NORTHAMPTON — There is never a good time for lawmakers to vote in pay raises for themselves, says Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, but that doesn’t mean it never happens.
On Thursday, the Senate sent Gov. Charlie Baker a package of proposed raises that would boost the pay of legislative leadership, judges, the governor and other elected officials like the attorney general and state treasurer.
Republicans pounced, saying the timing and rushed nature of the legislation showed the Legislature’s priorities are out-of-whack with the public’s. This was the first major piece of legislation to make it to the governor’s desk this year.
The package breezed through the House Wednesday 115-44 and through the Senate Thursday 31-9. Republicans voted in lockstep against the changes; a handful of Democrats broke ranks to oppose them.
All but one area legislator, Sen. Donald Humason, R-Westfield, voted for the pay increases.
“There is just no public support at any time under any circumstances for adjusting compensation for legislators,” Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat, said Thursday. He and House Speaker Robert DeLeo would see a $45,000 increase this year, to $142,000 in total compensation.
In a statement, Baker said he and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito had no plans to accept any salary increases. He said he would veto the proposal.
If current tallies hold, the Legislature would have the two-thirds majority necessary to override Baker’s veto.
The bill doesn’t change the $62,547 annual base pay for lawmakers, but does increase additional stipends paid to Democratic and Republican leaders and to the chairs of key legislative committees.
The heads of the House and Senate Ways and Means Committees would get a $35,000 raise.
The bill also would increase Baker’s annual salary from $151,800 to $185,000, and for the first time provide the governor a $65,000 housing allowance.
Other constitutional officers, including the attorney general and state treasurer, would also see substantial raises, and annual salaries for judges would increase by $25,000.
Humason, R-Westfield, opposed the raises because of the timing of the proposal and the process by which it was passed.
“We felt like it sends the wrong signal that the first thing the Legislature takes up in the new year” are pay raises for members, he said. “So timing is a horrible thing.”
“Process in a lot of our opinions was very poor,” Humason added. “There wasn’t a lot of time for the public to weigh in on this issue, for the public to consider what their legislators were voting on.”
Not so fast, Rosenberg said. On the surface, the raises may not look good. But though the legislation was first presented this week, stipend raises for top officeholders have been put off for years — even after an independent commission in 2014 recommended the raises.
Rosenberg and other proponents’ arguments go like this:
Leadership has not received a stipend increase since 1982. Based on inflation since that year, the 2014 commission recommended an $86,000 increase. DeLeo and Rosenberg cut the raise about in half.
To attract talent, and to make running for the Legislature feasible for lower-income citizens, increased pay is necessary.
As far as the fast-paced movement of the bill, it was necessary to do so before committee chairs are named, so members don’t know beforehand if they stand to see a significant pay boost.
Pay for lawmakers comes out of existing personnel budgets, so money isn’t coming out of other revenue streams. That’s not the case for other officials such as judges.
Rep. Peter Kocot, D-Northampton, said the raises are not a “spur of the moment” thing, referring back to the 2014 commission, and that lawmakers should be compensated for their efforts to be “on their toes and to be well-informed.”
Sen. Adam Hinds, D-Pittsfield, said “it was not an easy vote,” and Hinds didn’t want to give the impression that he, a first-term senator, deserved a raise. But he said he voted in favor because of the lack of a stipend increase since 1982 and the fact that the Legislature should attract the best talent for the job.
Rep. Solomon Goldstein-Rose, D-Amherst, said another aspect of the legislation, doing away with the old per diem expense payments and instead boosting office expense accounts, is the only part of the new law that would affect him.
The freshman lawmaker said he would see an increase of between $2,000 and $5,000 this year, and wrote in a Facebook post: “I’m going to use the extra money this year to help start a fund to support other young candidates in running for office.”
Rep. John Scibak, D-South Hadley, supported the raises. He had this prediction: “I suspect that the Republicans as well as the Democrats who voted against this will take the money.”
Jack Suntrup can be reached at jsuntrup@gazettenet.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.