It is wonderful news that both the PA House and the PA Senate have repealed the pay raise, not just the unvouchered expenses but the entire raise. I do believe that without the Internet and the use of it by engaged residents of the state to keep the issue in the forefront this would not have happened. And that is a wonderful thing. We need to do this more often, not just in a negative way (to repeal something) but in a positive way, to encourage legislation we want to see. I am so proud to be an American today.
There is one cloud on the horizon, though. In today's front page Inky story, note this paragraph:
But the House version may prove to be troublesome. it added a wrinkle that said if any portion of the bill is thrown out by the courts, the entire piece of legislation dies, reinstating the raises for all.Later in the story:
Soon after the Senate bill passed, some legislators wondered whether they had just run afoul of the state constitution, which prohibits pay cuts for judges.Take note also that the legislature is not expected back in session until Nov. 14, after the upcoming election, which includes re-election of two state supreme court judges. One question, if the bill is thrown out by the courts, won't it be by judges whose own raise is the sticking point? How will that conflict of interest be handled?
Posts
6 comments:
In theory, I'm glad they repealed the raise, but I'm pretty sure it was just done to save their jobs. Not necessarily a bad reason, mind you. For now, I'm still sticking with the clean sweep. To me, this is only a very small victory in a large war.
Melissa,
I agree that this is just a first step and we do need to make sure that it wasn't written just so it would be thrown out in court just after the election (do they honestly think we will forget by next spring and the primaries?). We'll have to watch the situation and keep watching it.
CLean sweep did a great job of focusing media and voter attention on the issue. I don't think it would have been repealed without their work, especially their website.
Many Pennsylvanians have been reading or hearing about the repeal in the news. Suprisingly, the reports appear to be a bit biased. You are correct about the Internet and various blogs helping raise the ire on this issue. Make no mistake, the members of the General Assembly heard your voices.
Let me state up front, I have a bias as well, I work in the House. That doesn't change what we did. I just want to explain why the House did what we did, if I may.
On the Pay Raise Repeal:
As the repeal bill was being delivered to the House initially, senior Senate staff stated that the bill may be unconstitutional.
The House considered the bill and amended it by inserting a non-severability clause. The purpose of this was to state in the strongest terms possible that the repeal was to apply to all three branches of government and return compensation to the levels in existence on July 6th. (Our interpretation of what the people want -- and expect)
Now the Governor says our version is unconstitutional because you cannot reduce the compensation for Judges -- period. However, wasn’t it the Governor who promised to give the Judges a pay raise to begin with?
Interestingly, Article V, section 16 (a) of the Constitution says ''...Their compensation shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth". To me, any reasonable person would think that the the pay raise bill applied generally to salaried officers of the Commonwealth so its repeal should also. Certainly this repeal bill does not single out the Judiciary which Article V, section 16 (a) seeks to protect.
On top of all this, some even claim that this was some kind of backdoor attempt to repeal the pay raise, only to have it ruled unconstitutional thereby reinstating the pay raise. That is pure looney!
The House and Senate all voted to repeal the pay raise. It was the right thing to do. It (the pay raise) is dead.
The members of the General Assembly are not seeking any backdoor, side door, or rear window attempt to keep a pay raise; we are only moving forward with a repeal of the pay raise for Legislators, Administration officials and the Judiciary.
Anyway, the bill was returned to the Senate where they replaced the "non-severable clause" with a "severability clause." So why was this specific clause inserted in the Senate? That was answered by Senator Stack as he asked if he had a conflict of interest prior to their vote.
Senator Mike Stack (D-Philadelphia), preparing to vote on an amendment that specifically made the bill severable, said “… since this bill was meant to benefit and protect the judges, I may have a conflict….”
Just to be clear, the House made a valid claim to insure that the compensation of public officials was returned to the July 6th level and nothing else.
One other tidbit: The pay raise bill had a non-severable clause in it, why wouldn't the repeal bill read the same?
Steve,
Thank you for that very thoughtful and detailed comment. This is the sort of information I think people want to have but can't really find. I dont' object to a pay raise for the judges; it's just the way it was done. If a pay raise for legislators was approached differently it may have met with a different reponse. I think people reacted to the way it was done and the unvouchered expenses.
Since I've been writing this blog I've learned a great deal about the way state government works and comments like yours help fill in some of the blanks.
To be honest, the judges will do whatever the judges do about the raise. Our notion is to go back to July 6 (if only people's feelings about state goverment can be so easily turned back!). The pay issue needs to be handled differently, this episode has proven that.
Anytime you need information, please do not hesitate to ask.
Steve,
I appreciate your comments. I do have to note, though, that Mr. Veon and Mr. DeWeese voted against the repeal so it was not unanimous as you said in an earlier comment.
It is unfortunate that this issue has created a breach (or even the appearance of a breach) between the legislature and the public. It would be much better if we all felt like we were working together. Perhaps we can have a discussion on ways to do that.
I do intend to post more about legislative pay. The theory that a larger salary would bring in better qualified candidates is one that I find particularly offensive. (Those well-paid CEO's we've all been reading about are surely an example of this fallacy.)
Please feel free to comment, and especially to disagree. I'm pleased that you thought it worthwhile to stop by.
Post a Comment