Bill Description: House Concurrent Resolution 4 would accept and defend the 22% proposed legislative pay increase.
Rating: -1
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
In 2024, the Citizens' Committee on Legislative Compensation proposed a significant pay increase for legislators, growing their base pay from $19,913 to $25,000, an increase of 25.5%. When factoring in additional compensation for constituent services and per-diem reimbursements, the weighted increase is 22.1%. The projected cost of this increase is $658,000 annually.
Under Idaho law, the pay increase proposed by the committee goes into effect automatically, but the Legislature has the authority to reject or reduce the rates of compensation through a concurrent resolution.
House Concurrent Resolution 4 would accept and defend the legislative pay increase, referencing legislative pay rates in other states in a sad attempt to justify this increased spending.
It is always worth remembering that with very few exceptions, any money the government spends or appropriates is taken from the people through taxes, fees, debt, or other assessments. The additional spending required to fund increases in compensation for government employees will always come from taxpayers in one form or another.
The resolution closes with the cynical suggestion that "legislators who believe themselves to be overcompensated may donate all or a portion of their legislative compensation to the Tax Relief Fund established in section 57-811, Idaho Code."
This suggestion obviously does not require a resolution or any change in law, making House Concurrent Resolution 4 functionally meaningless, other than to serve as cover for accepting an excessive pay increase at taxpayers' expense.
(-1)
Addendum
Article III, section 23 of the Idaho Constitution is very clear that the legislature can reject or reduce a proposed pay increase.
"The rates thus established shall be the rates applicable for the two-year period specified unless prior to the twenty-fifth legislative day of the next regular session, by concurrent resolution, the senate and house of representatives shall reject or reduce such rates of compensation and expenses. In the event of rejection, the rates prevailing at the time of the previous session, shall remain in effect."
House Concurrent Resolution 4 (HCR4) makes no mention of the clause above, but only speaks to the clauses that the legislature may not set its own compensation and that a Citizens Committee on Legislative Compensation sets the compensation.
Therefore, if the legislature does nothing, it is accepting the pay increase. Rejecting the increase requires an action — a resolution; accepting the increase requires no action. During the 2009 session, the legislature rejected the pay increase with House Concurrent Resolution 6. So clearly the Idaho Constitution and past practice demonstrate that the legislature can reject or reduce a pay increase.
The reason for our negative view of HCR4 is simple, a resolution could have reduced or rejected the increase, but this resolution was overtly crafted to justify accepting the increase. See the whereas clauses below:
WHEREAS, the salaries of legislative members have increased by only 27% since 2005;
WHEREAS, since 2005, the salaries of judges have increased by 46%, the salaries of constitutional officers have increased by 55%, the salary of the lieutenant governor has increased by 98%, and the salary of the average state employee has increased by 74%;
WHEREAS, the committee's motion is a step toward bringing legislator salaries more in line with others in Idaho state government;
WHEREAS, taking into account the committee's motion, the Idaho Legislature ranks 12th out of 25 part-time legislatures in compensation, with an annual salary $6,000 below the average;
WHEREAS, when adjusted for inflation, the Legislature's salary had decreased by 24% over the past 20 years;
WHEREAS, to have the same purchasing power as a legislator's salary in 2005, the salary in 2025 would need to be $26,637;
WHEREAS, unlike legislators in other states, Idaho's legislators do not receive additional compensation for attending interim meetings, special sessions, or organizational sessions;
WHEREAS, the Idaho Legislature has the second-fewest number of support staff per legislator of any western state, necessitating that legislators do more work;
WHEREAS, the motion, which was unanimously passed by the Citizens' Committee on Legislative Compensation, will help bridge the gap between legislative compensation and compensation for other state employees;
Not only are these clauses completely one-sided, they are misleading. For example, the salaries were compared over a long period of time even though 3/4 of the legislators began service in 2019 or later. No mention in the clauses was made of the meal per diem of $74 a day, which is automatically scheduled to increase to $86 per day in 2025. No mention of mileage payments for commuting or constituent allowances either. And finally, the pay comparison states that there are 25 part-time legislatures in the US. That’s not accurate; the commonly accepted number is 14 according to the National Conference of State Legislators.
All of this is to say that HCR4 was designed to avoid reducing or rejecting the pay increase, which a resolution in the past has done, and that SCR 101, which passed the Senate by voice vote on January 17th, explicitly did.
In summary, if a resolution rejecting the increase altogether is a positive outcome and one that reduced the increase to the level of other state employees is likely a neutral outcome, how could a resolution that avoided either rejecting or reducing the increase not be a negative outcome?
