The following editorial first ran Dec. 29, 2012:
The state law about office allowances for legislators is as clear as can be.
It says, “each member of the legislature is entitled to an annual allowance prescribed in accordance with AS 39.23 for postage, stationery, stenographic services, and other expenses.”
The law does not say that the office allowance, now set at $20,000 per year for senators and $16,000 per year for representatives, is to be collected by lawmakers as income.
But that is how the Legislative Council, which sets policy when the Legislature is not in session, is interpreting the law. Six Republicans and two Democrats were in attendance at the Dec. 13 meeting and no one objected to the change.
Until now the Legislature has had three options for the allowance. Most lawmakers chose to either make it a reimbursable account for office expenses or a partially reimbursable account for office expenses.
An auditor has suggested that only one option be given. The council chose the wrong option.
Legislators are paid $50,400 per year, plus a daily allowance of $238 per day for living expenses during the session.
They should not be collecting the office allowance as income.
One of the first items our Legislature should take up in 2013 is to reverse this decision by the Legislative Council, which was based on a survey saying that 25 of our 60 lawmakers favored that approach. That’s not an overwhelming vote of confidence.
Instead of adding the office allowance money to their paychecks, legislators should be required to submit bills or receipts for office expenses. At the end of each year, the money not spent should be returned to the general fund.
This would encourage efficiency and economy on the part of our legislators. It also would match the intent of the law.
Comments (12)
Add commentso
who are the six sleez balls?
There you go, Empire
That's some actual reporting on State matters. It's a relatively minor thing, but it's a good start.
I'm not sure either approach will "encourage efficiency and economy on the part of our legislators." They'll spend every last dime regardless. But at least if they spend it for actual services, some of that money will stay in town rather than ending up in their bank accounts.
$20k a year to set up an
$20k a year to set up an office already supplied with computers furniture tvs? Is that why pallets of brand new flat screens show up every year? And our school teachers get what, $100 per classroom? No wonder everyone spends so much time reelecting themselves and want to make it a career.
20k... wasted
"Legislators are paid $50,400 per year, plus a daily allowance of $238 per day for living expenses during the session".
"The law does not say that the office allowance, now set at $20,000 per year for senators and $16,000 per year for representatives, is to be collected by lawmakers as income."
I wish I had a daily allowance of 238.00 for living expenses.
with all the goods in the state surplus building that are prefectly good, why are we allowing them to purchase new. There are tons of office chairs there too. Sorry, if you stain it, buy a cover or wash it, not buy a new one cause you have an open checkbook to the state fuunds. I agree, we cant afford to fund full-time nurses in the schools, teacher, and/or new computers in the classrooms. They are so outdated, Fred Flinstone could use them.
time to stop the waste, you bust it, you pay for it out of your own monies. You want the new up-to-date item, you buy it not us. Then take it home when your not re-elected cause of waste spending.
Really?
How about looking at other side of coin -- an office means it should be occupied & accessible to constituents. $16K or $20K is reasonable to have a place where your voting public can come in and talk about concerns.
If you're going to squeeze anything out of this, it should be accessibility aspect. $20K a year has expectation that someone is IN to hear your concerns.
No, they are elected
No, they are elected representatives of this state, THAT is the only reason needed for accessibility. And once in awhile refurnishing I'd understand. $20k per senator per year? I would expect the 'hard line' fiscal conservatives are giving this money back right? Because a million dollars a year might not seem like much when it comes to the the whole budget but if these people are expected to represent us they should have realistic views on how Alaskans live. The special treatment or perks of being elected is too much. Salary that's above the national average for family incomes for the whole US, (even though this is a part time job for everyone of them), over $250 per day for expenses for living away from home, and now a nice bonus for not spending their whole office budget yearly? I'll let the daily allowance slide in my eyes because they are relocating and that's a pain, even though anyone else that gets that for work travel get reimbursed with receipts. These people sit on the hill and don't understand alaskans who they represent. We need term limits.
@AKstu
you have valid point. But consider, what if part of 16K or 20K went to employ a receptionist in Kotzebue or Bethel? Would you have a problem with that?
The office money doesn't go
The office money doesn't go to staff. Staffers get paid by the state as state employees. IF it were used for that purpose I would call that keeping up an avenue for the people from that precinct to get in contact with their elected official and would have no problem with it.
This is about the Capitol building and the absurd perks elected officials receive. If our state officials worked together for the state instead of flat out playing politics, no different then the rest of the country ill admit, then I'd accept them earning perks. Right now, the approval rating across the board is worse then its ever been. People are finally seeing the politics game and its sickening. These people get way too much money for not doing enough, in my eyes. This meeting was probably held in the same building the 'ethics' commity meets. How is this ethical at all? Don't spend all of your line of credit? Keep it as a bonus! Being in politics is suppose to be a service to your fellow citizen and you get reimbursed fairly. Does anyone feel our legislators are doing so good they should be getting bonuses?
Accountability = expense reports
Grendel - also, there are staffed LIOs all over the state where constituents should be able to get ahold of their legislators. Personally, I think they should all be required to schedule 10 hours a week (or whatever number) of video conference time (they have the equipment already) for any constituent who wants to make an appointment for 15 min or 1/2 hour.
Otherwise, have a list or guideline of what is allowable (like coffee, paper, computers over 3 years old, etc.) and turn in an expense report, just like everyone else in state/local business does.
SG
Okay, the $16 or $20K should have more definition. My take is it pays HUGE dividends to have a real voice or real face greet you when you are tapping into the political process.
What's to keep an Interior representative from hiring his own staffer - even part time - using that $16K allowance in his/her district? I think that's $$$ well spent. I dont care if the staffer is a relation - it's one less unemployed, it's responsibility, and it may be catalyst for next great statesman/woman.
What is LIO?
This money is not given to
This money is not given to them grendal, they order whatever they want with a credit card given to them. It is defined what they can get with te money. i think the issue here is how much money tey are given overall and now they get a bonus. I wouldnt mindthat money gojng to fund a person for better accesability, but thats not shat this money is for at all. Completely separate from personal funds for offices elsewhere. They can't use it for anything but the office they as assigned in the Capitol building.
LIO legislative information offices.
Question
Do you know when the decision was made, or the name of the law that allowed this to happen.