefits. A few of the leaders believed that was the easy way to reward themselves for many years of service. It was a sneaky move to get excessive, unearned benefits they knew the voters wouldn't go along with.

The sneak attack on the state treasury blew sky high, and political rocks showered down on the perpetrators. Gov. Bob Miller vetoed the bill, but the bold legislators overrode him, and then the next eruption took place. Not long after the second eruption, the legislators squealed for a special session so they could repeal their act that made theft legal. The governor smiled and called for a session of one day, so many of the scoundrels could save their political hides. Their act of contrition was enough to save the rural and northern legislators, but it cost the political careers of several legislators from Clark County.

The above paragraphs were written in this column more than four years ago recommending that Nevada legislators vote themselves a pay raise. I suggested a nice clean bill without any Christmas gifts attached. Just a couple years earlier in 1995, they had a reasonable pay bill but then loaded it up with additional benefits that spelled its deserved defeat.

That's also what happened back in 1989 when they voted a 300 percent increase in retirement benefits. Instead of having the courage to vote themselves a deserved pay increase, they went around the main issue and tried to get it by enlarging their retirement benefits. They might have succeed by doubling their benefits, but a 300 percent raid on the treasury was just a bit too much.

This year there are some reasonable proposals to increase the pay for legislators. Some legislators still haven't learned from past experiences and have slipped in increases for following sessions that are handed out automatically by indexing without further accountability.

Nevada's Knight Allen wisely told our editorial board: "I opposed indexing in the meetings of the Governor's Salary Commission. Particularly in the case of Legislators, Justices and Judges. I pointed out there are at least three sections of the constitution that clearly prohibit raises during the term of office: Art.4 sec28 & 33. Art.15 sec9.

"Unfortunately you're dealing with the 21st century political class and when the constitution gets in the way of something they want, well ......

"They have an 'opinion' from the LCB that says indexing is OK because:

"1. the legislature does not 'control' the CPI.

"2. indexing only maintains purchasing power.

"Of course, the fact the constitution says the legislature must set, and therefore control, the pay and the fact a COLA is still a pay raise regardless of its objective?"

Why can't the legislators just play it straight and do what's right? This will save us all a lot of legal fees making it right if they continue down the indexing path proposed in Assembly Bill 228.

Back in December, Allen worked out a formula that would provide a 27 percent increase for the legislators. This formula is tied to the working people's wages in Nevada and would pay them $10,531 for the 120-day session.

Allen told the task force studying government salaries: "It is vitally important this committee avoid the 'comparability trap.' That is the manipulative exercise of looking to other jurisdictions for higher salaries and then making ours 'comparable.' Our elected officials, including our judges, are Nevadans and their raises should be tied to those of their fellow Nevadans."

So let's get out a nice clean pay bill that isn't designed to subvert the Constitution of Nevada and the will of its citizens. A pay raise for legislators is long overdue and should be both reasonable and without those sneaky little extras added on in past sessions.