Rochestermn.com

RochesterMagazine.com

RochesterMarketplace.com

AustinPB.com

Rochester, MN's local news source.

News Business Sports Entertainment Life Obituaries Opinion Jobs Homes Auto Classifieds Shopping

Text size: font - font +

Opinion

Editorial: Dump 'per diem' and pay legislators a fair salary

11/7/2009 8:55:02 AM

Comments (13)

It's become an annual tradition -- kind of a guilty one, admittedly -- to compare the expense reimbursements for members of the Minnesota Legislature.

Search the per diem database

The numbers tempt us to take pot shots. Our senators and representatives earn $31,140 in salary, but some of them also claim that much and more to cover their travel, lodging and daily cost of living.

Those daily costs, also known as per diem, are the most interesting.

For senators, the per diem is $96 per day. House members are expected to get by on just $77 per day, seven days per week, during the legislative session. When you crunch the numbers, that means that during the 2009 session, senators who claimed their full per diem received $12,768. House members could receive up to $10,241.

No receipts needed, no questions asked.

Let's face the truth. We believe that very few legislators, perhaps none, actually spend all of their per diem dollars on food and expenses related to their work in St. Paul. It's supplemental income, and in 2007 it was increased substantially -- 45 percent in the Senate -- with very little fanfare. Voice votes in each chamber's respective rules committee were all that was needed.

We don't grudge them the money. Legislators' pay hasn't increased since 1999, and the current salary seems inadequate for a job that, to be done well, requires much more than a four-month commitment.

But we would argue that it's time to make the system more equitable and above-board. As it is, some legislators are financially secure enough to simply forego the per diem, and thus receive praise for being frugal with taxpayers' money. Others must claim every nickel simply to make ends meet -- and thus risk becoming targets of fiscal watchdogs.

The solution?

We propose putting an end to the per diem system. In its place, we'd support a significant salary increase for all legislators, perhaps in an amount that approaches what they currently can receive through per diem.

This pay raise, which is long overdue, would create greater transparency in the compensation given to our public officials, and would also make more of their income subject to state and federal income taxes.

No one would have to worry about claiming per diem dollars, then being raked over the coals for doing so by a future opponent. Nor would anyone earn adulation for publicly declaring "I shall not take my per diem!" If any legislators truly believe that such a pay raise is excessive, we'd encourage them to quietly donate the extra money to a charity.

The only downside of our proposal? We'd have one less thing to talk about every fall.

It would be a good trade-off.

E-mail Story

Print Story

There are 13 comments - Display All Comments

Othelmo__
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/7/2009 at 10:17:30 PM

It looks like Ann Lynch has risen to the top of the per diem dung heap again this year.

“the current salary seems inadequate for a job that, to be done well, requires much more than a four-month commitment.”

It’s not supposed to be a full-time job. Four months is more than enough to conduct the business of the state if they focus on conducting the business of the state. $31,140 for four months of work is more than enough.

Report comment as inappropriate

Sea_wolfm
an
Fountain, MN

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 6:33:03 AM

So—you basically admit that most of our representatives are lying and receiving per diem falsely. Now you want to reward that by increasing salary? Basically to get them to stop lying and supplementing their income by a back-handed method.

How can we expect honest people to represent us when the media supports dishonest actions?

Report comment as inappropriate

Hugh_Bric
e
Rocehster, MN

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:06:07 AM

>>> We don’t grudge them the money. Legislators’ pay hasn’t increased since 1999, and the current salary seems inadequate for a job that, to be done well, requires much more than a four-month commitment.

4 months. 1/3 of a year. At that rate, it’s $120,000 per year.

Report comment as inappropriate

Othelmo__
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:47:09 AM

“How can we expect honest people to represent us when the media supports dishonest actions?”

Which is in start contrast with P-B editor Greg Sellnow’s assertion that the media function as government watchdogs. They are more like government abuse enablers.

Report comment as inappropriate

southernm
inny
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 8:22:20 AM

Setting the issue of money aside for a moment, to say that our state legislators only work four months out of the year is sort of like saying our Pastors only work one day a week, or that stay at home parents “don’t work.”

Clearly, we have a collective expectation that these people come to St. Paul prepared, that they are meeting with us, or responding to our requests, letters, phone calls, and e-mails throughout the year. We also expect that they are attending meetings outside of the session’s limitations, so that the state’s affairs are dealt with in meaningful, responsible, and intelligent ways.

As proof, about two weeks ago, I passed Senator Senjem’s minivan on the way to St. Paul—my guess is that he was “on the job,” but as I understand the rules, he cannot claim mileage for the nearly 200 mile round trip.

In thinking overtly about dollars and cents—I have absolutely no doubt that financial considerations have kept, and will continue to keep, many talented people from running for office. Under the given financial conditions, the pool of potential candidates is limited to a very select few who can maintain a life in St. Paul while being away from home and family in Rochester.

Report comment as inappropriate

Atilla
Rochester, Mn

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 9:04:37 AM

Why are Andy Welti’s records missing from the data base?

Editor's Note:

They aren't. 2007 -- $13,024.73 2008 -- $10,229.07 2009 -- $12,022.60

Report comment as inappropriate

Atilla
Rochester, Mn

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 9:11:45 AM

Why is Ann Lynch’s per diem so high?

2007 $41,092.17
2008 $33,827.38
2009 $26,160.06

Report comment as inappropriate

Birddog
rochester, mn

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 6:00:08 PM

“Why is Ann Lynch’s per diem so high?”

It’s 350 miles further to St. Paul from here than from Plainview.
And Andy may ride with Tina so she can tell him how to vote.

Report comment as inappropriate

southernm
inny
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 8:51:58 PM

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but to be fair:

Senjem’s numbers are:
2007: $29,543.06
2008: $25,684.31
2009: $24,171.56

Welti’s numbers, as stated above, by the PB, are about half as high as Senjem’s.

Liebling went just over $16,000 in 2007, and was in the low $6,000s for 2009. Kim Norton was—basically—between $14,000 and $15,000 for the same time period. Demmer’s numbers are in the $20,000s for all three years.

So if Atilla and Bird Dog need every argument to be “Democrats = Bad; Republicans = Good,” they will have to work with a different set of facts for this particular conversation.

That said, I agree that Senator Lynch’s claims seem out of line with her colleagues. It would be interesting to hear her explanation as to why.

Report comment as inappropriate

Birddog
rochester, mn

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 10:13:46 PM

southernminny:

You must have read something I didn’t write. I am not justifying the amount of money that the Republicans spent.
As a matter of fact I feel
Republicans=bad
democrats=much, much worse.
I agree putting an end to the per diem system would be the right thing to do but they don’t need a pay raise to compensate for it. If they don’t like the pay, find a full time job in the private sector.

Report comment as inappropriate

pjs
Rochester, MN

Posted on 11/10/2009 at 8:49:48 AM

Report comment as inappropriate

len9807
mantorville, mn

Posted on 11/10/2009 at 9:38:19 AM

Posted on 11/8/2009 at 7:47:09 AM

“How can we expect honest people to represent us when the media supports dishonest actions?”

Which is in start contrast with P-B editor Greg Sellnow’s assertion that the media function as government watchdogs. They are more like government abuse enablers.
--
I have to agree with you there. “The media” has been asleep at the wheel for some time. Iterestingly enough, the media is labled liberal and lazy, but I don’t recall a single news source questioning any “facts” that came out of Washington during the Iraq war sales pitch. Not one tough question from the “liberal” press about going to war.

Report comment as inappropriate

len9807
mantorville, mn

Posted on 11/10/2009 at 9:39:48 AM

Posted on 11/10/2009 at 8:49:48 AM

Ten years is a long time to go between pay raises. How many of us who work in the private sector would be happy about working today for what we were paid in 1999? We should insist that these legislators make the necessary salary adjustment and give up the per diem. That’s transparency in government and we need more of it.
--
In the private sector jobs are cut and efficiencies are created when times are tough. In addition, if you do a poor job, you’re not rewarded and you’re likely fired.

Report comment as inappropriate