By Curmudgeon
The Salt Lake Tribune this morning has more information on Hansen's proposed legislation to couple fixed annual legislative salaries with a gift ban, including some important elements of his plan strangely not mentioned by those disparaging his proposal on WCF. From the Trib article:
One Utah lawmaker suggests banning all lobbyist gifts on one condition - that senators and representatives receive an annual salary rather than the current pay per day in session. At present, Utah's legislators get paid $130 per day in session or interim meetings plus an allowance of $54 for meals, $94 to $107 for hotel (depending on time of year) and 48.5 cents per mile.Still not sure the idea is a good one, but kudos to Rep. Hansen for proposing that the annual salary provision go before the voters as a referendum. A proposal to shift to full time legislators should go before the people first. [Compare, for example, the Republican majority in the last session ramming through a school voucher bill that the public did not want, and forcing voters to mount a difficult and expensive petition campaign simply to get the right to vote on the matter. Which when the public got enough signatures to put the voucher plan on a referendum ballot over the annoyed opposition of the legislature, they voted down resoundingly.]
Rep. Neil Hansen, D-Ogden, presented HJR15 to the Constitutional Revision Commission Friday, saying he got the idea from a newspaper editorial urging a gift ban and pay raise. Hansen's joint resolution also would require that, if approved by two-thirds majority in the Legislature, the question be put to voters this November, when the presidential election would draw a large turnout.
Why does it not surprise me that it's a Democratic member of the Utah legislature who wants the people to decide, in the end, if the basis for legislators' pay should change or not?
I have to disagree with Hansen on this though: his tying an annual legislative salary to a ban on lobbyists' gifts. I understand the tactical advantage of doing that -- it increases the odds of a gift ban passing significantly. But they really are, or ought to be, separate issues. The legislature ought to pass a gift ban straight up, now, with no strings attached. And it should send Hansen's plan to the voters for their decision, straight up as a stand alone referendum. Each proposal should be considered on its merits, independent of the other.
Comments, anyone?
