True North

According to this MPR article, Tarryl Clark is proposing a constitutional amendment on this November's ballot that would "create a council that would decide on the salaries and other compensation" for legislators. Here's the question that would appear on this November's ballot:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to remove legislators' ability to set their own salaries and instead establish a council to prescribe salaries for legislators and elected executive branch officers?"

Let's tell the truth about this amendment. If passed, legislators will be able to say that they didn't vote for the latest pay raise. Meanwhile, they can just blame an unaccountable, unelected commission for setting legislators' and constitutional officers' compensation.

I want legislators dealing with that directly. I want someone to be accountable for their actions. If they aren't willing to write legislation, then vote for their pay increase, then they shouldn't get pay increases.

There's another flaw in Tarryl's proposal. Here's who'd serve on the commission:

Eight nonjudges named by the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and one person from each congressional district (8) in the state named by the governor. Four named by the Chief Justice and four named by the governor must be members of the majority party, and the other four named by the Chief and the four by the governor must be members of the minority party.

What happens if the 2010 census results in Minnesota losing a House district? That's a distinct possibility.

Let's not forget that the House and Senate DFL initially passed their 'per diem' increases without a floor vote. Here's what happened in the House:

EVERY MEMBER SHOULD VOTE FOR THE "PER DIEM" HIKE: Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) asked the House for a direct vote for the increase in per diem payments to $77 per day. Under the DFL's rules, the decision was made by only 22 members of the House Ways & Means Committee on January 10. The DFL killed Rep. Buesgens' A-4 amendment with a procedural motion by a 69-60 vote.

EVERY MEMBER SHOULD VOTE FOR FUTURE HIKES: Rep. Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) asked the House to adopt a rule that would require all 134 Representatives to vote for future "per diem" increases, while allowing an election to intervene after that vote before the higher payments could take effect. The DFL killed the A-19 amendment with a procedural motion by a 74-59 vote. By a 90-43 margin, the DFL also killed a request by Rep. Laura Brod (R-New Prague) to instruct the House Rules Committee to at least consider the Buesgens proposal.

Sen. Ray Vandeveer pushed for a vote on raising the per diem after the Senate leadership tried just running it through the Rules Committee. They raised their per diem from $66 to $96.

I just thought of another question. Let's start by reminding people that a lawsuit has been filed contesting whether the $96 per day compensation is truly per diem. Court precedent says that it isn't because it isn't tied to any specific expenses. The lawsuit contends that it's compensation, not per diem. To pass a pay increase, a bill has to pass the House and Senate, then be signed by the governor.

Here's the question: If this constitutional amendment is ratified this November, would that render the lawsuit moot? I won't pretend to know the answer but I'd love hearing from any legal eagles reading this blog.

Comments are welcome at LFR.