The state of
the State

The pay raise controversy

THE NOVEMBER 29 pay raise was perhaps the most unpopular action the legislature has undertaken in the last four years. The method and timing of the pay boost were more upsetting than the amount, but the bad example set by a 40 per cent pay increase for Illinois' top public officials may cause the most long-lasting damage. At the very least the raise is symbolic of the distance between the people and their leaders.

In a single day, November 29, legislators passed into law Senate Bill 255, amended to grant $8,000-a-year pay raises to legislators, judges, clerks of the appellate and Supreme courts, the top six statewide elected officers, the auditor general and many others (see "Legislative Action" for details). The legislators' pay boost— from $20,000 to $28,000 — makes them effectively the highest paid in the nation. California lawmakers are paid $30,799 per year, but they must cover all their living expenses with this salary, while Illinois legislators receive $36 in expense allowances each day they are in session and mileage allowances for travel.

The method of engineering the pay raise was itself suspect. The raise was amended onto a bill giving travel expense increases to legislators — from the present 15 cents per mile up to 20 cents. Lawmakers got around the constitutional requirements of three readings in both houses and public input through committee hearings by attaching the pay hike to a bill which had already passed the House and was on third reading in the Senate. The Senate amended and passed the bill, and the House concurred within hours. Then the pay raise was almost immediately vetoed by the mechanical pen of a vacationing governor and passed into law on override votes of 37-21 in the Senate and 110-58 in the House. Finally, the bill was filed in the Secretary of State's office. The entire process took just five hours and 37 minutes.

Only the governor's immediate veto allowed such swift lawmaking. Had Gov. James R. Thompson delayed application of the veto — as he usually does — there would have been time for a public and media response that might have changed the vote on the eventual override. Thompson had promised he would veto a pay raise, and he did. But he did not "stop" the pay raise. A flood of irate letters to newspapers, editorials, talk show comment and other public response displayed outrage at the pay hike and at the governor's timely veto, even though Thompson said "there was no deal."

Under the state Constitution a governor has 60 days to consider a bill before it becomes law. Had Thompson with-held his veto for 42 days until a new General Assembly would be seated, or until the 80th General Assembly was permanently adjourned, there would have been no opportunity for an over ride. But the governor said he did not want to play such games with the legislature.

The legislature's passage of the pay raise after the general election was criticized, but the last legislative pay raise also came during a lame duck session. In the 1975 lame duck session, legislators boosted their salaries 14 per cent, by $2,500. Elected government officials cannot grant themselves immediate pay hikes; raises are always effective at the beginning of the next term. This is a constitutional restriction and is the reason the legislature rejected the concept of voting for a step pay increase, spread over a period of years.

The 40 per cent pay raises upset President Jimmy Carter, who had in October requested voluntary economic controls that would limit pay increases in the private and the public sectors to 7 per cent. But the Illinois lawmakers didn't get all the criticism because Cook County Board members increased the salaries by 30 per cent while Chicago aldermen gave themselves raises of 60 per cent.

Alfred E. Kahn, chairman of President's Council on Wage-Price Stability demanded the Illinois officials reconsider their raises. Both the governor and Chicago Mayor Michael A. Bilandic sent their budget directors to Washington to negotiate with Kahn. Afterwards both Bilandic and The son called for raises to be given in yearly increments during terms of office. The Chicago City Council approved a four-year pay plan December 13, but the next day legislative leaders rejected the governor's plea to follow suit. A special session could be called, but January 10 is their last day to reconsider, since the new legislative session begins that day under the new pay rate. Judges received their higher pay as of December 1,while the governor's raise is to take effect January 8. Once a raise takes effect, it cannot be changed during a term of office.

Some believe that the amount of the pay increase was not out of line. John L. Knuppel(D., Virginia) called it "modest." Knuppel said,"If it[the raise] were not enacted now, many legislators would not get one until 1983, almost 10 years from the last increase.It has become virtually a fulltime job, since we went to annual sessions."

The amount of the raise, costing $8.4 million out of a balanced $11.4 billion budget, is not much — 7/10,000 of the state's spending. And it is less than recommended by the governor's Special Committee on Salaries, headed by former Gov. Samuel Shapiro. In March 1978, the committee recommended legislative salaries of $30,000 and
Continued on page 9.

2/ January 1979/ Illinois Issues

Continued from page 2.

gubernatorial and judicial salaries of $75,000.

The 40 per cent pay increase will also be bad for the morale of citizens and local government officials. And 40 per cent may seem high to state employees, who average a yearly increase of only 3.5 to 5.5 per cent.

The example set by a 40 per cent raise during a downward economic cycle may also make it difficult for the 81st General Assembly to hold down spending increases for agencies and pay raises for public employees. Ultimately, the legislature is likely to be torn between tougher public demands for less taxation and stronger pressures from interests which need more money for government programs to keep up with inflation.

Given past history, it is doubtful that the public will remember the issue two or four years hence, and vote out those legislators who voted for the increase. The cumulative voting system for House members makes this all the more unlikely. Illinois voters do not have a direct law-making power, similar to California's referendum and initiative system, nor do they have the recall to oust elected officials. .

But finally, the pay increase can only exacerbate a "fundamental unhappiness" among voters described by conservative lawyer and writer Kevin Phillips in an interview in the September State Legislatures. Phillips says there is evidence of "populist spasms" in a "mushrooming growth of the recall mechanism; the demand for constitutional conventions; the increasing demand for initiative mechanisms where they don't exist, and increasing use of them where they do exist; and a trend for independent parties to get on the ballot more readily.

January 19791 Illinois Issues/9