Vermont senators advanced a plan on Thursday to double the pay of lawmakers in a bid to make it easier for average residents to serve in the part-time General Assembly. The bill is in response to the mounting evidence that serving in the Statehouse presents a major financial hardship for many.
“Serving in the Vermont legislature is not supposed to be a career,” Sen. Becca White (D-Windsor) said. “But it’s also not supposed to be a job that only wealthy or retired folks can afford to do.”
White, who at age 28 is the youngest Vermont senator, is a part-time cashier at the Upper Valley Food Coop, where she makes about $15 per hour. She noted that the state constitution says lawmakers have the “right to reasonable compensation,” and said policy debates in Montpelier always benefit from a more diverse group of lawmakers.
“Our state will be better off if we give everyone, everyone a chance to have a seat at the table for our democracy,” she said.
The chamber supported the bill 19-10. The raises would be phased in beginning in 2025, a point lawmakers repeatedly underscored.
Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth (D/P-Chittenden Central) noted that senators would need to be reelected twice to benefit fully from the changes outlined in the bill, S.39.
“Anybody sitting in this room would have to serve five more years to get the full compensation,” Baruth said.
Rank-and-file lawmakers currently earn $812 per week when the legislature is in session, which is typically 18 weeks from January through early May. That’s about $14,616. They also receive allowances for meals, lodging and mileage.
The weekly in-session salary would increase to at least $1,000 per week in 2025, $1,100 in 2026 and then $1,210 in 2027. The exact figures would be adjusted upward for inflation.
That would bring the in-session base salary for lawmakers in 2027 to $21,780, about a 50 percent increase from current levels.
In addition, future lawmakers would be paid for one day of work every week the legislature is not in session, to reflect the myriad duties they perform year-round.
That extra pay would tack on another $7,986 to lawmakers’ total salary in 2027, bringing them up to $29,766 annually. That’s slightly more than double the current rate.
During a caucus meeting earlier in the week, Baruth acknowledged that total salaries were increasing “somewhat dramatically.” In an interview with Seven Days before the vote, he rephrased that characterization and said he was trying to express that the raises would be sufficient to cover some of the lawmakers’ unreimbursed expenses.
“From where we are now to where we are going will be a substantial increase in compensation to address a substantial shortfall for younger people and people in circumstances where they need it to serve,” Baruth said.
The leaders of each chamber of the legislature are already paid more than other lawmakers, and their salaries would rise, as well. Both make just over $30,000 now, and after the increases, by 2027 their total base salary would be $61,240 before cost-of-living increases.
The bill would also make lawmakers eligible to receive the same health care benefits as state employees. Currently they only receive access to dental care. Lawmakers would be responsible for 20 percent of the cost of health care, while the state would pick up 80 percent.
Sen. Chris Bray (D-Addison) recounted before the vote that he didn’t have any health insurance in his first term in office and got slapped with an $18,000 bill for emergency treatment for kidney stones.
A number of smaller proposed benefits in the original bill were axed by the Senate Appropriations Committee after some lawmakers expressed concern that it was getting too generous, Baruth said.
These included the right to be reimbursed up to $1,600 per year for childcare or eldercare expenses if a lawmaker’s household made less than $75,000 per year. Also cut was reimbursement of $30.25 per hour for preparing for special legislative meetings, reimbursement for professional development and repaying lawmakers with physical limitations for their parking expenses.
Even with the trims, some lawmakers couldn’t bring themselves to support the bill. Sen. Thomas Chittenden (D-Chittenden-Southeast) said the out-of-session bump in pay was a bridge too far for him.
“I say if we’re adjourned then we shouldn’t be paid,” he said.
He added that if lawmakers were going to get an average Vermont salary, then they shouldn’t get daily meal allowances, which the average resident doesn’t receive. Lawmakers receive $69 per day for meals, $134 per night for lodging and 65 cents per mile during the session.
Sen. Russ Ingalls (R-Essex) offered an alternative. He proposed raising weekly salaries to $1,500 and cutting the session to 13 weeks.
The idea mirrors one offered by Gov. Phil Scott, who has said he doesn’t oppose lawmakers making more money but thinks they should shorten the session to 90 days. Being in session five days a week instead of four or not taking the week of Town Meeting Day off are two ways the legislature could complete its work more efficiently, he said.
Ingalls’ proposal was roundly rejected. Sen. Ruth Hardy (D-Addison) noted that the bill would create a six-member legislative working group that could explore that and other issues related to legislative service. These include whether the legislature should meet year-round or boost staff to assist lawmakers or offer benefits such as childcare.
If approved, the bill would cost taxpayers an estimated additional $853,000 in 2024 and increase every year to $4.8 million in 2027, according to the Joint Fiscal Office. The bill still needs the approval of the House of Representatives, but it’s not clear that chamber will take it up this year.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!