When was the last time a legislator was elected with a "secret" career?

If their district cares about this, then it should be made an issue during the campaign. If not, why would we pursue it?

If they really do push for legislators not being able to have "side jobs" then the rules need to be applied equally to both sides! I would, as a matter of avoiding any appearance of conflict of interest, also push for prohibiting legislators from working at NPOs while in office as well. That all being said, they need to pay legislators more so they can actually afford to have this be their ONLY jobs. As it stands now you have to be rich or have a second job in order to sustain yourself while serving in the legislature. Paying them fairly while serving would allow them to focus on their primary jobs - serving the public and avoid ethical concerns about trying to balance too many things. IMHO.

Signed,

Big "GOP" Greg

Why is there always so much resistance to disclosure? The Center for Public Integrity gives Oregon a "D" in this area, and if our legislators were truly committed to improving their reputation, you think they'd be willing to improve on this.

Come to think of it... they'd also be able to justify - on paper - their constant whining about their so-called "poverty-level" wages.

[BTW - FULL-TIME minimum wage = $16,224, so their $18+ grand for less than part-time work seems pretty fair to alot of us out here.]

In order to get Food Stamps or the Oregon Health Plan, I have to disclose EVERYTHING - a 20-some page application - every six months. Why is it so friggin hard - or unfair - for legislators to tell us where their financial interests may lie?

Madam H

Had you paid attention to the Public Comm. on the Legislature, you would have heard stories from not only current but former legislators about how legislative work can be full time or more--constitutent calls, interim committees, work groups, etc.

But if you believe they quit working the minute they leave the Capitol after Sine Die and don't do any work unless there is a special session, then say so. Not everyone will agree with you.

The easiest way to see what changes could be made here would be to take a look at what's done next door, in Washington.

Here's a link to the site for the Public Disclosure Commission there: Washington PDC .

Most Washington legislators work other jobs, despite the fact that they make twice each year what Oregon legislators do.

I agree with GregT that Oregon's legislators are underpaid for what they do, but support full disclosure. While Greg is correct that their districts should make their other occupations a issue during elections, often what they say and do in office has effects that reach beyond their districts. Disclosure provides a better context for their votes and positions for those outside their districts.

I agree with JHL on this one.

You know, some things are just wrong at the start. This discloser of client names might sound right, but it is completely wrong.

For one thing, in some cases it violates the law, Federal law that is.

Every day I do financial business with lenders and banks in my appraisal business. Confidentiality is regulated by the Gramm-Leach_Bliley Act of 1999 that was effective on July 1, 2001. You might know it as those little slips of paper that come with your credit card bills, but for me, each report I write has an element of Federally mandated confidentiality that goes with it.

If a Bank President wins a seat in the legislature, would you have her disclosing each and every clients business with the Bank?

If a GP Doctor wins a seat in the legislature, would you have the name of every patient become a matter of public record?

Both of the Bank President and the Doctor would have to violate Federal confidentiality laws to disclose that information.

As for GregT - Non-profit organizations include things like child care center, church sponsored homeless shelters, Hospitals, and a host of other service oriented places.

-- Would you have the janitor at the Hospital in Eugene denied his right to run for the legislature because her employer was "non-profit"? The courts would strike such a law deader than dead very quickly.

I wish people would think these things through.

The Washington system works pretty well and seems to be a good middle ground. You don't want doctors, lawyers, bankers and others who work with sensitive information to be required to disclose details of their outside jobs.

Having said that, I can close my eyes and dream of the day when Dr. XYZ, legislator and owner of the "Gonorrhea Clinic of Oregon" is required to publish a list to disclose that last year he provided professional services to 28 Republican legislators and 15 Evangelical Ministers, listed by name, date(s) of service, and frequency of visits to the Clinic. Now there is some information that we (not to mention quite a few divorce lawyers) would love to see.

Jenni -

I like the way you are thinking on this one. Legislators do need more pay, in fact, they may have a right under Oregon law to more pay.

A normal work year, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks, is 2,080 hours. But if you get real about the hours put in by our legislators, say 60 hours a week, it is closer to 3,000 a year. Using your $18,000 figure, that is $6.00 per hour - which is of course much below the Oregon minimum wage. In fact, at straight time (not time and a half), $18,000 divided by the Oregon minimum wage ($7.80) divided by 52 weeks, comes to comes to 44.38 hours a week before the minimum wage standard is violated.

I think just about everyone of those 90 we elect to Salem work more than 44.38 hours a week.

So, is Oregon violating the minimum wage law in its own legislature?

Kari,

Helpful commentary with great info, thanks. Any word on the chances for SB494? It just seems like common sense, which as we know does not mean that it will see the light of day!

I'm a public employee and am required to disclose outside income and investments. And as of a few weeks ago, I am required to provide my agency with my the name of my spouse's employer and any investments she may have separately, as well as investments we hold for our kids.

So...why not legislators at all levels, too?

In a National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) survey, Oregon’s salons stated the average estimated proportion of a full-time job they spend on legislative work - including time in session, constituent service, interim committee work and election campaigns - is 70%.

According to the Oregonian, the NCSL estimates average total compensation in 2003 for a legislator in Oregon to be $30,500 (after adjusting for the biennial session) including salary, per diem, and any other unvouchered expense payments. If legislative duties (including campaigning for election, remember) take up the equivalent of 70% of a full-time job, this equates to an annual full-time income of $43,570.

Per the Oregon Employment Department, the average annual pay for a worker in Oregon (in 2003) was $35,621 --- $8,130 less per year than average legislative pay.

===

And, I've said this before... The sentiment that "[p]aying them a normal wage would theoretically reduce their susceptability to being bribed," makes me want to puke. Of all reasons to raise their pay, can we please just throw this one out? It is so totally lame.

It's like the Oregonian (‘Dan Doyle’s miscalculations’, Jan. 27, 2005):

"Oregon could hardly do more to tempt lawmakers – paid on the fiction of a part-time job – to dip into the tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, that flow to their campaigns."

I don’t know about you, but I find these types of statements reprehensible and the lack of outrage over this type of entitlement appalling. To claim that we need to pay more to ensure (or attract) more moral and ethical candidates is oxymoronic to me. Just for fun, let’s do a little word substitution to the above statement:

"Oregon could hardly do more to tempt waitresses – paid on the fiction of a part-time job – to dip into the hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands of dollars, that flow to their tills."

Would this argument be met with the sympathetic nods afforded to our legislators? Fat chance.

So why don't they do something "progressive" and do the legislature via teleconferencing from their respective locales?

Per diems may not be intended to be salary, but it pays for things that other people pay for out of their salaries, so it must be accounted for – along with all the other legislative benefits, payments and perks - when discussing their compensation. Salary can’t be evaluated in a vacuum. When you’re looking for work, you don’t just consider the salary alone when you evaluate a potential employer’s offer. Benefits, perks and things like per diem are most certainly a part of the whole package and can’t be ignored. The same holds true for legislators.

And actually, per diem can be either vouchered or not. Oregon’s legislators do not have to itemize or provide receipts for their per diem. In other words, there is no accountability. About half of the states have unvouchered per diem, the rest either have no per diem or require them to account for their expenses (18 states do).

And technically, according to the IRS, per diem is for lodging, meals and "incidentals" ONLY (not mileage - which is reimbursed separately). The GSA not only sets maximum unvouchered per diem limits each year, they break it down by how much of that amount is for lodging, how much for meals, and how much for incidentals.

Oregon statute however, states only that legislative per diem is to be used “as an allowance for expenses not already provided for” (which is pretty broad, and in direct conflict with the federal intent, if you ask me) and shall be the “amount fixed for per diem allowance that is authorized by the IRS to be excluded from gross income without itemization.”

Not only do they not have to account for these expenditures or necessarily use them for food and lodging as the IRS intends, the amount set may or may not have any correlation to each legislator’s actual costs or expenses. It’s just the maximum that they can get without having to be accountable or taxed. So, a legislator whose home district is in Salem, and can presumably live at home all the time, gets the same per diem as one from John Day.

If the per diem exceeded the GSA rate and was unvouchered, it'd be considered wages. So depending on how an employer handles per diem - it may or may not be considered as wages. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the average or median income figures given by the census or the OR Employment Dept. specify if they include these types of payments or not. Wages is wages, as far as they’re concerned, and if per diem is treated as wages, it would be reported as such in the averages.

Per diem is paid seven days a week while they're in session regardless if they're doing state work or not - like holidays or weekends. Why should they be paid for sitting on their butts at home? [And when you consider the marathon length of their last two regular sessions, I have to say that I’d sure like a job where I got paid extra for every day I drag my feet, argue with my coworkers and otherwise accomplish nothing.] It is also paid, along with mileage, during the interim anytime they are involved in committee work, task forces, advisory committees, etc. (whether or not the entity is a legislative one) - which is something no one ever mentions.

Here’s another interesting thing about per diem for members of state boards and commissions. While legislators get their standard amount of $99/day (which it was back during the 2005 session – it’s more now), “any member of a state board or commission, other than a member who is employed in full-time public service”, may be paid a maximum of only $30 per day and this is “subject to the availability of funds”.

So legislators get over three times the amount as other members may possibly get for compensation when serving on the same board or commission.

$99 per diem = almost $700 per week extra, untaxed, unaccountable income. That equals about $3,000 extra per month to be spent on whatever they like during the session.

At say, $3 per gallon, you'd get 1,000 gallons of fuel for that kind of spare change. If you get 20 miles to the gallon, you'd be able to drive 20,000 miles... per month - or over 650 miles per day! $3,000 per month makes for one hell of a second mortgage or rent payment too, I'd venture.

As Rep. Kitts has shown, Oregon’s lax campaign spending laws apparently also allow double dipping. He paid himself $3,500 in December of 2002 from ‘leftover’ campaign funds for gas for his truck while at the same time reimbursing himself for mileage via his legislative account for the same vehicle.

During periods when the legislature is not in session, lawmakers get $400 per month “as an allowance for expenses incurred in the performance of official duties.” This payment is in addition to per diem and mileage, and like them, is not taxed. The statute states these “are excluded from gross income” but can be itemized and expenses paid in excess of the amounts received can be claimed as deductions. How many do so, I wonder? If their expenses really do exceed their pay, I would expect most of them to itemize and claim this deduction.

Hey, most of us don’t get paid mileage or meals for the privilege of going to work. (I mean, I have to eat every day whether I go to work or not – why should my employer feed me?) I also live up on the mountain because housing is a tad more affordable. An hour, or hour-and-a-half commute is pretty typical for a lot of folks up here. And when gas prices go through the roof – our disposal income is reduced – not accommodated for. Why should we pay $3 grand a month extra to cover the theoretical expenses of pols who have the same kind of commute to Salem?

I’m sorry. All these things are related, and no one ever honestly sits down and evaluates them all together. All these big ethics reforms need to be done in concert, not piecemeal. If you want to raise their salaries in order to provide the poor dears with a comfortable, decent living and lifestyle (which thanks, at least in part, to their policies and decisions – too many Oregonians still do not enjoy) you have to look at all the things that contribute to their financial well-being – or alleged lack thereof.

I stand corrected. It seems that some are honestly sitting down and evaluating all these things together. The PCOL agrees with much of what I wrote.

[And actually, LT, I did pay attention to the PCOL for the first few months... until I got bogged down in its "blue sky" approach and proposals to replace curtains and move the gift shop in the capitol. I lost interest after that, I admit.)

From the PCOL's final recommendations:

When establishing legislator compensation, the Public Officials Compensation Commission should take into account the effects of all other possible forms of compensation in recommending legislative salaries, including but not limited to: per diem payments during session and interim; mileage payments during session and interim; and hiring of family members as personal staff. The POCC should develop a salary differential, based on geography, after reviewing the impact on those legislators who must travel long distances or maintain two residences in order to participate in the legislative process in Salem.

Hmmm, per diem is compensation? Imagine that.

And the PCOL made some great statements regarding the choice to run for office with which I heartily agree:

"Service in the legislature requires personal and professional sacrifices. ... Compensation should not be the reason for a person to run for legislative office. ... The public would rather be represented by a citizen legislature than a professional legislative body, and a citizen legislature includes members of diverse ages, employment and financial backgrounds."

But then they follow all this up with conclusions with which I disagree:

"...an increase in legislator compensation may help create an environment that attracts high quality citizens from a broad range of backgrounds to participate in the process."

Yeah, an increase will probably attract more people. But to say they'd be "higher quality" irks me and certainly isn't supported by our federal legislature's example. High salaries haven't exactly allowed citizens from a broad range of financial backgrounds to serve there have they? Have you counted how many millionaires there are in Congress these days?

I guess what bugs me is the implication that "high quality citizens" are only those who would see a decrease in their income were they to be elected. What about those of us for whom that measly $30 grand per year - complete with PERS and full benefits - would be a huge raise? Doesn't that "broad range of financial backgrounds" include those of us struggling to survive at or below the poverty level?

We're not all blithering idiots just because we make minimum wage (or live on disability or are currently unemployed), you know? Just like being financially solvent does not mean you're smart or have the skills necessary to be an effective legislator.

The Oregonian wrote: "Anyone who actually works for a living simply cannot afford the economic hit involved in going to Salem."

Millions of Oregonians would disagree. Maybe it’s time someone represented us.

<hr/>