Article by Erik Smith. Published on Friday, March 12, 2010 EST.

Proposal to Ban Per-Diem Pay During Special Session Can’t be Considered – They Knew it All Along, Dems Say

Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield.

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

UPDATE, March 15: Republican Joseph Zarelli is among lawmakers who are turning down per-diem pay for the session. “I couldn’t very well introduce a bill like that one and still take the money,” he said. See full list.

OLYMPIA, March 12.—A Republican proposal that aims to turn up the heat on the Legislature during the upcoming special session is going nowhere, Democratic leaders say.

            For one thing, it’s against the rules.

            Republicans aren’t dummies, said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown – they knew it all along.

            The proposal by Sen. Joseph Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, would deny legislators the $90 per-diem pay they collect when they are in session or attending official meetings away from their homes. That’s on top of their regular salary of $42,106.

            His proposal, contained in Senate Bill 6883, would cancel the daily stipend during special sessions, unless the extra legislative session is called more than 30 days after a regular legislative session. That ought to teach lawmakers a lesson, Zarelli said. They ought to finish their work on time.

            “A special session this year is a costly and embarrassing prospect, and if the majority has any regard for taxpayers it should do everything in its power to bring the cost down.”

            
             Republicans Make Point

             It’s a Republican jab at the majority Democrats who control House and Senate, and who couldn’t come to an agreement on budget and tax issues. Their 60-day regular legislative session came to a close Thursday night. Powerless Republicans in the Legislature have been relegated to spectators this year and have had little influence on the process – not that they say there’s anything new about that.

            “I might feel differently if the majority wanted more time to work on creating jobs and reforming state government, but that’s not what I expect to hear as justification for a special session,” Zarelli said. “It would be about spending, and tax increases – specifically a tax increase that stands to be the largest ever to pay for day-to-day government operations in our state.

             “Families and employers who are struggling will be squeezed even more by the enormous tax increases that are coming. I see nothing wrong with legislators knowing they would be squeezed some if they go into overtime so soon after a regular session ends. It might motivate them to act more efficiently during the regular session and during the special session. It hasn’t been a good year for government reforms, so this could end up being the most significant reform the majority adopts all year.”

            Just one problem with the idea: The Senate rules won’t permit it.

            Not Exactly Generous

            Naturally, the Republicans would lose just as much as the Democrats under Zarelli’s proposal. But they aren’t exactly being noble, said Brown, D-Spokane. Legislative rules restrict the introduction of new bills before the end of a legislative session. Zarelli’s bill went into the hopper Wednesday, the day before the session was due to end, and was formally introduced on the House floor on the final day.

            “The bill was filed within the last three days of session,” she said. “Constitutionally you can’t pass a bill that was filed within the last three days of session and I’m sure the filers of the bill knew that when they filed it.”

             Actually, the limit is 10 days.

            The constitution says: “No bill shall be considered in either house unless the time of its introduction shall have been at least ten days before the final adjournment of the legislature.” There’s an exception if the House and Senate take a two-thirds vote, though that seldom happens. And it’s the reason lawmakers routinely introduce sketchy two-sentence “title only” bills early in the session, to be amended later when they figure out their plan.

            All of which means the Republicans should have known better, Democrats say. And they say it proves the bill was filed to score a political point, nothing more.

            Pity the Poor Legislature

            Democratic leaders point out that any lawmaker who wants to forego his or her per-diem pay can always say no. Not that they expect anyone to do it.

            The per-diem pay is intended to cover lodging and meal expenses when lawmakers are away from home. Lawmakers representing the Olympia area don’t get it.

             “The economic circumstances of legislators vary tremendously, and also the geographic location,” Brown said. “Some of us live 300 miles away, and the point of per diem is to take care of expenses while people are away from your family.”

            Said Gov. Christine Gregoire, “One thing I would ask people to remember is that this is a citizen legislature. The last thing in the world we want to do is to say you have to be rich to be a legislator. We want every walk of life here. We want them to be able to sustain themselves.

“It’s not a preference that we’re in a special session, but it’s a necessity. We’ve got to get it right. We’ve got to get our state back to work, and we have to balance our budget.”

            Rules, Piffle

            Zarelli said the Democrats seem to pick and choose which rules they want to follow.

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.