In the waning days of the legislative session, lawmakers on Wednesday backed a proposal to boost pay and benefits for members of the General Assembly in future years, saying that would enable more working-class Vermonters to serve in the Statehouse.
The House advanced a compensation increase similar to the one the Senate approved last month. The vote was 102-44. A final vote is expected on Thursday.
Democratic and Progressive supporters framed the bill as a long overdue move to pay lawmakers fairly and make it possible for a more diverse group of people to serve.
“I really think it’s unfortunate for the state that somebody who pushes a mop or shovels gravel for a living is excluded from this body,” said Rep. Conor Casey (D-Montpelier).
A number of Republicans blasted the move as self-serving, rushed and disrespectful to taxpayers.
“I truly hope that the voters of Vermont remember this day,” said Rep. Brian Smith (R-Derby). “I hope they remember who gave themselves a full-time job and a raise at their expense. This is an embarrassment. Shame on all of you!”
The bill, S. 39, would more than double the salary lawmakers receive over three years. Rank-and-file lawmakers receive $14,616 plus allowances for food and lodging. By 2027, the salary for rank-and-file members would rise to $29,766 annually.
The bill follows last year’s historic exodus of a third of lawmakers, many of whom cited the low pay and lack of benefits as making it impossible for them to continue serving. Supporters say increasing compensation is the best way to ensure that the Statehouse isn’t populated only by the wealthy or retirees.
The salary increases are designed to bring lawmakers’ pay in line with the average Vermonter’s. It would increase weekly pay during the session and would also pay lawmakers in the offseason.
The weekly salary for service during the typically 18-week legislative session from January through mid-May would rise from $812 today to $1,210 in 2027.
In addition, the bill would grant future lawmakers one day a week of pay for every week the legislature is not in session. This off-session pay is meant to compensate lawmakers for the duties many perform year-round.
Lawmakers would also become eligible for state health insurance, a benefit that would cost the state between $9,946 for a single person and $27,300 for a family of four. Like other state workers, lawmakers would have to pay 20 percent of the cost of the insurance. It’s unclear how many would sign up for the benefit.
The main change the House made to the Senate version of the bill was to push the health care benefit back by a year. The Senate wanted lawmakers to become eligible for it in 2024, meaning it would have been available to current lawmakers in the second year of the current biennium.
But the House pushed that back to 2025, in part so no one could argue that current legislators were benefiting from the bill. Members would have to be reelected first.
In reality, though, most members who seek reelection win, so many of those voting for the increase will, in fact, eventually enjoy the benefit.
Some lawmakers felt the bill was rushed. The Senate didn’t pass the bill until after crossover, the traditional mid-session deadline for one chamber to get its bills over to the other. A few members of the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs also took issue with the limited testimony the bill received before a vote earlier this week.
Others worried that the bill, which would eventually increase the costs to taxpayers annually by at least $5 million, couldn’t be justified to Vermonters.
“I think the optics of it are terrible,” said Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell).
“I actually feel like the optics of trying to have a more inclusive legislature are great,” Rep. Mike McCarthy (D-St. Albans) retorted during committee debate.
Republicans offered a number of amendments, most of which failed. One from Rep. Jim Harrison (R-Chittenden) would have required lawmakers to pay 100 percent of the health insurance premiums when they were out of session.
Harrison pointed out that the state’s share of a family plan is $27,000. “That dwarfs our current compensation, and I think that’s a very hard sell to my constituents,” Harrison said. “That’s a lot of money.”
The committee rejected the change, but noted it was something that a study committee created by the bill would look into. Another amendment would have required the study committee to explore the merit of having an independent board to set lawmakers’ pay. That was accepted by the committee and added to the bill.
Harrison’s final amendment would have removed all salary increases until after the study committee finished its work. That was also rejected. An amendment by Rep. Art Peterson (R-Clarendon) to shorten the session to 12 weeks also went nowhere.
“My vote today is a vote to support future legislators. It’s not a raise for myself or others,” Rep. Melanie Carpenter (D-Hyde Park) said.
She noted that the lawmaker she replaced, Kate Donnally, stepped down in part because of the financial stress of the job and raising a family.
“This is the people’s House and all Vermonters should have an opportunity to serve,” Carpenter said. “It should not be predicated on wealth and privilege. “
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
