“You get what you pay for.” It’s a well worn cliché in capitalistic societies, for a very good reason. It is usually true.
If you hire a cheap lawyer, mechanic or tattoo artist, they are disproportionately likely to do a worse job than a more expensive lawyer, mechanic or tattoo artist. Not always, but often.
Therefore, what are we to make of this: The median annual income of someone over 25 years old who has a bachelor’s degree and a full-time job is $56,078 per year, but duly elected members of the Minnesota legislature are paid only $31,141 per year.
Legislative Salaries In Context
According to simplyhired.com, we pay the folks who make our laws, struggle with our most controversial societal issues, and manage billions of our hard earned tax dollars substantially less than we pay the average sewage worker ($37,000/year), clown ($38,000/year), mall cop ($45,000/year), social worker ($40,000/year), and garbage collector ($43,000/year).
(Insert hilarious joke about clowns and legislators here.)
Now that you got that out of your system, think seriously about this for a minute. What other profession can you name where an organization’s senior executives — the top leaders charged with the organizations’ most important decisionmaking duties — are paid substantially less than the folks they are supervising or governing?
Yet, Minnesota legislators are paid about 14 times less than the Chancellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) ($429,172/year), whose budget they set and oversee. Legislators are paid almost five times less than they pay their management underlings, such as the Director of the Minnesota Zoo ($155,792/year).
Heck, forget about executives, legislators are being paid less than average entry-level bureaucrats.
And we wonder why it’s so difficult to attract talented Minnesotans from outside of political salons to run for office. Salary isn’t the only reason, but it’s a very significant reason. You get what you pay for.
Low Pay, High Demands
It’s easy to take potshots at legislators, but they have very difficult jobs. From December-ish through June-ish, they put in 12-to-18 stressful hours per day, and work at least six days per week.
The rest of the year, many of them continue to work heavy schedules doing official duties, such as attending local meetings, serving on local, state and national task forces and commissions, and preparing initiatives for upcoming sessions.
Between these official duties and the time it takes to run for reelection, it is very difficult to hold another job while serving in the Legislature. For many of them, that $31,141 salary is it.
What’s The Harm?
There are a lot of problems with paying legislators so little, but I particularly worry about two:
Honey, We Shrunk The Talent Pool. First and foremost, low pay dramatically shrinks the talent pool of people willing and able to consider serving, which impacts overall leadership quality in the Legislature. Many to most of Minnesota’s best won’t consider serving in the Legislautre, because they simply cannot afford to take a large pay cut.
Imagine if you listed a job for a tattoo artist, but were only willing to pay half as much as competitors were paying. You probably would get a pool of shoddy tatoo artists, right? Why should we think it would be any different with legislators?
Sure, Minnesotans who have a wealthy spouse, a family fortune, or are at the end of a successful career can afford to take the pay cut. But again, that’s a very small pool that isn’t representative of the population as a whole, and this is supposed to be a representative body.
More Potential for Corruption. The other primary problem with keeping legislative salaries so low is that it makes corruption more tempting, everything from offers of direct payments to promises of lucrative post-service jobs.
If you are making $31,141 per year, and covet a $150,000 per year post-Legislature banking job to put your kids through college, you might just be tempted to be servile to the banking lobby during your time in office. That’s great for special interests, but not for the public interest.
What’s The Solution?
Minnesota’s legislative salaries are set by the Legislature. Obviously, legislators don’t keep their salaries at $31,141 because they think it’s the correct level to draw the best people. They do it because they realize that raising their own salary brings the voters’ wrath. Their salary-related decisionmaking is driven by fear, not an objective market assessment.
This is an area that is ripe for reform. I’m far from a policy expert, but there must be a way to take legislator salary-setting away from legislators, and stop all of this destructive self-flagellation. Some spitballing:
- Option #1: Maybe legislators could authorize some kind of independent Legislative Salary Commission to set salaries. The Commission could be appointed by the Governor, to insulate legislators from public blame for subsequent salary increases.
- Option #2: Maybe Minnesota could pass legislation that indexes legislative salaries to, say, the median salary for a senior manager in the private sector.
- Option #3: If you really want a true “citizen Legislature,” maybe you could set salaries at each member’s pre-service salary, indexed to inflation. That way, Representative Thissen would be earning roughly what Citizen Thissen would be earning outside of the Legislature, no more and no less.
What I don’t recommend is looking to other states, because they are making the same mistakes as Minnesota, or worse. Wisconsin pays a bit more than Minnesota ($49,943/year), and California pays a lot more ($95,291/year), but most states pay even less than Minnesota. We shouldn’t benchmark our salary decisions on other states’ boneheaded decisionmaking.
Members of the Minnesota Legislature are charged with performing difficult and highly consequential executive functions. If we want to draw people who are up to the task, we need to start by paying them something closer to the market rate for that kind of work.
– Loveland
It is an interesting question … and one that not too many have made outside of State Senator Mike Parry who during the shutdown argueing that he need to continue to be paid.
In some ways, you have to wonder how many were concerned not about their salary and per deim but instead what taxpayers would say about Michel Brodkorb’s reported annual salary of $94,000 as a “spokesman for the Senate”. Let us also remember that the Members also earn pension and healthcare coverage … unless something has changed, they could opt-in after retirement even after a doctor told them a diagnois. That’s a healthcare policy that we would all like … buy it after you need it. And you can buy it long after you have left the state … hmmm … wonder if T-Paw is still on our dime?
Yet, I have to wonder if we would be better served if more salary was offered … would any quit their “day job” and become full-time paid legislators ? I understand that the 2013 legislature will have 69 businessowners, 37 educators, 19 lawyers, 10 farmers …. and 21 full-time government employees. That’s from a report from the MN Legislative Reference Library … I suspect that the 21 full-time government employees are some who have “retired” from their day job.
In my district, the DFL failed to nominate a candidate for the House District (actually that happened in a few other districts as well), but I doubt that the salary was a factor … instead it was the district’s layout and chance for winning.
IMO, if we want a more responsive legislature, then Term Limits … give Senators one term and House Members two terms … every four years, a new legislature would come together … and actually may come together to resolve issues.
If I think of the 50 people in my life who I think would do the best job serving in the Legislature, I don’t think more than one or two of them would be able to take the job for that salary. The salary significantly shrinks the talent pool at a time we desperately need talented legislators.
I used to oppose term limits, but I’m to the point now where I’d be open to considering it. We have to do something to bring some fresh attitudes into the Capital Building. I do worry that the loss of expertise through term limits will over-empower unelected staff and special interest lobbyists. But maybe there is a way to stagger terms so that there are always some experienced legislators and some fresh ones.
Joe, Thanks for reading my comment and offering your thoughts.
If I think of the 50 people in my life who I think would do the best job serving in the Legislature, I don’t think more than one or two of them would be able to take the job for that salary.
We can agree that there are others who could do a better job, yet is salary the only disqualifier ? There are plenty of “governing” organizations — ranging from public entities like school boards and city councils to community groups like the Humane Society to church groups — that rely on people devoting their time for little, if any, compensation. Quality people are always in demand. But those quality people also have other demands. The world of politics has a different tone to it … especially today when your personal life can be trashed (or exposed … heck wasn’t that the only goal of Minnesota Democrats Exposed ) over the Internet … thus, IMO, more people are motivated by agenda and philosophy than salary.
For example, I am represented in the House by Tony Cornish. I did not vote for him but he still won 16,278 to 634 … yes that is correct. Representative Cornish campaigned hard in opposition to the Voter ID amendment and defended his votes regarding same-sex marriage. Besides those Constitutional Amendment proposals, Representative Cornish also proposed an Amendment that reaffirms “the right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms” {aka guns}. His legislative accomplishment was to allow county attorneys to carry firearms. Representative Cornish is a retired DNR employee and former Police Chief of Lake Crystal where he used lockdown of the high school to search for drugs. Being retired, he is now free to spend his time hunting coyote but still took time to tell Minnesota Public Radio that he plans to introduce legislation to allow teachers to carry guns in schools.
“If we had teachers with firearms, as scary as it may sound to some, even if somebody got injured in the crossfire, balance that against 20-some kids getting killed. I don’t think it’s a close balance. I think we need to err on the side of the teachers and let them defend the students.”
On the Senate side, I am represented by Julie Rosen. I did not vote for her but she won 25,838 versus 14,516 for the DFL candidate. For much of the state, they know the name Rosen from her efforts involving the Vikings stadium funding but locally it is associated with Rosen’s Diversified of Fairmont which is a private business — the nation’s fifth largest beef processor valued at $2.5 Billion for its agriculture-related corporate empire.
Salary does not seem to prevent these people from being candidates … increasing their salary probably would not affect their motivation to continue being candidates … IMO they are motivated by issues and agenda.
It should be noted that 11 former Minnesota lawmakers will head back to the Legislature in January after previously losing re-election bids or retiring.
Connie Bernardy of Fridley (District 41A). She served from 2001 to 2006.
David Bly of Northfield (20B). Served 2007-10.
Ron Erhardt of Edina (49A). Served from 1991 to 2008 as a Republican.
Tim Faust of Hinckley (11B). Served 2007-10.
Sandra Masin of Eagan (51A). Served 2007-10.
Will Morgan of Burnsville (56B). Served 2007-10.
Jerry Newton of Coon Rapids (37A). Served 2009-10. Paul Rosenthal of Edina (49B). Served 2009-10.
And three in the Senate:
Jim Carlson of Eagan (District 51). Served 2007-10.
Kevin Dahle of Northfield (20). Served 2008-10.
Carrie Ruud of Breezy Point(10). The lone Republican among the 11 returnees, she served from 2003-06.
Was salary a consideration … or was a passion for an issue and public service the motivation ?
If fairness, the same question should be asked : how many incumbents decided to not seek another term because of the low salary ? John Kriesel cited the “strain at home” caused by his work at the state Capitol … I suspect that “family” or other opportunities may be a more common reason than salary.
Thus, the suggestion of term limits … if you know that you will only serve a short time, it might be easier on the family (as well as any employment opportunties) … the “issue” candidates will cycle-through – possibly replaced by similiar “issue” candidates but they will not stay there just re-inforcing their personal agenda. Plus, it might encourage someone new to actually challenge an incumbent whose personal wealth or status is discouraging challengers (including from within their own political party.)
Mac Hall
Mac, I agree that extreme ideologues like Rep. Cornish will serve despite the low salary. But shouldn’t we try to attract more than extreme ideologues and partisan hacks into the mix?
And I agree that folks from wealthy families will serve despite the low salary. But shouldn’t we try to attract more than wealthy people into the mix?
Though it sounds ignoble for legislators to complain about salary, trust me, privately they complain. More to my original point, it significantly narrows the pool when trying to recruit new candidates.
At $31,141, we can fill the legislative seats, it’s true. We probably could fill them paying $0. But I want to draw better leaders outside of the common molds, and I do think paying sub-garbage collector wages is a barrier to that goal.
Good stuff, Mac. Thanks for stopping by.
If you do not like the idea of term limits, here are two more.
What about a unicameral legislature ? Remember when Governor Ventura supported it … such that legislation was authored by Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum, a Republican, and Senate President Allan Spear, a DFLer. The proposal would have created a 135-member body called the Legislature. Individual members, called senators, would serve four-year, staggered terms …. it died because of opposition by the political parties and special interests … thus, when the political pros and special interests agree on keeping that status quo, you know that is not good for the citizens.
Second … why does Minnesota Legislature have 201 members divided into 67 legislative districts (2 House and 1 Senate) ? OK, it may have made sense in the horse-and-buggy days … but today whether something happens in Alexandria or Zumbrota, everyone knows about it immediately … yet I bet the average citizen cannot name thier state representative or state senator. Today, government seems to be working to share resources … counties grouping into regions … isn’t it time to acknowledge that 67 does not have any meaning … an elected official can represent 100,000 people as well as 75,000 or 125,000.
The idea in both of these suggestions is to shrink the number of people involved in the process … every Member gets requests for funding projects that they know will never be approved and know that some projects have better merit than others …. that would force them to be more honest in their assessment.
Ask yourself, is my Representative effective or is he/she just responding to directions of the Party Managers ? Thus if Paul Thiessen or Kurt Daudt is calling the shots, what does my Member contribute?
Interesting ideas, Mac. Thanks for bringing them forward.
I’m not a big unicameral guy. It removes an important check in the lawmaking process, and I think the checks and balances are important to force deliberation and compromise…and slow down rash lawmaking when emotions are running high.
As for the number of legislators, I suppose whatever number you choose is going to be arbitrary in some ways. Generally, I think the current size is about right, because you don’t want a legislator to have so many constituents that is difficult for individual constituents to get heard.
The founding fathers wanted it to be difficult to pass new laws. That’s why they have large legislative bodies and checks between chambers and branches of government. I think that principle still makes good sense, at least to a point (the abuse of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate being a good example of it getting unreasonably difficult to reach resolution on anything).
QUERY : If you are an employer and offer a job with a stated salary of $31,140 per year and receive eight applicants, would you consider that the salary offered was fair, over-stated or understated ?
Well, obviously, you would have to consider the qualifications of the applicants before responding.
Consider that one is a “former employee” willing to take the job again … another is a strong union advocate and willing to work for the wages … while another is an entrepreneur willing to put his private goals on hold to work for you ?
If so, you would probably rule out that the salary was too high.
Well, you are the taxpayer … and thus the employer … and you have an unexpected opening … Terry Morrow, a DFLer who was unopposed in the 2012 elections, has resigned his seat to pursue out-of-state employment.
We can debate the talents and qualifications of the candidates —MN-GOP (Allen Quist, Joel Brinker and Jim Golgart), Independence Party (Tim Gieseke) and DFLers (Tim Strand, Clark Johnson, Karl Johnson and Robin Courrier) — but I gotta suspect that the salary is not a limiting factor in getting applicants. In fact, if a higher salary was offered, it may not change the outcome … sadly, the low voter turnout in Special Elections means that those that are supported by “special interests” have a greater motivation to vote than the general public in participating. It’s arguable that the “special interests” would have an easier time acquiring candidates of their ilk with a higher salary.
And considering that Morrow was unopposed, it implies that “ready and willing” candidates decided not to make an primary challenge because he was the de facto winner … thus the argument for term limits.