More Leaving State Legislature
This week’s Courier Herald column:
The Georgia General Assembly has gaveled out sine die and members have returned home from Atlanta. The Easter holiday will likely be the only down time for many as May 24th primaries for legislative and congressional offices are less than two months away.
Many of those who have chosen to stand for re-election have primary opponents. In an era where support for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both demonstrate lack of support for the status quo, virtually every primary opponent must be taken seriously.
Others have decided their time as a citizen legislator has come to an end. Some such as Senators Tommie Williams of Lyons and Bill Jackson of Appling, as well as Representative Joe Wilkinson of Dunwoody resemble what we would traditionally call a retirement. They have many years of honorable service under their belt and it’s perhaps time to simplify matters to enjoy life a bit.
There are others who are leaving that offer a glimpse into a troubling trend within the ranks of the general assembly. They are leaving despite being relatively early in their career and with potential significant upward mobility in leadership positions still ahead.
Leading this list is House Majority Whip Matt Ramsey of Peachtree City. Ramsey earlier passed on a contest to replace retiring Congressman Lynn Westmoreland and then surprised many Capitol observers with the announcement that he would not seek re-election either.
Others that have also decided to take a pass include Mike Dudgeon of Johns Creek and B. J. Pak of Lilburn. Like Ramsey, both cited growing professional obligations as part of the reason why they have decided to turn their efforts away from the happenings under Atlanta’s gold dome.
Pak and Ramsey are both practicing attorneys. There’s something about people who bill their time hourly in order to make a living that allows them to internalize the value of opportunity cost. The harsh but rarely spoken reality of legislative public service is that it is getting harder and harder to justify the time commitment of serving in the legislature from a financial perspective.
The salary of a state legislature is about $17,000 per year. This “part time” job takes up 40 official days per year, but legislators can expect to spend 3 months minimum in Atlanta, and in some years that commitment has stretched to almost 5.
The reality, however, is that the time commitment is year round. Legislation is crafted throughout the year via study committee or other engagements. Civic and partisan groups have a myriad of breakfasts, luncheons, and receptions where attendance of the local legislator is expected.
While many have visions that legislators make up for this pay with various unspoken perks, most slog through the year eating cold sandwiches brought in to working meetings or other banquet food that would hardly pass for home cooking. Even the occasional upscale restaurant meal is small compensation for time away from family.
Then, there’s the declining perception of our public servants in this age of Trump. An increasingly angry public seems now to reserve the right to question the character and motivations of anyone for even having the temerity to offer themselves for public service, much less for getting themselves elected.
Six years ago I ran into one of those also retiring this year, Representative Stephen Allison of Blairsville, outside the House Chamber on the day after Sine Die. Legislators were cleaning out their offices and in a passing conversation he asked “how did we do”. I gave him a perhaps an overly harsh grade for the concluded session. Our chance conversation ended up lasting almost two hours.
I gave him an earful about the perception of legislative excesses and abuses that I had frequently been writing about. I noted that the reform bill they had passed didn’t go far enough to cure them.
He responded with direct and candid talk about what he did – and didn’t do – as a legislator. He noted that he had to give up legal clients for a good part of the year. That he missed getting to participate in a lot of family activities during the session. That he went home every night rather than participating in a lot of the Atlanta receptions and what not that some undertake when the legislature is in session.
He asked that I consider looking at legislators as individuals rather than “paint with a broad brush”. Many are just giving up time trying to make the state a better place at a direct personal and professional cost to them and their families. And on top of that, they now had to deal with social and print media’s increasing negativity.
I’ve not forgotten that conversation. And as I’ve gotten to know many more members and the general lack of glamour that surrounds the work of the legislators I’ve come to the following conclusion:
Legislators are underpaid, as evidenced by the numbers who are not only not running for re-election but those that are leaving mid-term when career opportunities call. And there’s no way I would put up with what is expected of a legislative “public servant” these days for their compensation package, including all of the “perks” that are more rooted in myth than reality for most legislators.
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Coincidence – early this morning I had the below exchange with someone on my FB feed:
Rxx Wxxxxx: Then we have a different definition of “best and brightest”.
If an individual can’t find a way to expand their personal fortune without peddling the influence and contacts they made while sucking the government tit, then I would say they’re not nearly as “best and brightest” as they think they are.
And the brutal truth is we don’t attract the truly best and brightest to run for office, at least at a Federal level.
What we end up with are opportunists like Ted Cruz or demagogues like Donald Trump, while truly principled candidates like James Webb punch out, and I STRONGLY suspect that Senator Webb has many regrets about the things he had to do in order to become a Senator.
Is John Kasich a principled politician? I would say yes, but only in the context of who he’s running against. Is he another George Washington? No ^%$#ing way.
I would point to the example of those who choose the military as a career. NOBODY joins the military to get rich, particularly at the enlisted level; those are the kinds of people we need to attract to run for office. Not those who think they see an angle to work in order to advance their own interests.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs
John Stoj
John Stoj: I agree with most of what you write above, Rxx, but here’s what I mean:
I think we have to leave out the net worth idea to start. While I get the gist of it, how could you possibly calculate it? I think what you mean is that elected public servants shouldn’t “profit” from their jobs while in office.But even that’s just crazy to me. What if you’re a big saver? Or if you’re willing to live more frugally than your other comrades? Do you have to give the money back? Sounds like a recipe for government/corporate waste: spend it all, or they won’t give it to you in the budget next year.
I do agree with the idea that pols shouldn’t be allowed to hand out contracts/etc. to spouses or other family members based on their official capacities, but I’m pretty sure there are already a ton of ethics rules on the books – they just get ignored too often. I’ll sound like a real Republican here when I say, let’s actually enforce the laws on the books before we start making any new ones.
I also understand the idea of a moratorium or limit on how/when a public servant can go work in the private sector after they leave office, but again, I think there are already some rules/laws governing this. Making it too onerous would, IMHO, make it even less likely that “good” people would want to serve in government. For example:
What if someone like me were to want to run for political office? Say I had been managing a few billion in fixed income money for a large international money manager, making a pretty good income. Then let’s say I somehow convinced my family that I had such a love for the country as to risk our financial future on a run for elected office, such that even if I was lucky (unlucky?) enough to win, it would drastically reduce our income during my time in office. Then, after making such a move, serving maybe a four year term, I would have to know that stepping right back into my old profession would be difficult at best. More likely, it would mean a change in career path, my next employer much more likely to be somehow related to to my government post, not my old profession. If I were barred from trading on my newfound experience in government to get a job after leaving office, I am not sure how I could get over the hump to even run in the first place.
I think I know what you want to prevent – people running for office for the express purpose of enriching themselves after leaving (or even during) office based on their positions in government. I’d like to reduce that too, but I have a different idea how we might be able to discourage that, and it’s pretty “radical” to many.
We need to pay our elected officials a lot more than we currently do – especially on the state and local levels.
We need to create an environment where being elected to office is not a financial burden. Until & unless we do that, we’re never going to get enough good people to run. Sure, there are already tons of real folks serving in political office across the country who are willing to sacrifice for their fellow citizens, but nowhere near enough, I’d argue. And it makes total sense to me. If you’ve got kind of a crap job, maybe the pittance that most elected offices pay could look good to you, but if you’re anywhere in a successful career track, to take off to be a public servant is an almost insurmountable financial burden for all but the independently wealthy.
Anyway, sorry for the rather long blab. Hope I got more of my thought process across.
Not sure I would say legislators are underpaid because in addition to salery they do get a pretty good per diem. Regular turnover of legislators is often healthy and we need more of it, particularly at the federal level. I can however, think of one or two legislators at the state level that should have departed years ago.
For non chairmen they get 5o days at roughly $170 per day, of which they also have the expense of temporary lodging in one of the most expensive cities in the south. That’s $8,500. Even if you assume they sleep at home and eat all their meals from the random sandwiches that show up, that’s still less than $26,000 per year. So your idea of “pretty good” and mine may differ substantially.
In addition to the many fine points made in the post, and in the comments; if you are not self employed or independently wealthy, finding employment the rest of the year can be especially challenging.
Many companies would point out that they can’t accommodate staff who isn’t present for 3-4 months, or who’s politics would conflict with theirs, or the numerous conflicts of interest with the necessary fundraising.
I recently asked a candidate did they think there was something not quite right about the fact they were planning to raise $75,000 to run for a $17,000 a year job? Is it any wonder we question the motives of those who do run for office.
Perhaps there was a time when the party found you a job, nurtured ambitions and introduced folks to get paid board roles. I daresay they’re few and far between, if they exist at all.
Don Balfour once claimed per diem for 70% of the work days one year without even discounting for typical vacation days. I still wonder how he was able to hold down his CFO post at Waffle House.
Renee Unterman is pulling in more than $100K to her campaign fund per cycle even though she has been running unopposed.
Georgia has had some selfless public servants in the past. They have also had an abundance of the opposite. Some look as if they were recruited from the sales force of a buy here/pay here used car lot or from a convention of prosperity gospel teevee evangelists. The only certainty is that whether their motivations are altruistic or not, none of them are doing it for the pittance of a salary
If we increased their salary we would still get the same quality legislator; some would be good, others not so good. It’s a part-time position and they should be paid for a part-time position.
The point about Balfour is valid. He was also a notable exception. So much so that I wrote about him often, sometimes more than once a week.
Unterman is a ranking committee chair and they are…more equal than others. She’s been there longer than all but about 5 of her GOP Senate peers. Again, hard to compare her experience with those mentioned above…especially in the House where even in the majority a Rep w/less than 8 years experience is more likley to be one that has 50 per diem days than one that can get five figures of campaign donations or rank a Committee Chair that can call for unlimited per diem days.
Resist the broad brush, and point out and fix the specific problems when they are found. Otherwise, we’re undermining the institutions which we rely upon for self-government. We can do both, and there’s no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water – even at times if it’s a really ugly baby.
We sure got what we overpaid for this session. Most seem to find politics an avenue to connect to a substantial improvement in their life (money or power) while poorly and inefficiently serving their constituents. Once they get to their comfort power/income level and morph into someone else, they become unreachable outside a circle.
The problem might be they meet too often and are compelled to spend incredible time on nonsense to avoid the important stuff.
Term limits or meet every other year or both.
Legislators are elected to two year terms. We’ve thus far gotten a permanent (i.e, 10+ year) fix to transportation, a constitutional amendment to allow for transformative fixes to failing schools, a plan to inject $100M of private sector money into failing rural hospitals, and two balanced budgets that have prioritized education spending, avoided the “hall of fame” sins of the past, and this year tackled the problem of lagging state employee pay in critical sectors. That budget, by the way, is still 8% lower than the 2008 budget when adjusted for inflation and population growth. (and we’re now covering 50% people more on the state’s medicaid program which is far more than the 10% population growth we’ve seen in that time).
So perhaps the problem is your expectations. Or, it could be that for $17K we can only afford a lot of legislators that can only promise they’re going to eliminate your income taxes and fix all of your problems (and increase your expectations) but not actually have any plan that will do that.