The Rocky Mount Telegram reprinted an AP article entitled “NC salary study may build legislative pay momentum.”
The article conflates a study on judicial pay by the North Carolina Bar
Association (NCBA) with a possible legislative study on both judicial
and legislative pay. It gives the reader the impression that the
NCBA study supports higher legislative pay, when according to the
article, the NCBA study only deals with judicial pay.
It also implies that a comparison between judicial pay increases and legislative pay increases is appropriate.
Judicial compensation is a completely different issue than legislative
pay–judges are full-time employees, legislators are part-time
“citizen” legislators.
The article identifies arguments made by some that the time and pay for
legislators makes it unlikely for anyone but the rich or retired to
serve.
“Candidate recruitment also is difficult…’Almost everyone you talk to
would have to take a substantial pay cut to serve, unless they are
retired,’ said House Minority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake.”
There is nothing that requires legislators to be in session 8-10 months
during the long session. The legislature should shorten their
sessions, and this would make legislative service more practical across
a broad range of demographics. The pay per hour also would
increase.
The article also fails to mention the daily allowances that legislators
receive that significantly drives up legislative pay. According
to Scott Mooneyham in this article,
“If lawmakers serve on study committees that meet during the interim
between legislative sessions, they’ll often take home as much as
$40,000.” That isn’t chump change for what is supposed to be a
part-time gig.
