Last week, State Rep. Rep. Jason Grenn (I-Anchorage) offered an amendment to the state’s operating budget that he said would effectively cut his salary by $14,000. The House passed it by a wide, bipartisan margin. But indicating he opposes the measure, Senate President Pete Kelly (R-Fairbanks) told reporters “I don’t apologize for my compensation.”
This is a story that is and isn’t about what lawmakers earn to do their job.
The House voted to cut the per diem for legislators, not their salary. It’s the allowance they get for meals, lodging and incidental expenses such as local transportation, while working away from their primary place of residence.
Per diem for legislators and the federal workforce is set by the U.S. Department of Defense Travel Management Office. As of March 1, the daily rate is $275. That includes $106 for meals and incidentals. Meanwhile, Alaska state employees on business in Juneau only get $60. (Why federal and state and rates are so different is another story.)
Another inconsistency worth questioning is why that amount isn’t cut in half for the 90-day session. Because that’s what happens to the daily allowance for state employees on assignment away from home for more than 30 days. The purpose of that rule is to encourage travelers to arrange cheaper, long term accommodations that don’t require them to have all their meals at local restaurants.
That’s probably what Sen. Donny Olson (D-Nome) does while in Juneau. His 2015 relocation bill included appliances and a piano which suggests he’s not living out of a hotel during the session. Last year he was reimbursed more than $30,000 for moving expenses. And although almost every other non-Juneau legislator received at least $31,000 in per diem, Olson’s claim for $35,450 was the highest.
Juneau legislators only get three quarters of the total per diem. But that’s more than the $106 per day for means and incidentals. It means they’re collecting money for lodging even though they’re not incurring any actual costs. And it appears the rest of them get the $169 flat rate even if they don’t spend it for a hotel room.
State employees are only reimbursed for actual lodging costs. And that’s all legislator’s get for travel unrelated to a session. But if any of them rent a two or three-bedroom apartment during the session, they’d have $5,000 or more to spend anyway they choose.
Similarly, they’d be hard pressed to produce $106 in receipts for each day of the session no matter what restaurant they go to. So they’re likely pocketing a lot that allowance too.
The per diem legislators don’t spend on lodging or meals is income not reported to the IRS. But for those who have served as long as Olson and Kelley, it’s an entitlement they’ve become accustomed to taking even though they haven’t earned it.
Grenn’s case if different. As a freshman legislator, he doesn’t have years of dependence on the extra, tax free cash. To him, it would feel more like a salary cut. In proposing the change, he’s following Governor Bill Walker decision to voluntarily cut his $145,000 salary by a third. And the past year and a half, Walker has also declined per diem payments whenever he’s been in Anchorage.
Cathy Muñoz is another good example. According to the legislature’s 2016 Salary and Business Expense Report, the former valley representative didn’t claim any session per diem at all last year.
The real issue here is legislator salaries. At $50,400, are we paying them enough so they don’t need an under-the-table compensation package? Based on session length and salaries in other states, the answer is yes.
Maryland has a 90-day session. The pay for governor and legislators there are almost identical to Alaska’s. Legislators get a smaller percentage of the governor’s salary in Arizona, which has a 100-day session. And no state has a lucrative per diem package like ours.
Do other states have problems attracting qualified candidates for public office because their salaries are too low? I can’t answer that. But Kelly says it’ll happen here if the House’s per diem cut becomes law.
I’ve argued here many times that money is not everyone’s prime motivator. And it shouldn’t be for elected public servants. The last thing we need in the legislature is for the pay and benefits to be so good that they attract marginally qualified people who want to make it their careers.
The bottom line here is the rules for legislative per diem should be identical to those for state employees. And if legislators think they deserve more, stop hiding it from Alaskans and the IRS.
• Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector.
