According to the information here http://www.leg.state.or.us/faq/faqinfo.htm#pay currently both the Senators and Representatives are paid $1,801.00 per month. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate are paid twice that amount.

That is only $21, 612 per year. They do get a per diem for days in session, together with some other allowances for time spent on official duties. Overall, Oregon Legislators are not paid very much in my opinion.

The idea of the Oregon Legislature was that they would all have real working lives outside of Salem.

"The idea of the Oregon Legislature was that they would all have real working lives outside of Salem."

Not any more I guess. But hey, now they'll be able to raise taxes twice as fast while cutting services in every department twice as fast.

After all, nobody in the Legislature is in it for the money.

As someone who works with state governments for a living, I find that the annual legislature is more effective than the biannual legislature.

You get more accomplished and you're not constantly having "special sessions".

And really, the increase in pay would be a drop in the bucket compared to other expenses the state faces.

I understand the romantic notion of a "citizen legislature" that only meets a couple months every two years, but state government is too complicated and beauracratic. They really do need full time legislatures.

Sorry Justin, but all you have to do is look at California's dysfunctional Legislature to get a clear idea where this will all go in about another year or two. High pay, political gridlock, moronic laws and budget deficits as far as the eye can see - yeah, that's really "effective"!

"Overall, Oregon Legislators are not paid very much in my opinion."

Overall, Oregon Legislators do not do very much in my opinion.

Entered as Evidence - The latest "emergency" legislative session.

Giving them an opportunity to do less by meeting less often is better. Plus they can bump up their hourly rate that way.

"the increase in pay would be a drop in the bucket compared" to when some legislators are spending upwards of $500K to get a seat.

Screw them if they want a raise.

Sorry Justin, but all you have to do is look at California's dysfunctional Legislature to get a clear idea where this will all go in about another year or two. High pay, political gridlock, moronic laws and budget deficits as far as the eye can see - yeah, that's really "effective"!

Do you think California would not have these problems if their legislature only met for three months every two years?

Only two states have biannual legislatures: Oregon and Texas. The other 48 have annual legislatures.

But of course, Oregon is so much smarter than all the other states, that's why we don't have a sales tax, we can't pump our own gas and we consistently have the highest unemployment in the country.

Look, an annual legislature isn't going to solve all of Oregon's problems. I just think it's more practical than only meeting a couple months every two years. And then inevitably going into a special session that off year. But whatever...

Screw them if they want a raise.

Hey, I'd vote them all out as well. I don't think any of them deserve a raise.

I just think overall, Oregon as a state would run more effectively, if the legislature could respond to problems on an annual basis rather than a bi-annual basis.

But again, just my opinion. I don't really care all that much. I'm a big believer in the fact that citizens get the government they deserve.

I would rather see them meet every 5yrs with no allowance for special sessions. They would be doing less damage that way.

"But the bill ran into trouble in the Senate Rules Committee. Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, said he was troubled by some of the definitions in the bill and questioned whether it would unfairly hinder legislators who seek routine jobs for any government agency in Oregon."

Yep, we would not want to interfere with their ability to get that counter job at the DMV.

To me it makes sense to go to annual budgeting, but I sure don't want them thinking up new laws every year instead of every other.

Overall, Oregon Legislators are not paid very much in my opinion.

They work for a few months every two years, how much to they need?

But Jon, isn't it hard to keep a full-time job when you have to take six months off every two years? That's why almost every legislator is a retiree, a "consultant", or a lawyer with a big firm (where the legislator takes a large pay cut in order to serve, but at least the firm can cover the work).

Of course, this proposal makes that situation worse. I actually think a full-time legislature with modest salaries (say, $50-$70k and no per diem) would result in fewer lawyers/consultants, who can't afford life at that income, and more average citizens running for office.

That is only $21, 612 per year. They do get a per diem for days in session, together with some other allowances for time spent on official duties. Overall, Oregon Legislators are not paid very much in my opinion.

C'mon now. You need to take a good look at that per diem and those "other allowances" they get when considering their compensation. See ORS 171.072 for a start. And as for those allowances being reimbursement for time spent on official duties... I guess some folks' definition of "official duties" differs from others'.

This is a real pet peeve of mine, so forgive the rant:

That "low salary" everyone likes to quote is already a monthly salary they receive year long, whether in session or not. So, they get paid whether they're working or not. True, when they are actually doing the people's business (if that's what you call what they do when in session) their salary alone doesn't average out to that much per hour, but the per diem takes up the slack then. And the rest of the year, it's pretty darn sweet to be able to work your regular gig and draw legislative pay. And perks. The pay is nothing compared to the perks.

Yeah, yeah, I know some (even many or most?) serve on committees, meet with constituents, and really do other official work during the interim, but they aren't required to - and are reimbursed with per diem and in other ways for this interim work, anyway. I personally don't think we should be paying them to campaign for re-election - which they all spend a great deal of time on and label as "official business."

Re: that per diem. The last info I can find says per diem for our leges is $109. That amount is automatically adjusted by the feds and is the "allowance that is authorized by the United States Internal Revenue Service to be excluded from gross income without itemization." I'm not a tax whiz, but that means they get the max that's not taxable, without having to account for where it's been spent, right?

And they don't have to account for it. Or provide receipts, or do anything to prove they actually used this tax-free money for what the IRS says it's intended - that is: food, lodging, and a very small portion for incidentals. Our legislature has conveniently redefined per diem as: "as an allowance for expenses not otherwise provided for."

Not to mention, all leges get the same per diem. So one from John Day, for instance, who has legitimate shelter costs, gets the same amount as the one who commutes from Portland, and doesn't. Let's not forget that they get mileage reimbursement (at the federal rate, somewhere around .55/mile) AND can double-dip, using their tax-payer funded allowances while using campaign donations for the same expenses. Not too shabby.

Back to that per diem. $109 x 180 days - which is a very hopeful target for the length of a session, it was 227 days long in 2003 (and who gets paid a bonus for dragging their feet and accomplishing nothing anyway - not me) = $19,620! Tax-free! How much is that in taxable dollars? And why should we pay for their meals and incidentals anyway? Most people's employers don't these days. Why should a lege within reasonable commuting distance get any per diem?

In addition:

(4) A member of the Legislative Assembly shall receive, as an allowance for expenses incurred in the performance of official duties during periods when the legislature is not in session, $400 for each calendar month or part of a calendar month during those periods, to be paid monthly, and subject to approval of the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, mileage expenses and a per diem determined as provided in subsection (9) of this section for each day a member is engaged in the business of legislative interim and statutory committees, including advisory committees and subcommittees of advisory committees, and task forces and for each day a member serves on interstate bodies, advisory committees and other entities on which the member serves ex officio, whether or not the entity is a legislative one.

(5) In addition to the mileage and per diem expense payments provided by this section, a member of the Legislative Assembly may receive reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses, subject to approval by the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House of Representatives, for legislative business outside of the state.

(7) Amounts received under subsections (3) to (5) of this section are excluded from gross income and expenditures of the amounts are excluded in computing deductions for purposes of ORS chapter 316. ...

(8) For periods when the Legislative Assembly is not in session, the Legislative Administration Committee shall provide for a telephone and an expense allowance for members of the Legislative Assembly that is in addition to the amount allowed under subsection (4) of this section. In determining the amount of allowance for members, the committee shall consider the geographic area of the member’s district. The additional allowance shall reflect travel expenses necessary to communicate in districts of varying sizes.

Now, do you want to talk PERS, and the family health care benefits they get? How 'bout the fact that they get to - and do - practice nepotism, many times hiring relatives who do little or nothing and may not even reside in the state. That really boosts the old household income, doesn't it?

You get the point. Give me a break when it comes to discussing our poor destitute lawmakers. Especially in this economy. There is no mandatory education or experience required for this job. Rather than the standard "you get what you pay for" excuse, I say we should only pay for what we're getting. Which ain't much.

The idea of the Oregon Legislature was that they would all have real working lives outside of Salem.

That "idea" is more than a century old, and our state is a bit more complicated to govern than when it was little more than a few timber towns and farmland.

With the time demands and special sessions, the membership of the legislature is quite predictable--wealthy business owners, retirees, people with working spouses. If you want professionals running government, then you have to pay them. The era of amateur legislatures has been abandoned almost everywhere, I'm surprised people hold so tightly onto it in this state.

Maybe, just maybe there is a linkage between our amateur part time legislature and ability of the legislature to do its job?

The notions floated above that the legislature should meet even less is laughable--do you realize what would actually happen? That would result in a major shift in power to the governor's office and to the bureaucracy.

Look, if you think the Legislature is dysfunctional, then elect some new members. But don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. An annual legislature is long overdue.

"I just think it's more practical than only meeting a couple months every two years."

Any proof besides your say-so? Based on the special sessions which don't really add anything besides more "pet project" laws, I am not really convinced.

Especially when given a chance they won't address PERS reform or other budget issues beyond taking eveyr chance to cut schools they can. So what diff would it make giving them more time?

"An annual legislature is long overdue."

Remind me again what they did with this special session and why it would be any diff if they were full-time? I mean like some real issues they could have addressed, but didn't have enough time to?

I hear a lot of "we need it because everybody else has one" and "I feel" reasoning, but not much substance.

Keeping the circus open all year doesn't make them any less Bozos.

With the time demands and special sessions, the membership of the legislature is quite predictable--wealthy business owners, retirees, people with working spouses.

Enough of this populace b.s. So if you raise their pay, we'll get a whole crop of great new candidates? LOL!

Does anyone really believe that it's only the (allegedly) low pay that keeps others out of the game? It wouldn't be the lack of money and/or connections it takes to get elected, would it?

And sorry, but when you consider their entire compensation package, the allegedly lowly legislative pay would be a big raise for a large percentage of the population. With perks many of us would never even dream of having again in this lifetime - if we ever did.

Anyway, I'm not convinced I want "professionals running government" considering the mess such inbreeding has produced in the financial sector. Especially if the only way they'll serve is to be compensated like they were in the private. It IS called "public SERVICE," after all. And though I don't expect anybody to become destitute and homeless, living on what approaches to be somewhere in the area of $45,000 per year considering all pay, perks and benefits - for a part-time* job - is far from that.

[*Again, I don't want to pay them for campaigning. I don't get paid to job hunt, why should they? I also don't have people giving me money (campaign funds)to job hunt the way they do. And until they give us some sort of accounting as to what % of time is spent working for us vs. getting re-elected, the whole argument about their growing time demands is specious.]

Maybe if these people had to live on what about half of their constituency lives on (or less), they'd do a better job of representing everyone. Not just corporations and campaign donors.

Only two states have biannual legislatures: Oregon and Texas. The other 48 have annual legislatures.

Not sure where you're getting your data Justin, but according to the Nat'l. Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL, here at: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=18630, which provides a wealth of more impartial information based on actual data rather than feelings), there are five states that don't have regular sessions this year: Oregon, Texas, Montana, Nevada and N. Dakota.

Thanks bartender. I should have double checked, I could only remember Texas.

So 45 of 50 states have annual sessions. That's still like what, 99% of the states. :)

Honestly, it's not a huge deal. Clearly the Oregon legislature can function the way it is currently organized. I just think for budgetary purposes, it would run better as an annual legislature. But again, not a big deal.

The NCSL also states (here: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16701 ) that in general, legislators in Oregon report they spend approximately 70% of a full-time job "on legislative work including time in session, constituent service, interim committee work, and election campaigns."

And for that, per the NCSL, the "[e}stimated average annual compensation of legislators including salary, per diem, and any other unvouchered expense payments" was $35,326 in 2008.

$35k for a 70% job is the same as $50,000 for a full-time, 100% position. The median income for an entire family of four in Portland last year was $70,000. That's in Portland, not state-wide, please note. Anyone know what the median income was per person? I'll bet it wasn't over $50,000.

And this doesn't include PERS, health care and the other hard-to-value perks like campaign fund double-dipping and nepotism, that our leges enjoy.

So 45 of 50 states have annual sessions. That's still like what, 99% of the states. :)

I like your argument, Justin, but I hope your job doesn't involve math.

"I just think for budgetary purposes, it would run better as an annual legislature."

What would they do different exactly if it were annual?

Right now, we get two scenarios from the Legislature (and to be fair, the Gov):
- When times are tough - We have to raise taxes or else we'll cut schools
- When times are good (like 2007) - Lets give schools a 20% raise. Of course, nothing changes in the schools. Then pet projects get funded and we forget about the rainy-day fund.

I also just realized that those sneaky dogs changed the statute re: their salary in last session.

Used to be, it was a set amount. Now, they've pegged their salary to that of a certain pay level in both the executive and judicial branches. The greater of those two, of course:

---
(1) A member of the Legislative Assembly shall receive for services an annual salary of the greater of:

(a) One step below the maximum of Salary Range 1 in the Management Service Compensation Plan in the executive department as defined in ORS 174.112; or

(b) Seventeen percent of the salary of a Circuit Court Judge.
---

Now, they don't have to do the politically uncomfortable thing and vote themselves pay raises anymore. They can just vote to increase the pay of either of these two positions and give themselves a backdoor raise too. Sweet.

Why should a lege within reasonable commuting distance get any per diem?

Agreed. I would hope that per diem would go away with regular sessions. If it basically becomes a permanent job, then they should have to move to Salem for their elected term.

BTW, I dont think anyone should get a car paid for by the taxpayers if they have a state job in Salem. When I worked at a metal shop in Keizer, I commuted from Beaverton. And I could not believe the numerous "state owned" cars taking I5 south to Salem in the morning. Many with one person inside. We shouldnt have to pay for that. You want to work there, pay for your own travel, or move there.
And if God forbid they make WES go to Salem, then make the state workers use it.