Arch City Chronicle

people. politics. st. louis.

Proposed Pay Raises

From a memo to Democrat LAs & Staff; Democrat Representatives


The State Salary Commission today issued its recommendations at a meeting in Jeff City. The recommendations were made verbally - and not entirely clearly - so the details may be slightly different once they are drafted into a written report. But basically here's what they did:

For FY 2008 (July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008) Most judges plus statewide elected officials: Current salaries + $1,200 + 4 percent + whatever raise state employees get in FY 08. Associate circuit judges: salaries + $3,200 + 4 percent + whatever raise state employees get in FY 08.

For FY 2009 (July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009) All judges, statewide officials and state legislators: Whatever raise state employees get in FY 09. Because of limiting language in Amendment 7, however, lawmakers won't get the raise until Jan. 1, 2009 - halfway through FY 09.


The $1,200 + 4 percent figures reflect raises state employees received
in the last six years, which is how long lawmakers, judges and statewide
elected officials have gone without pay hikes.

The ball is now in the legislature's court. The General Assembly has
until Feb. 1 for both chambers to reject the recommendations. If that
doesn't happen the recommendations automatically take effect. Under
Amendment 7, it takes two-thirds majorities in both chambers to reject
the recommendations. If they aren't rejected, funding is mandatory.

Posted by Dave on Wed., Nov 29, 2006 at 2:31 PM | News Stew (487)
Comments

It takes a higher percentage to stop a legislative/judicial pay raise than it does to raise taxes. But I guess not many people thought about that when they voted earlier this month. They didn't think about it because they didn't read past the warm and fuzzy part.

Come clean, how many of you read that the amendment would do away with ousted/convicted elected officials collecting state pensions, thought that was something that must already be law but, what the heck, sure I'll vote for it.

Posted by Howard on Thu., Nov 30, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Actually, I voted against the amendment because of the 2/3 provision.

Posted by Michael Allen on Thu., Nov 30, 2006 at 10:45 AM

I also voted against the amendment because of this provision. Obviously not enough of the voters did, however.

Posted by marcopolo on Thu., Nov 30, 2006 at 12:29 PM

This amendment is the definition of a "Trojan Horse" to the average citizen, even above average citizen, it sounded like it only took away state pensions for felons.

However, I don't believe it is necessarily a bad thing, to increase pay of judges, elected officials, and state employees. Being a state legislator (a good one) is almost full time job. With higher pay we can expect more qualified candidates, and expect better representation from our state legislators.

Posted by Achilles on Thu., Nov 30, 2006 at 1:48 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?