The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, January 9, 2003
House reps divided on pay raises
By Michael Kunzelman
While the vast majority of state senators have vowed to turn
down a pay raise, their counterparts in the House of Representatives remained divided
yesterday on whether to accept the $3,258 salary boost.
Many House lawmakers said they can't accept a raise while
the state is mired in a budget crisis that could result in deep budget cuts and layoffs.
"There are a lot of people hurting in this economy," said
state Rep. Stephen LeDuc, a Marlborough Democrat who said he is leaning toward rejecting the 6.5
percent pay hike.
Other legislators, however, said they feel entitled to the
salary increase.
"I earned it. I worked for it," said state Rep. Marie
Parente, D-Milford. "There's nothing wrong with keeping a hard-earned, honest dollar."
State Reps. Kay Khan, D-Newton, Patricia Walrath, D-Stow,
and Susan Pope, R-Wayland, also said they were inclined to accept the raise.
But all three said they would donate at least a portion of
their raises to charitable or nonprofit groups in their district.
"If I don't take it, it's going to end up in the general
fund and my district wouldn't see any of it," Walrath said.
House Democrats discussed the pay raise during a closed-door
meeting yesterday.
Rather than arrive at a group decision, House Speaker Thomas
Finneran said they opted to let each individual lawmaker decide whether to pocket the pay
raise, donate it to charity or reject it outright.
"There was no recommendation. There was not a leadership
position," Finneran said. "It was impossible to say that there was any consensus."
The list of lawmakers who plan to turn down the raise
includes state Reps. Alice Hanlon Peisch, D-Wellesey, and Karyn Polito, R-Shrewsbury.
"In this environment, it would be very difficult to accept
it when there are many state government employees who could possibly lose their jobs," said
Peisch, who was sworn into office last week.
Nearly every member of the Senate, meanwhile, has decided to
turn down the raise. Sen. Guy Glodis, D-Worcester, was the only senator who decided to keep
it, according to a published report.
Yesterday, however, a spokesman for Glodis' office said he
hasn't reached a final decision.
A 1998 constitutional amendment permanently linked legislators' pay raises to
the state's median household income.
On Monday, Gov. Mitt Romney announced that lawmakers are
entitled to a 6.5 percent raise based on income estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The annual base salary for the state's 200 lawmakers will
increase from $50,123 to $53,381, costing the state a total of $651,599 this year.
Last week, Romney and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey said they would
defer their respective salaries in order to pay for salary increases for some of their
top-level staff members.
Romney praised senators for their "courageous" decision to
turn down the raise, but said he didn't try to influence any lawmaker's decision.
"It's very much of an individual decision," he said.
"Different people are in different financial circumstances, and they should be able to look at their pay
situations without feeling peer pressure."
Parente said House members expressed "a lot of resentment"
that Romney gave raises to some of his staff members.
"If they want to lead by example, they're leading us in the
wrong direction," she added.
Last year, in a show of solidarity with state employees,
many House lawmakers took a voluntary eight-day salary furlough.
"I've already given up $1,800 for the furlough," Pope said.
In addition to donating a portion of her raise to nonprofit
groups, Pope said she plans to explore whether some of the money can be forwarded to her legislative
aide, who isn't in line for a raise.
"They certainly deserve a lot more than they're getting,"
she added.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 9, 2003
Travaglini creates titles,
pay hikes for Senate pals
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
One day after touting senators' nobility for refusing a pay
raise, Senate President Robert E. Travaglini yesterday created a series of new leadership
posts that shower power and pay on his allies and offer consolation prizes to his
vanquished opponents.
The East Boston Democrat, who was installed as president
last week, created two brand-new leadership posts - president pro tempore and assistant
majority whip, each with $7,500 stipends.
Travaglini also invented an entire new committee to examine
long-term debt, where the chairman will receive a $15,000 stipend.
The announcement came via a demure press release, without
public comment from Travaglini - prompting watchdogs to complain they'd rather see
lawmakers grab promotions and raises in an "up-front" way.
"They do it in these quiet, back-door ways that have not
only the result of costing more money but it also solidifies the power of the leadership," said Pam
Wilmot, director of Common Cause/Massachusetts.
Travaglini's move came just one day after he organized a
majority of senators to publicly decry the 6.5 percent pay raise to which they're entitled under the
constitution, saying the Senate wanted to "lead by example" at a time of steep
budget cuts and private sector layoffs.
Neither Travaglini not his aides returned calls seeking
comment yesterday, but his newly anointed leaders defended the decision to bulk up the ranks of top
lieutenants - and the state's bottom line.
Sen. Marian Walsh, who was elevated to assistant majority
leader, said Travaglini intends to eliminate several other committees - she would not say
which - and use the money to pay for the new posts.
But the new committee will boost Senate expenses by at least
$15,000, said Walsh - a former candidate for president who received her leadership gig after
delivering a key bloc of votes to Travaglini.
"The whole package, but for Long Term Debt, is revenue
neutral," Walsh (D-Boston) said.
The extra cost raised eyebrows among Senate Republican
leaders, who had been under the impression that Travaglini's leadership overhaul wouldn't
involve even one extra penny.
"If it adds to the bottom line, I would certainly not be
happy," said Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees (R-East Longmeadow). "I'm going to have to
have an explanation of that."
The pro tempore post was handed to Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg
- a former presidency candidate who also threw votes to Travaglini.
In addition to presiding over sessions in Travaglini's
absence, Rosenberg (D-Amherst) will be tasked with "ceremonial functions" and "coordination of
policy development," according to the statement.
Veteran Sen. Fred Berry (D-Peabody) was tapped as majority
leader.
The newly created assistant majority whip post - along with
its $7,500 stipend - went to Sen. Robert A. Havern (D-Arlington), who backed former Majority
Leader Linda J. Melconian.
Travaglini tossed Melconian out of leadership altogether.
But Travaglini created the new Long Term Debt Committee for
another of his foes - former Ways and Means Chairman Mark C. Montigny.
With the loss of power, Montigny will take a $10,000 pay cut
as he is forced out of Ways and Means, but the new committee created by Travaglini gives the
New Bedford Democrat a landing spot - at taxpayer expense.
Travaglini gave the powerful Ways and Means post to his
longtime friend and ally Sen. Therese Murray (D-Plymouth).
With the exceptions of Rosenberg and Montigny, Travaglini
showed the door to every other member of former Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham's
leadership team.
Travaglini's leadership shakeup occurred quietly, as most
eyes were on the House, where lawmakers indicated they wouldn't be cowed into refusing pay
raises by the Senate or Romney.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran defended lawmakers' right
to decide individually whether to take the raise, pointing to the "hard job" of setting
policy for 6 million citizens.
"Whatever the level of compensation is, it should be
sufficient so that those types of decisions are not left to idle, wealthy, bored people," Finneran said.
"It's always better if you have serious people with the real flesh-and-blood
problems that every ordinary person has."
Finnneran's remarks appeared aimed at Romney - who has been
the target of resentment from lawmakers, after he and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey opted to give
up their salaries to boost senior staffers' pay.
Romney praised the Senate's majority decision to forgo the
pay raise as "courageous" and an "excellent act" - but insisted he wasn't trying to ratchet
up pressure on the House.
"My action should in no way be seen as trying to force the
issue," Romney said.
Most House members interviewed yesterday said they would
take the $3,258 raise - but donate it to charities.
"I don't trust the governor or the speaker or the Senate
president to put the money where I think it will do the most good," said Rep. Carol A. Donovan
(D-Woburn).
Other House lawmakers said they'd take the cash, insisting
they deserve the cash - and need it. "Some of us only get the one (legislative) salary," said Rep.
Marie J. Parente (D-Milford).
Elizabeth W. Crowley contributed to this report.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 9, 2003
Donna Finneran and Kelly Travaglini were not present for
this week's closed-door caucuses debating the political perils of legislative pay raises. But to
hear their husbands tell it, they were the key decision-makers.
Asked whether they will accept the increases, the House and
Senate leaders and a slew of other legislators had the same answer: I have to ask my wife.
"My bride hasn't concluded her discussion other than to
remind me that the eight-day furlough cost our family over $3,000 last year; that it was a
generous, gracious gesture of leadership," House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran
said yesterday, pointing to eight days of pay House members forfeited last
year, a sacrifice his wife thought the public failed to appreciate. "She continues
to deliberate, and I continue to await the outcome of her deliberations."
In the Senate, President Robert E. Travaglini said the
session with fellow senators, who overwhelmingly agreed to forgo the raise, was easy. The one
with his wife was longer. " That was an extended debate," Travaglini joked.
Money issues sure do bring out the references to spouses -
at least from male politicians, whose descriptions of their domestic situations suggest that, while
they may be the primary breadwinners, their wives control the home economics. During a
survey of lawmakers yesterday, scarcely did a female legislator say she had to ask her husband what to do.
"The men, in a way, can finesse the issue by saying, 'My
wife controls the money,'" said Elizabeth Sherman, a fellow at the Center for Public Leadership
at the Kennedy School of Government. "I think it's a way for men to claim that
they're not really being greedy, but their wife is letting them know what the
financial situation is at home. Because she really is very focused on household
management."
The decision to decline a $3,258 pay increase, of course,
has financial implications for most households, Sherman noted.
Governor Mitt Romney may have unwittingly kicked off a trend
last summer, when confronted with Democratic challenges to his qualifications to run for
office under the state's residency requirement. Romney, a multimillionaire,
initially insisted that he didn't know anything about his tax bills; his wife
handled them.
In recent days, legislators continued the drumbeat, citing
spousal considerations for their delayed decisions on whether to accept a 6.5 percent
pay raise. After days of debate in the media, and constituents' complaints on
talk radio, and even after yesterday's 2 1/2-hour House caucus, usually
outspoken Representative Joseph F. Wagner, a Chicopee Democrat, offered
this position: "I have to talk to my wife."
On Tuesday, Senator Brian A. Joyce, a Milton Democrat, was
one of only two senators who emerged from a Senate caucus intending to take the raise, Senate
sources said. But wait - an aide told a reporter about an hour later, Joyce had
gone home and conferred with his family and now had decided to decline
the money.
Despite their newfound power as a voting bloc, the legislators' better halves
were less than voluble about their influence yesterday. Calls to the Finneran,
Travaglini, Joyce, and Wagner homes went unreturned by their wives. Perhaps
some were still immersed in financial negotiations.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 9, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
House puts itself first
Oh, why should we not be surprised!
House members have a long and not-so-proud history of
putting their own needs above those of the taxpaying public. Wasn't that the case last year when
members voted to take an additional $2 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers
who had earlier voted themselves a tax cut?
So why should we have expected that they would put the
state's extraordinary needs ahead of their own and turn down a $3,258 pay raise?
Tuesday members of the Massachusetts Senate under the
leadership of their new president, Sen. Robert Travaglini (D-East Boston), moved quickly to
forego the raise.
"We want to lead by example," Travaglini said. "If we are
going to administer the pain then we have to feel some of the pain."
Setting a good example is a nice way to start the year, a
new position, and it also happens to be darned smart politics.
Ah, but the House remains a law unto itself.
House Speaker Tom Finneran defended the action of legislators insisting that
they ought to be fairly compensated for the often tough decisions they have to
make. And then, as he sometimes does, Finneran went one step over the line
saying, "Whatever the level of compensation is, it should be sufficient
so that those types of decisions are not left to idle, wealthy, bored people. It's always
better if you have serious people with the flesh and blood problems that every
ordinary person has."
We can't imagine who these "idle, wealthy, bored people"
might be, but a certain governor and lieutenant governor who have just foregone their salaries
could surely take offense.
Some House members will no doubt join their Senate colleagues and request
the extra money be returned to the general fund. But the moment to do things
right, and the goodwill it might have engendered, are gone.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, January 9, 2003
Editorial
Legislators should share the sacrifice
Nearly all members of the state Senate have promised to give
their constitutionally-mandated pay raise back to the state. Good for them.
House members have reached no such consensus, so we'll
confine our congratulations to those representatives who chose to share some of the pain
being felt throughout state government.
The raise kicked in under the provisions of an amendment
added to the state Constitution in 1998. The idea of taking the politics out of legislative pay raises
was good at the time, and is worth keeping. The amendment instructs the
governor to raise (or lower) the base salaries of legislators in accordance
with changes in the state's median household income. It doesn't say how he should
calculate the raises, and Gov. Mitt Romney may have used questionable math
in coming up with a 6.5-percent increase, but he followed the law and came up
with a reasonable number.
What the amendment didn't anticipate was a circumstance like
this one, in which median income has gone up over two years, but the state government
has plummeted from riches to poverty. In the last year, the Legislature has
raised taxes, nearly drained its rainy-day accounts, cut hundreds of millions
from needed programs and forced layoffs and unpaid furloughs on state employees.
Those cuts are just the beginning. This year's budget is
deep in the red and next year's faces a deficit projected to be close to $3 billion. Given the context,
it is unseemly if not unconscionable for legislators to accept a pay raise worth
$3,258.
Not every lawmaker agrees. "I worked very hard. I earned
it," said state Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford. "Anyone who feels they don't deserve it, shouldn't
take it."
But it's not a question of whether or not the lawmakers
deserve raises. The employees in the state higher education system deserve the raises granted
them by a contract approved last year after long negotiations, but those raises
were vetoed. Hundreds of state employees in dozens of agencies deserved
raises from the state, but were laid off instead. The issue isn't what they
deserve, but what the state can afford.
Yes, most lawmakers put in long hours on the job and many of
them, like Parente, aren't wealthy and don't have other jobs on the side. They make a
base pay of $50,123, but that's just the beginning. Committee chairs, like
Parente, earn as much as $7,500 more. Per diem payments and office expense
accounts bring more cash to legislators, and some, like Parente, pay for
their cars out of campaign contributions.
If that's not compensation enough for the lawmakers, they
ought to go looking for another job. As to whether legislators "deserve" their pay, that's up to the
voters to decide on election day. One of the things the voters should consider
when election day comes around again is whether the incumbent on the ballot
was willing to share in the sacrifices required by the state's most serious fiscal
crisis in decades.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 9, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
Worth the money
Legislators' pay is back on the talk shows - just where it
doesn't belong.
In 1998, Massachusetts lawmakers asked to be freed from
these periodic pay raise mud fights by a constitutional amendment that would provide automatic
pay increases every two years pegged to the rise in the state's median
household income.
Willing voters embraced the idea by an overwhelming ratio of
more than 2 to 1 on the ballot that year, and the first increments - raises of 7 percent - were
paid out in 2001 with hardly a murmur.
Now, however, with the regional economy stalled and the
state budget in a severe squeeze, the cry has gone up, mostly from those who don't like
government anyway, that it would be immoral for legislators to pocket the 6.5
percent pay increase dictated by the household income figures at the same
time they are cutting state programs.
We disagree. The whole point of the 1998 amendment was to
take legislative pay out of the political arena, where demagogic jawing about it inevitably
obscures more important issues.
At $53,381, which is the new salary with the $3,258 raise
included, legislators are hardly overpaid for the responsibilities they have at the State House and
for the time they spend with constituents. The lawmakers not working hard
enough to earn that amount should be booted out by the voters.
In addition, the potential savings involved if all 200
senators and representatives rejected the raise would be $651,600, not enough to rescue
significant programs.
It makes no more sense to legislate on the cheap than it
does to build roads or provide foster care on the cheap.
Granted, lawmakers may feel personally torn about accepting
a raise when health care, services for the homeless, and even education aid are being cut.
The new Senate president, Robert Travaglini of East Boston, apparently spoke
for many of his colleagues when he said on Tuesday, "If we're going to
administer pain, we've got to feel some of that pain."
Many legislators say they will instruct the state treasurer
to withhold the raise and keep the money in the state's General Fund. That, of course, is their right.
But they shouldn't be hounded into that position by the pit bulls of the
airwaves, who wouldn't have a nice thing to say about them even if they
turned lead into gold. And any legislators who choose to forgo the raise now should not
be criticized for picking it back up when the economy improves.
The constitutional amendment is fair. It provides that
legislators' pay will actually be cut if household incomes decline over a two-year period. The
lawmakers have taken their chances with automatic pay adjustments tied to
the state economy, and the voters have agreed. This case should be closed.
