ABQ Journal covers Amendment 4 debate (but not RGF or Common Cause for that matter)

Over the weekend the Rio Grande Foundation participated in a debate over whether to adopt Amendment 4 (which would pay legislators a $68,000 salary).

RGF’s president Paul Gessing was one of four debaters which included two former legislators (one on either side) Bob Perls in support and Mark Boitano opposed. Also, RGF was joined by a grassroots activist for Common Cause (they support Amendment 4 while RGF opposes it).

The ABQ Journal article does a good job covering the back and forth between Perls and Boitano.

Gessing’s remarks are below:

My view is that paying legislators is something worth considering, but the proposal in Amendment 4 of a $68,000 annual salary for legislative sessions lasting 30 or 60 days annually and in the absence of systemic reforms is NOT a good approach. Voters should reject Amendment 4 when they go to the polls.

The New Mexico Legislature needs serious reforms. We’d like to see elimination of the very generous legislative pension system, term limits, and a prohibition on voting on your own paycheck as an employee of an entity (like Albuquerque Public Schools) which is funded by appropriations from the Legislature.

None of these (or other reforms) are even contemplated in Amendment 4 or on this Fall’s ballots. New Mexicans should be given the opportunity to vote on at least some reforms as the Legislature moves itself toward “modernization.”

Instead, we have a plan to pay our part-time 30-60 day legislature a $68,000 salary equivalent to the median wage of a family of four. It will be adjusted for inflation into the future. If adopted New Mexico’s legislators would be the highest paid non-full time legislature in the nation and Wisconsin which DOES have a full time Legislature would pay its legislators less than New Mexico’s

According to NCSL, Colorado pays its legislators about $45,000 annually for sessions lasting 120 days per year.

Arizona legislators receive a salary of $24,000 for sessions lasting 100 days per year.

Texas legislators receive salaries of $12,000 annually for sessions lasting 140 calendar days over the span of two years.

My personal favorite is New Hampshire, which has zero income tax, no sales tax, some of the best outcomes across all measures in the nation and technically has a “paid” Legislature. The annual salary is $100.

Each of these states outperform New Mexico on nearly every metric. Is a fat paycheck with no other reforms going to magically improve New Mexico’s outcomes?

It is true that for some New Mexico legislators the job is full time, but many legislators hold down jobs when the Legislature is out of session. There’s nothing in this amendment prohibiting legislators making $68,000 from continuing their work in other fields. Such a prohibition COULD be added to a revised future amendment to pay legislators which might be worth supporting.

While advocates claim that a paid legislature would more broadly represent New Mexicans I’d argue that the issue isn’t the pay, it is the flexibility of their primary employment that determines whether people can become legislators.

The main obstacle to a firefighter or a single mom with a young child serving in the Legislature isn’t money, it’s flexibility to take the time off to spend long days and nights in Santa Fe session. A paycheck may help bring some new faces into Santa Fe, but it might (along with the generous pension) also lead to old faces sticking around past their sell by dates. The current system DOES act as a form of term limits. A highly-paid Legislature could lead to a lack of turnover.

Think about Sherly Williams Stapleton. She was an APS Administrator who also served in the Legislature. Before the big scandal where she was stealing money from APS, she was caught violating APS policy by taking a paycheck from the district (which receives most of its funding through the Legislature). This is inherently a problem and contributed greatly to the corruption scandal.

Under this proposal, she (and others like her and there are several APS employees who are in the Legislature) could get elected to the Legislature, take home per diem of $247, a $68,000 salary, her APS salary, her legislative pension, and her APS pension. All while voting for the interests of herself and her employer while in Santa Fe.

Nothing in this amendment will result in better outcomes or representation for the people of New Mexico.

That’s why the Editor of the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, all Republicans in the Legislature, and a handful of prominent Democrats in the Legislature, not to mention former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (a Democrat) oppose Amendment 4.

Financial supporters of Amendment 4 are primarily out of state “progressive” groups. The left-leaning Wyoming nonprofit Western Futures Fund spent $1.2 million and Delaware-based Contours Inc. put up another $800,000. Why?

Vote no on Amendment 4.