Rep. Scott Guthrie, D-Coventry
Kudos to the legislators willing and able to forgo the raise on their $13,962 State House stipend and thanks to those of you who sent out press releases on the matter so that the media would know of your good deed. But we should also recognize Rep. Scott Guthrie, a progressive Democrat from Coventry, who refuses to take the salary at all.
According to the Joint Committee on Legislative Services, Guthrie is the only member of the General Assembly to not accept the salary that comes with being a part-time legislator.
But he’s not bragging about it. In fact, he declined to comment when I asked him why he doesn’t take the pay.
Guthrie, a retired fire fighter from North Kingstown, has served in the House since 2008. For the past three sessions, he has sponsored bills that would have raised taxes on Rhode Island’s richest residents.
Guthrie also doesn’t take the health insurance that comes with being a state legislator. But he’s not alone there.
Here’s the list of legislators who don’t take the health insurance, as provided by Larry Berman:
Reps: Lisa Baldelli Hunt, Woonsocket; David Bennett, Warwick; Chris Blazejewski, Providence; John Carnevale, Providence; Mike Chippendale, Foster; Spencer Dickinson, South Kingstown; Deborah Fellela, Johnston, Frank Ferri, Warwick, Jim McLaughlin, Central Falls; Scot Slater, Providence; Lisa Tomasso, Coventry.
Sens: Frank Devall, Providence; Walter Felag, Warren; Frank Lombardo, Johnston; Harold Metts, Providence; Donna Nesselbush, Providence; Chris Ottiano, Portsmouth; Deb Ruggerio, Jamestown.
Of course, they get a $1,001 check from the state for not taking the benefits. Here is the list of legislators who also forgo that “waiver bonus”:
Reps: Doreen Costa, North Kingstown; Robert DaSilva, East Providence; Scott Guthrie, Coventry; Joy Hearn, Barrington; Ray Hull, Providence; Robert Jacquard, Johnston; Karen MacBeth, Cumberalnd; Mike Marcello, Scituate; Rene Menard, Cumberland; Mary Messier, Phillips, East Providence; Dan Reilly, Portsmouth; Patricia Serpa, Coventry; Stephen Ucci, Cranston; Larry Valencia, Richmond.
Sens: Louis DiPalma, Middletown; Paul Fogarty, Burrillville; Maryellen Goodwin, Providence; Paul Jabour, Providence; Frank Maher, Charlestown; Jim Sheehan, North Kingstown; Glen Shibley, Coventry.
Would you agree that public union members should also make sacrifices to their salaries, benefits, and pensions in a recession? I join you in applauding these representatives, but I don’t see any principled distinction between the two situations.
RTW,
I’ll give some credit where credit is due. In my community, the unions have agreed to no raises for at least two years now and have gone to health savings plans (a union proposal surprisingly) saving the town 20 percent on health care. The school administrators are another story. I’m not sure how prevalent this type of behavior is across the state but I’ll give the unions were I live some credit.
I don’t dispute that some of the public unions have made concessions, and I fully share your belief in giving credit where it is due. My comment has more to do with the progressive mentality of some here that unions and retirees shouldn’t morally have to give up ANYTHING in a recession because it’s war on the middle class, it’s moving labor backwards, they fought hard for their compensation, contracts are inviolable, CEO’s are making millions, etc., At a minimum, progressives should acknowledge that the moral thing for unions and retirees to do is voluntarily give up 5-6% COLAs, which are mathematically indefensible.
Point taken.
On a microscopic level, Rep Guthrie and the others might be doing a nice thing, but overall, I think its wrongheaded. If we start thinking that people should not be paid to be state legislators, then we will only have rich people in our Assembly. It is much easier for a well paid executive who has control over their own schedule and very little to worry about financially to spend hours and hours at the State House for free, while it would be very, very difficult for the struggling worker to make the same commitment. It is not to denigrate the wealthier person, who regardless is giving their time to serve the public, but it takes our steady creep towards plutocracy a whole step further when we believe only those who can afford to work for free are worthy of serving in government. I actually think we should consider full time assembly with competitive pay, in order to get people up there who main job is to fix our state, not people who run for the prestige, or the business connections, or the single-issue focus that some legislators have. (And I stress consider – I don’t know if full time assembly is a good idea or not)
New Hampshire has a volunteer legislature and your parade of horribles has not occurred there. In fact, from everything I’ve heard, their representatives tend to be more “normal, working people” and are more in touch with their constituents than Rhode Island legislators are. To be fair, that probably has a lot to do with the large size of their legislature, which Rhode Island should absolutely adopt. As a counterexample to your suggestion, Massachusetts has a full-time legislature and they have got to be one of the worst states for rich, corrupt, career politicians filling and trading those positions for decades on end. The point is that being a state representative should be viewed as a volunteer civic duty and reward in itself, not as a prestigious status seat with perks and benefits. If people really want to serve the public, they will find a way to make it work.
Hi, RTW. No, the NH legislature isn’t “more normal, working people” as you describe. More than half the members are retired.
New Hampshire’s members are the “oldest in the country … But New Hampshire residents, on average, are the youngest in New England, according to U.S. Census data.” That’s a quote from an interesting article which touches on both sides of the argument here: www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1876413179/N-H-Legislature-doesnt-mirror-population
I’m not saying NH’s model is good or bad. All I’m pointing out is that NH’s all-volunteer system has generated a body that does not reflect the demographics of the population.
I should have added the word “-class” after “working” in my statement. I don’t have a particular problem with having a high percentage of retired people in a state legislature, but I guess if you want the demographics to match exactly based on some sort of identity politics, then it could be a concern. Presumably those legislators held jobs before retiring. I don’t care “what” my legislators are in terms of age, sex, or race, as long as they do a good job – all of New Hampshire’s “at-a-glance” statistics look great compared to Rhode Island, so I’m inclined to believe that they are.
My point stands that the volunteer legislature in New Hampshire hasn’t resulted in some ultra-wealthy political class of insiders, and in fact the opposite has happened – they are normal people who tend to be even more in touch with their constituents.
@Craig O’Connor: I agree completely.
Right now the only people who can run for office are people who can leave their jobs at 3:00 in the afternoon four days a week from January through June in order to go to the state house to attend the sessions. I know I can’t do that. My boss would laugh his head off if I even asked! but the current pay might make it possible for some people to serve who otherwise could not because they have to work to earn a living.
We should not be trying to make earning a salary seem like a bad thing. Yet more and more legislators make a big show out of not accepting any raise. What’s the message they are sending? There are plenty of people in the GA now who aren’t wealthy and really need that 13K. We shouldn’t demonize them for accepting what they are owed.
If scheduling is the only issue, then sessions could simply be moved to after 5pm or weekends. Ask New Hampshire how they run a volunteer legislature.
“There are plenty of people in the GA now who aren’t wealthy and really need that 13K.”
Really, they “need” the 13k to survive? Like who? I bet a lot of people could use an extra 13k, so why should legislators be treated like a special class? They already get all sorts of perks and favors based on their status.
As an addition to the post, my memory is that Rep. Frank Ferri takes the payment in lieu of insurance and uses it to fund a scholarship for a high school student from his district. I don’t have a reference for that and can’t chase one down right now (very busy with some family issues out of state), but it would be easy to find out from him.
health insurance and “credit toward public pension” should not be benefits to serving in the state legislature.
A stipend or per-diem/mileage should be provided, but perhaps the problem is the expansion of the legislative session. Why is the RI session 5 months, especially when the budget is done by a small circle of people, sprung at the last minute, and then subject to a flurry of midnight amendments voted on with little analysis and by tired legislators? We should go back to the point of a part-time legislature — enact a budget, prioritize legislation needed to deal with pressing issues and anticipated problems, and provide appropriate advice and consent to the other branches.
RI governance vests a significant amount of power in a few people anyway so do longer sessions actually get anything worthwhile done or do they merely allow legislators the chance to pontificate and pass insipid laws that do little (except for special interest groups) or propose reams of bills that continually get “held for further study?”
If we had a law that no legislation (other than to deal with declared emergency) could be considered until the budget was passed, I think that would at least reform the budget process and help the towns and cities who must pass their own budgets, often in advance of knowing what state mandates, the level of state aid, and other items will be.
Read more here: www.sacbee.com/2012/02/16/4267440/should-california-go-back-to-having.html#storylink=cpy
Craig wrote my exact reaction to this article for me.
No offense but the boat has left the dock. If the legislators took a pay raise, they would be vilified in the media. We know it’s all about appearances so some legislators got ahead of it and announced they wouldn’t take it. As far as a full time legislature with competitive pay, how many reasonably intelligent people can you find that would leave their job or business for what amounts to temporary employment? Given their current successes, there is no reason why this legislature needs to meet more than ever other year.
The story that people tell about themselves means an awful lot. Congratulations to Representative Guthrie for turning down legitimate money in order to serve people.