AN ATTEMPT TO PASS THE BUCK ON PAY INCREASES

Salaries can be a sticky wicket for legislators. Raise them too high -- voters become unhappy. Don't raise them enough -- and the compensation may be unjust. Ultimately, our elected officials are accountable for their actions -- at the ballot box -- and that's the way it should be.

Each year, Missouri legislators vote on pay raises for all state employees -- including their own. That would change under a proposal by Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett. The bill would take pay decisions away from the legislators and put it in the hands of "concerned" citizens. This would take the issue of salaries and benefits for judges, legislators and statewide elected officials out of the public eye and move it behind closed doors.

It's nothing more than a way to pass the buck. Legislators and elected officials could simply throw up their hands over future pay recommendations saying it wasn't their idea.

Thomason may have his heart in the right place, but he's missing the bigger issue of accountability. If we don't like a legislator's actions, we can take recourse. How can we act against faceless volunteers -- one of hundreds of volunteer committees at the state level?

The bill would set up an oversized 22-member Missouri Citizen's Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. Amazingly, nine of these members will be chosen randomly from voter registration lists in each of the state's nine congressional districts. In other words, you could be sitting at home -- with absolutely no knowledge of the state budget or salaries -- and suddenly have a say-so on the governor's salary.

Other members of this commission would have ties to government. One would be a retired judge appointed by judges of the Supreme Court, and the rest would be appointed by the government with the consent of the Senate. These appointees would have to include some people with experience in the field of personnel, two senior citizens, representatives of small and large businesses, and other professions.

The first commission would be appointed by the governor by February of 1996 -- and would begin holding hearings in August. In December of 1996, the commission would be required to file a salary and benefits schedule, to take effect with new officeholders coming in during January of 1997.

Under Thomason's bill, state legislators would continue to get the same annual cost of living increases as other state employees. The idea is that the pay commission may not have to meet as often with these automatic increases in place.

If the House approves, it would head to the Senate. Ultimately, voter approval may be required.

Thomason said legislators are often forced to look at the big picture and cannot easily justify larger pay adjustments to statewide officials even though they know a higher salary is appropriate.

But who will pay for it?

Salaries cannot -- and should not -- be taken from the overall state funding picture. When legislators consider budget requests they must also decide if the state has the wherewithal to pay for it. This committee is charged only with deciding just compensation -- not with the worry of how the state would foot the bill.

It's this kind of thinking that gets government in trouble.

We elect our legislators to run the state government -- and that certainly includes the budget. This proposal is nothing more than a dodge to get legislators out of the salary limelight.