We could try a taxi meter

Nothing stirs up a debate faster than the issue of salaries and benefits of elected officials.

Most people think representatives are paid far too much. And most people have no idea what those salaries, benefits and perks actually are.

State legislators are certainly on the low-end of the scale. Per the state constitution, they’re paid a salary of $7,800 for the first 60 days of a 120-day legislative session. After that, they work for free, although the per diem during the legislative session is more than the salary.

Over the years, changing the constitution to pay legislators for the full 120 days of the session has been placed on the ballot several times, but voters don’t hesitate in voting it down. The concept of offering health benefits never even comes up.

Legislators with “real” jobs, sometimes in the public sector, must take a leave of absence for those four months and scramble to figure out a way to cover their health insurance. They also need to find an employer that will allow the four-month leave, along with numerous other days when a legislator must attend meetings during the interim between legislatures.

Other legislators who work in the private sector, most often in a law firm, have managed this problem by acquiring a more forgiving employment situation, sometimes referred to among their colleagues as a “fake” job. They show up a few days a week, do a little work, and nonetheless collect their full salary and benefits, sometimes even during the legislative session.

Ever wonder about those legislators constantly tweeting about their legislative travel, meetings and field trips during the normal work day? The private sector often writes off these activities as part of the cost of doing business. After all, having a state senator in the law firm helps bring in business, especially when that person can influence legislation later to benefit a client.

Local officials are much better paid, to the point that some people give up their old jobs once they’re elected and dedicate themselves full time to their new position. Considering a Washoe county commissioner earns $58,672.55 (since 2010) and enjoys full health benefits and retirement, it’s not unreasonable for the voters to expect full time devotion.

A recent dispute arose at Reno City Hall when the Reno Gazette-Journal reported that council members have been receiving automatic pay increases each year since 2004, despite the recession when employees’ pay was being cut and jobs eliminated. Council members now receive a base salary of $67,972 along with a pension contribution of $17,503, health benefits worth about $12,000 and other perks of the office, bringing the total compensation package to $111,656.

Some council members, embarrassed by the automatic increases during tough economic times, have chosen to give back some of the money but the council as a whole has refused to establish a permanent policy to fix the problem of the COLAs which have increased salaries by almost 25 percent over the last ten years. Instead the majority of the Council prefers a “voluntary give-back” whereby council members decide for themselves how much salary to keep.

Councilmember Jenny Brekhus has declined to participate in the ’give back whatever you want’ competition, and she pushed the council to eliminate the automatic pay increases during budget planning. The council refused and instead proceeded with their individual decisions to return anywhere from $1,950 to $10,800 in salary and benefits.

As a protest to the ridiculous default policy of voluntary give-backs, Brekhus accepts the full salary and benefits package. Following her lead, the new mayor and council members should revisit the issue and establish a rational policy that treats everyone equally.

It may be a difficult decision to make, but isn’t that what we pay them to do?