After two Idaho citizens, a retired math teacher and a CPA, urged the Citizens Committee on Legislative Compensation today to do away with the 1990 law that grants big boosts in state retirement pensions to longtime, part-time state legislators who late in their careers take high-paying, full-time state jobs, the panel voted unanimously to call on the Legislature to revisit the issue.

“Obviously we would have liked more, but we’re pleased that they’re asking the Legislature to revisit it,” said Jim Haddock, who joined his brother, Tom, a former legislative auditor, to make the presentation to the citizens panel today. Jim Haddock said he taught math at Potlatch High School for 37 years, but had never made a presentation like today’s, and wished his brother hadn’t insisted he be the one to speak.

“We’re all citizens – that’s what we are on this commission, so we very much appreciate you coming forward,” Debora Kristensen, chair of the panel, told the Haddocks.

 “The impropriety of that legislation has been discussed many times in the past,” Jim Haddock told the commission. “And in 2015, the House passed HB 100, which was a bill to remove that exemption for the Legislature.” The bill passed the House, was reconsidered and passed again, and then died without a hearing in a Senate committee. An Idaho Attorney General’s opinion suggested the citizens panel might – or might not – need to weigh in on the change.

The citizens commission, created by a 1976 constitutional amendment, is the only entity that can determine compensation for state legislators – they can’t do it themselves, according to the Idaho Constitution. Instead, the six-member commission, appointed by the governor and the Idaho Supreme Court, sets legislative compensation every two years; lawmakers can’t change the panel’s recommendation, but they can reject a raise and thereby keep previous pay rates in effect. That’s happened just twice, in 1982 and 2010.

Haddock told the panel that when lawmakers passed the pension-boost law in 1990, it “caused a terrific increase in compensation for some members, which is questionable under the Constitution.”

An example: When longtime state lawmaker and former House Speaker Lawerence Denney was elected Secretary of State, his state pension as a legislator was worth roughly $500 a month. If he serves out one four-year term in the higher-paying elected position, his pension will be roughly $3,600 a month, for life. That’s because the 1990 provision treats years of legislative service the same as full-time state employment, for purposes of pension calculations. That’s not true for any other part-time elected official.

William “Bud” Yost, a Nampa attorney and commission member, said, “It only affects a number of people – it’s not like every person that serves in the Legislature is going to get a windfall here.” He said it’s not enough money to impact the giant state retirement fund overall.

Reed Larsen, an attorney from Pocatello and a member of the citizens commission, said, “This is a perk or benefit legislators have – they’ve carved it out. It may be de minimus by virtue of millions of dollars, but that isn’t de minimum in my book. And for those people, the average beneficiary of PERSI who pays in for a 30-year career, just on a fundamental fairness, I don’t think it’s fair that their benefit gets diminished or diluted in any way by virtue of this exception.”

He compared the provision to “insider trading,” and said longtime state legislators are most likely to know about high-paying state positions and have the connections to land the posts. “They know those benefits are there, they know how to take advantage of the system,” Larsen said. “It just smells to me – it doesn’t pass the initial smell test.”

Eva Gay Yost, another panel member, said she believes state legislators are full-time, not part-time employees, though the legislative session usually runs just three months a year. “They are elected to serve a two-year term,” she said. “They are on the job.” Lawmakers are always on call to neighbors and constituents who approach them with problems, from the grocery store to a knock on the door, she said.

Former state Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, said, “The issue is really whether a legislator is serving part-time or full-time, from my perspective. And I can tell you that varies by legislator. There are legislators that work a minuscule amount of time off-session, and are there for what they are required to be during the session. And there are legislators that devote their lives to being legislators,” meeting with constituents, serving on national committees and in leadership posts and more.

Kristensen said, “It comes back to who gets to decide if the Legislature is full-time or part-time, and I don’t believe that’s us.”

Deputy Attorney General Michael Gilmore said there’s no legal precedent, but with the constitutional questions surrounding setting legislative compensation, he’d advise that both parties – the citizens commission and the Legislature itself – should act if they want to change it. “Until a court tells us otherwise, this should be considered a shared responsibility,” he said.

Goedde made the motion to leave retirement benefits unchanged for now, but to “strongly suggest that the legislature revisit those issues,” as laid out in HB 100 in 2015. “I guess that’s all we can do – strongly recommend that they reconsider those points,” he said. His motion passed without objection.

That was the hottest issue the panel debated at its biennial meeting today, at which it also voted to keep other legislative compensation, including expense reimbursements, largely as-is.

It also voted to give state lawmakers raises for the next two years – 2 percent next year, and another 2 percent the year after – without discussion. But that vote was divided, 3-2.

Eva Gay Yost said she voted no because she thought the 1.5 percent raises lawmakers got this year and the year before were sufficient. “I don’t think they need 2 percent right now,” she said.

The raise will take Idaho lawmakers’ pay from the current $16,684 this year to $17,018 next year; the second 2 percent boost the following year bumps it up to $17,358 in 2018.

---

---