|
 |
|
|
|
Who employs Your legislator? |
|
|
|
Written On: September/October 2006 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Paul Schlienz |
|
|
|
How do Washington’s lawmakers survive on the job’s modest $35,254 annual salary? With few exceptions, our legislators also earn income from outside sources.
Washington’s state representatives and senators earn money from a variety of sources. In the current Legislature, there are retirees, small business people, lawyers, police officers, farmers, teachers, ranchers, fishermen, union employees, medical doctors, military reservists, college instructors, state agency employees, realtors, firefighters, and high-tech workers.
While some might think that legislators should only concern themselves with the business of government during their time as lawmakers, Washington’s founders were clearly not of this mindset.
"The folks who wrote our constitution and established the state of Washington had a healthy distrust of government," said David Castillo, chief of staff of the House Republican Caucus. "You see that in our initiative and referendum processes and in the fact that we have had a part-time Legislature since 1889."
Prior to an amendment in 1979, Washington’s constitution only allowed for only one session every two years. Since then, the Legislature has been limited to meeting for not more than 60 consecutive days each even-numbered year, and not more than 105 consecutive days each odd-numbered year. Special sessions may be called, but may not exceed 30 consecutive days.
Conflict of interest?
As the state constitution’s framers laid the groundwork for their ideal of a part-time citizen Legislature that wouldn’t rely on their offices as their primary source of income, they clearly foresaw the potential for conflict of interest. As a safeguard, Section 30 of Article II includes the following clause: "A member who has a private interest in any bill or measure proposed or pending before the Legislature shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon."
As a result, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have developed rules that legislators can use to bow out of votes that might be seen as a conflict of interest.
Senate Rule 22 is very straightforward: "No senator shall be allowed to vote ... upon any question upon which he or she is in any way personally or directly interested." In addition, the rule allows abstaining senators to explain their reasoning in a brief statement, which will be recorded as part of the Senate record.
The House’s rules, while upholding the same standards, are more complex. Unlike senators, members of the House are generally required to vote and must request permission to abstain. The speaker of the House has the power to grant or deny a member’s request to be excused from voting due to possible conflicts of interest. Before making a ruling, the speaker will usually consult a legislative attorney. In the end, the representative’s request and the speaker’s reply become part of the permanent record.
Is there a problem with legislators who represent their outside employers over their constituents?
According to a 2004 study by the Center for Public Integrity, 33.3 percent of Washington’s lawmakers sat on a legislative committee that held authority over a professional or business interest. In addition, the study revealed that 19.4 percent of Washington state legislators received income from government agencies other than the state Legislature.
"Everyone is going to be somewhat self-interested," Castillo observed. "You’re going to have a desire to take care of those who take care of you, but I don’t believe the majority of legislators go out of their way to do stuff that would benefit their employers."
According to Castillo, what makes more of a difference is the type of work legislators do, as opposed to who employs them.
"Folks who are in the private sector and small business owners are coming at legislation from a different perspective than those who are government employees or come from the non-profit world or are homeless advocates," Castillo added. "In the same way, those who work the land are going to come at natural resource issues from a completely different perspective from those who don’t."
Because legislators represent a great diversity of occupational backgrounds, Castillo insists that it would be very difficult to have a particular piece of legislation or specific line in the budget drafted to benefit one industry or one particular employer.
An examination of the current Legislature’s financial disclosure statements reveals that 19 legislators (Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen; Rep. Gary Alexander, R-Olympia; Rep. Glenn Anderson, R-Issaquah; Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-Wenatchee; Rep. Don Cox, R-Colfax; Rep. Richard Curtis, R-Vancouver; Sen. Jerome Delvin, R-Richland; Sen. Luke Esser, R-Bellevue; Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor; Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle; Rep. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek; Rep. Joe McDermott, D-Seattle; Rep. Jim McIntire, D-Seattle; Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way; Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Anacortes; Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn; Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch; Rep. Geoff Simpson, D-Kent; and Rep. Brian Sullivan, D-Mukilteo) are public employees. In addition, 22 legislators have spouses who get paychecks from public employment while numerous others collect government pensions.
"I personally have not seen any single group gain an advantage because they have people in the Legislature with their professional affiliations," insisted Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester. Swecker believes that the diversity of the Legislature ensures that many points of view will typically end up being represented in legislation. Nevertheless, he does feel that some groups, such as the teacher’s union, may have more influence than others.
The number of legislators with labor union ties is substantial. Four legislators (Rep. Steve Conway, D-Auburn; Rep. Tami Green, D-Tacoma; Rep. Timm Ormsby, D-Spokane; and Rep. Mike Sells, D-Everett) are union employees. Until their recent retirements, Rep. Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, and Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, were employed by union organizations. Interestingly, each of these legislators received 100 percent ratings from the Washington State Labor Council for their 2006 voting records. Beyond these lawmakers, there are others who are either union members themselves or have spouses who are union members.
Going full-time
There is an alternative to a part-time, citizen’s legislature. Four states — California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York — have full-time legislatures. These bodies stay in session throughout the year, just like the U.S. Congress, and the salaries are high enough that members don’t have to hold outside jobs.
Swecker received a great deal of publicity during the 2006 legislative session when he introduced a bill that would have made the Senate a full-time body. Under Swecker’s plan, senators would have been paid at a high enough rate that they wouldn’t need to take outside employment, although he would not have increased the amount of time the Senate would have been in session.
"My concern was that I didn’t really feel we legislators had adequate time to put the work into understanding the issues as clearly as we should," Swecker stated. "I think if we had more time to work in the interim, between sessions, in collaborative processes with multiple stakeholder interests, we might actually do a better job."
Swecker’s full-time legislature bill went nowhere — an outcome that did not surprise Castillo.
"I don’t think we’ve gotten one call to our office saying 'Yeah, you guys should go full-time,'" Castillo said. "I don’t think the people of Washington have evolved to the point that they think it would be a good idea to have government here full-time. I don’t think the people of this state are ready for it."
Castillo acknowledges the demanding nature of a legislator’s job. "Even though, by statute, this is a part-time job, the legislators are doing 365 days a year," Castillo observed. "Legislators spend a lot of time away from their families, going to district meetings and across the state, sitting on committees throughout the year. It’s not an easy job."
|
|
|
|
