Today's Paper Search Latest stories Drivetime Mahatma 🔴 Hogs live Traffic Legislature Newsletters Obits Weather Puzzles + Games
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption 3/2/15 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEPHEN B. THORNTON Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Josephine Hart, left, speaks during public comment time at a meeting of the Independent Citizens' Commission Monday on the UA System campus in Cammack Village. Fellow Associate Justice Karen R. Baker, right, also spoke before the commission. - Photo by Stephen B. Thornton

With significant pay raises expected for state lawmakers, including a recommended 148 percent increase for legislators, only two citizens appeared before the commission to criticize the proposals to increase pay for state officials.

Two Supreme Court justices also attended and suggested the commission consider even bigger pay raises for the state's top bench.

The Independent Citizens Commission, which has received dozens of emails and letters, many of which were critical of a slate of proposed raises announced Feb. 2, held a forum Monday as part of a public comment period.

While only two objectors spoke critically of the seven-member commission's proposed raises, one Little Rock attorney openly endorsed its findings and the pair of Supreme Court justices urged the commission to consider increasing the salary bumps that were floated for the state's top court.

Scott Minton, a retired Edward Jones investor, said at the onset of the meeting that he was astonished by the small turnout from the state's taxpayers.

Minton said he had talks with about 50 or 60 people about the proposed raises, which include a $53,241 increase for the governor and a $56,868 increase for the attorney general, and that on average, those business owners he surveyed said Arkansans had gotten 2 to 3 percent pay raises over the past five years. Some got none at all.

"The people I talk to, given the general economic condition of people in this area, what they make and what kind of raises they've got, in my judgment, it's not sensible to keep increasing government pay," Minton said. "It's not fair and it does not make sense."

Whereas Minton appeared disappointed with the commission's proposed raises, another Little Rock man, Rick Wells, was downright incensed at the prospect of raising a legislator's pay from $15,869 to $39,400.

"We've got educational problems ... we've got road issues that this money needs to go to and first thing you do is double the pay rate [for lawmakers]," Wells said. "[It's a] scam. Cheap. Shenanigans. ... You guys are cons. Those who do see it see it for what you are."

Scott Trotter, a Little Rock attorney and one of the architects of Amendment 70, which set lawmakers pay in 1992, said a pay increase for lawmakers was overdue and that any public outrage at the size of the increases for lawmakers was misinformed.

Trotter pointed out that in raising salaries for legislators, they also recommended eliminating home-office expenses, which could total as much as $14,400 a year in addition to their salary.

"When you put it in perspective, then I don't think there is a cause for condemnation and outcry from members of the public," Trotter said. "On the [constitutional officers] salaries... you tried to bump the salaries up to make them something a bit more comparable [to states similar to Arkansas] ... instead of being, in some instances, at rock bottom."

Justices Karen Baker and Jo Hart came to thank the commission for its work but also made a case that the salaries for the Supreme Court should be increased even more than was proposed at the start of February.

Following months of research and discussion, as well as testimony that state judges's cost-of-living-increases haven't come at the same pace as other state employees over the past 10 years, the commission proposed that the salaries for Supreme Court justices go from $149,589 to $166,500 and the chief justice's salary raise from $161,601 to $180,000.

But they also recommended raising salary for Court of Appeals judges from $144,982 to $161,500. As Baker and Hart pointed out Monday, those judges can pull down an additional $6,000 a year in travel expenses, effectively making more than justices sitting above them.

Baker said that more pay is needed if the court wants to attract more qualified candidates in the future.

"Most of [potential, qualified candidates] are probably smarter than I am and realize that, considering the extra expenses and lack of reimbursement, and the onerous stakes of running a statewide election, that it would not be in their financial interest to [seek the Supreme Court]," Baker said. "[The proposed salary increases] prevent us from getting the best and brightest on the [circuit courts] to run for these positions."

Hart argued that many of the states that commissioners looked at as points of comparison have very different judicial organizations and workloads.

She also said that it doesn't make sense for a member of the state's highest court to make effectively less than a lower court member because that court is reimbursed for travel expenses.

"I don't think it's good for a hierarchy system," Hart said. "If you're going to continue to ask these successful lawyers making about four times what I am at to be a citizen and to do the work of a citizen [as a judge] ... you're going to have to raise those salaries."

Following the end of the meeting, one commissioner, Mitch Berry, said he expected greater turnout, and more criticism, from the public. He said the testimony given Monday, as well as the many emails and letters that have rolled in over the last month, haven't changed his belief that lawmakers need a raise to keep up with salaries for lawmakers in comparable states.

The commission's chairman, Larry Ross, said he's more concerned about "quality" of remarks than "quantity" and said that commissioners would have time to review their own recommendations, as well as public input, before they vote on their final recommendations on March 16.

Metro on 03/03/2015

Print Headline: 2 citizens speak out against salary raises

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsor Content

You must be signed in to post comments

Comments

  • arkateacher54_aol.com
    March 3, 2015 at 5:40 a.m.

    Poor babies! They have to work hard and don't make a million dollars a year! Sorry I missed the opportunity to gripe about this in public - too busy working 2 jobs to make ends meet. I don't want to say on a public forum what I think about these proposed pay raises. My mama would want to wash my mouth out with soap. Just more leaching off the people to line their pockets. These thieves we call elected officials enrich themselves through the positions they hold and don't even need a salary.

  • Ragmop
    March 3, 2015 at 6:48 a.m.

    The state legislature is only session a few weeks a year and legislators are reimbursed for expenses. This pay increase would amount to near a $1000.00 per day while in session. Mr Wells and arkateacher54 are correct in their assessment. Arkansas ranks last or near the bottom in most measurable categories and the current legislators pay is appropriate for their performance.

  • AD
    March 3, 2015 at 9:01 a.m.

    Sure they need a pay raise, but so do the 99% of the rest of state workers. I am a state worker and I am at the rock bottom for my job against surrounding states as well and no pay increase in sight. Yes, you don't get the best of the best when your hiring for those positions because of pay, but that applies everywhere. The supreme court and other positions are mostly held by the rich that don't need the extra pay anyway, the position is to boost their resume and they have other jobs and income. Yes, I'm educated too, way over educated for my position and have massive student loans that I cant touch as well. So lets build the pay from the bottom and go up to make a strong structure, least we fall.

  • AD
    March 3, 2015 at 9:09 a.m.

    I also agree with Arkteacher54, I'm at my state job, they don't allow time for me to go speak in public about this issue. In fact why not make that a benefit of allowing your state workers the ability to come speak or a online forum in reference to the topics, or do you really not want the public opinion. By holding these public opinion meetings, only the wealthy, privileged or unemployed can attend.

  • hogfan2012
    March 3, 2015 at 10:08 a.m.

    They will just take the $$ out of the huge payouts they give the legislators to allocate to "worthy" causes at the end of the session. Last year, each Senator had over $1 million to give out and Representatives significantly lower amounts but still in excess of $200,000. It would be nice if they would return those excess funds back to the taxpayers who paid it in!!!!

  • Popsmith
    March 3, 2015 at 10:37 a.m.

    I didn't realize that we need professional political representatives. But I suppose that is what we have bought.

    I missed the advertisement of this meeting. I suppose I didn't look hard enough.

  • drs01
    March 3, 2015 at 10:55 a.m.

    Mr. Minton should have known that the turnout to speak against these raises would be slim pickens. Most inteligent Arkansans saw the "game" was rigged when the enabling amendment was proposed by a member of the legislature who benefited if it passed. Also, the law created a "commission" to decide how much and to whom these salary increases will go. Not a vote of the people, but a select group of "homers" who are not close to being in touch with the average Arkansas taxpayer. So, Mr. Minton, why bother to come a meeting that was more about symbolism than substance.

  • BEARTRAP919
    March 3, 2015 at 11:03 a.m.

    We got what Koch paid for, Good Christian Conservative Republicans in every office, And one of the first things that was Legislated was a Big Tax cut for the Middle and Upper Class, And now a Great big Pay Increase for all their Hard work. Shame on them, Shame on the Idiots that put them in Office. Now the Judges are jumping in and Screaming for their Large Pay Increases. Republicans and Judges are Slopping at the Public Trough and they have no shame for wanting these Salary Increases. Stand back and look at where we are and where we are headed. Shameful People, Shameful Purposes

  • Murphy01
    March 3, 2015 at 11:29 a.m.

    Don't forget Bear, this bill was originally crafted by Democrat Warwick Sabin as an ethics bill. Woods (R) may have added onto it but Sabin let it be so it would pass out of committee and go to the voters. The day after it passed Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times rag called it an "unexpected bright spot". Again, this could have been killed but your beloved Dem let it be.

  • Slak
    March 3, 2015 at 12:26 p.m.

    LOL@MurphyCoolingBear'sHotJetOfProgLibBitching

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT