Posted on 05/20/2009 1:27:21 PM PDT by freespirited
A state panel this morning slashed the salaries of elected state officials by 18% -- a day after voters rejected a plan by the governor and Legislature to address the budget crisis.
Citing pay cuts and layoffs being imposed on rank-and-file state workers, the California Citizens Compensation Commission approved the reduction for the governor, legislators and other state officials elected next year.
"I think they should share in the sacrifices that everyone else has had to encounter," said Commissioner Kathy Sands, a former Auburn mayor, after the panel's 5-1 vote at a meeting in Burbank.
The commission had wanted to decrease current officials' pay, but the panel's attorney said California law does not allow that.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Didn't have any trouble finding it when you wanted to spend it.
How much do you think they should be paid in salary?
Today the number is $116,000 per year (less 18% for newcomers)?
How do you expect to attract competent legislators? Who would want the job.
Note that there are more than 5,000 prison guards in California making more than $100K.
They work overime.
Number 19 and 21.
Same old argument. We can't attract 'good' people unless we pay them more. They are overcompensated as it it is. Why are the willing to spend so much to get the job if it isn't worth it? Better to have people more interested in public service than how much they can soak the system for. Make the compensation $1. I doubt there will be any shortage of qualified applicants.
According to state law, their salary is supposed to be set based on three factors:
1) How much time is required to perform official duties, functions, and services
2) The annual salary and benefits for other elected and appointed officials in California with similar responsibilities, including judicial and private-sector officials and
3) The responsibility and scope of authority of the state official.
Also, consider this: In June 2008, I looked up CA government salaries on the database hosted by the SacBee. There were almost 1600 state employees making in excess of $200,000 per year (that is salary only, excluding perks, OT, etc.) There were too many to count if I extended the threshold down to $100,000. When Schwarzenegger took office, only 8 employees made more than $200,000 per year (according to the SF Chron)
Beware of the balance of power here. This appears to me to be a power grab from the Executive Branch whose employees are paid far more than legislators. If they dumb down the legislators enough, they will have unlimited power. Is that the way you want to go?
Compared to what?
How much do you think they should be paid?
Now that’s what we’re talking about, go California.
They should be fined if they don't pass the budget on time.
I want to see a one-house legislature with a two-year budget cycle. The legislature should meet every other year for four months. Stop a lot of the nonsense. 1 six year term.
Nothing more than a small jesture affecting about 125 people that will vote themselves more per deim, travel allowance, etc.
Fire (NO LAY OFFS) 50,000 state employees would be doing something more effective.
But therein lies the problem. They AREN'T cutting state employees. They are giving them raises.
Why be a legislator if you can be an environmental analyst and make 30% more?
I want to be represented in the legislature by someone competent, not the bottom of the barrel ego-monger. Drop the salaries below competitive wages and you'll get the latter, while leaving legislators more susceptible to corruption and ceding their responsibilities to an overbearing executive branch and lobbyists.
“the idea being that an official in political disfavor cannot be hounded out of office by impoverishment’”
SOUNDS LIKE A TERIFFIC PLAN TO ME!
Compared to the results they get. I already said what I thought they should be paid. $1.
The Proposed initiative list can begin.
Item 1. Repeal the Law passed in 1972, Proposition 6, approved by the voters (I wonder how trhey 'sold' that one?), which prohibits the reduction of elected state officials' salaries during their term in office. (comment: it may not however, prohibit the freezing of their salaries for their entire term).
In keeping with fairness and equity, why should state employees, elected or otherwise, get a paycheck for not doing their job?
Private industry doesn't.
Now this is more like it!!! This is progress!!!
Sounds like you are opposed to representative government then.
It can't effectively exist under your option.
Well, if you live in California, and voted in 1972, you voter for exactly that, you idjit!
If they aren't doing their job, there is a remedy: they can be recalled.
This is a power play to weaken ONE branch of government. It stinks.
You drank the kool-aid, I see.
"Officials" are no less employees than the capitol janitor (although the delusional losers think otherwise)!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.