Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, April 6, 1993 TAG: 9304060388
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
VA. ASSEMBLY
WITH ANNUAL salaries set at $18,000 for state senators and $17,640 for delegates, it's a cinch that members of the General Assembly aren't in it for the money. So why begrudge them a few extra dollars in retirement benefits?Well, for one thing they are not full-time government employees - as are other participants in the Virginia Retirement System, the basic retirement program for state workers and public-school teachers.
Actually, legislators aren't even part-time employees of state government. They are, rather, temporary representatives of those who own government - the citizens who elected them. They are, in some ways, like government's board of directors.
Far be it from us to stir an old pot of trouble by asking why elected officials should get pensions for part-time public service in the first place. But here's the new pot of trouble:
Members of the General Assembly - a very powerful board of directors - voted themselves into the VRS some years ago, and this self-serving special treatment is now institutionalized, and unlikely to be changed. Lawmakers should not, however, be allowed to keep sweetening the deal for themselves. Which is exactly what a little-noticed bill, passed at the '93 session, would do.
This bill - intended to make technical changes in VRS law - was amended to fatten the retirement package for state lawmakers by allowing them to include office-expense allowances as compensation counted toward their pension benefits. The $500-a-month office allowance, which legislators can pocket if they don't spend it all, essentially would boost by $6,000 a year the income on which their retirement package is based.
OK, this is not the outrage of the year. And more than righteousness may motivate Gov. Wilder to take a shot at lawmakers on an issue with potential populist appeal. Even so, the governor is right to send the bill back to the assembly, reconvening Wednesday for the so-called veto session. He's right to instruct lawmakers to remove the pension-package sweetener.
Perhaps, as Wilder charitably suggests, the majority of lawmakers were not even aware of the effect on their pensions when they voted for the bill. Now that he's brought the matter to their attention, assembly members ought to quickly correct their error.
It may be that many good people are discouraged from running for the legislature because compensation is too low and they can't afford the financial sacrifice. Those discouraged may include citizens without jobs (translation: lawyers) or wealth that make public service more feasible. As it is, legislating has become virtually full-time work for many elected representatives.
But if this is a problem, fix it by approving up-front pay increases. As members of Roanoke City Council learned last year with their infamous two-for-one deal, citizens dislike money grabs attempted via the back door of pension programs.