Download Zipped File WP 6.1 0715LPCM.ZIP 8,747 Bytes

Legislative Process Committee


MINUTES OF THE

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS COMMITTEE

Tuesday, July 15, 1997 - 9:00 a.m. - Room 405 - State Capitol



Members Present:    
    Sen. Leonard M. Blackham, Senate Chair     Rep. Byron L. Harward, House Chair
    Sen. E. George Mantes
    Sen. R. Mont Evans
    Speaker Melvin R. Brown
    Rep. Gene Davis
    Rep. Brent H. Goodfellow
    Rep. Evan L. Olsen    


Staff Present:    
    Mr. Stewart E. Smith,
        Managing Research Analyst
    Mr. John L. Fellows,
        Associate General Counsel
    Ms. Karen E. Mecham,
        Secretary


Note:    A list of others present and a copy of materials distributed in the meeting are on file in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel.


1.    Call to Order -- Chair Harward called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m., welcomed the committee members, and the members of the Legislative Compensation Commission. Chair Harward noted that the commission had been invited because it is responsible for making recommendations to the Legislature regarding the legislator's compensation package. He noted that the legislature may accept or reduce the compensation recommended by the Commission but cannot exceed it. He added that the Legislative Process Committee would be looking at the process of determining compensation rather than compensation packages. He invited the commission members to sit at the table. He also invited Rep. Tanner to join the members at the table to participate in the discussion concerning ethics. He noted that the meeting was an educational one and that there would be no decisions made.

2.     Approval of Minutes
--

    MOTION: Speaker Brown moved approval of the minutes of the June 17, 1997 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

3.    1997 Compensation and Benefits for State Legislatures - Mr. Tim Storey, National Conference of State Legislatures, distributed a handout titled "1997 Compensation and Benefits for State Legislators." He encouraged questions as he made his presentation.

    Mr. Storey explained that it is difficult to reach a balance between adequate compensation and fiscal efficiency in government. He said he would provide a national context on the issue of legislator compensation, place Utah in that context, discuss how states establish legislative compensation, and consider trends.

    Mr. Storey said that it is difficult to rank and average salaries nationally. He noted the highest salary given is in California at $75,000 annually and New Mexico's legislators are the lowest paid with $0 annually. He added that New Hampshire's salaries are set at $100 annually with no per diem. He said that 40 states pay an annual salary, eight states pay a daily rate and Vermont pays legislators weekly. He noted Rhode Island has recently moved to a daily rate of pay. He added that Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming are paid daily. He said in this category Utah is about average among the states at $100 per day.

    Mr. Storey said that 45 states provide per diem payments with most setting a daily rate. He said Alaska has the highest per diem rate at $168 per day and Utah ties with Arizona and Oklahoma for the lowest rate at $35 per day. The average is $86 per day. Several states tie the amount of their state's per diem to mirror federal per diem rates.

    Mr. Storey said that most states provide leadership supplements (Utah's is one of the lowest), mileage allowance with state cars, district office and staffing allowance, phone allowance, health and dental benefits, disability and life insurance, and retirement benefits. He outlined that, in estimated overall compensation (calculated by adding salary to unvouchered per diem and expense payments and adjusted for the number of days in session), Utah ranks 48, ahead of Montana and New Hampshire. He said that, on average, Utah legislators are compensated $6,775 per year.

    Mr. Storey said that: in three states, compensation is mandated in their state constitution; 23 states use a compensation commission; eight states link legislator pay to an index (generally to state employee salary scales); and the rest adjust pay through the regular legislative process.

    Mr. Storey said the compensation commissions vary in composition. In seven states the governor appoints all members . He noted powers also vary: in some states the commission recommendations take effect without legislative action; in some states, the legislature must reject the recommendations or they take effect; some commissions are only advisory; and in Arizona, compensation packages must be approved in a public vote. He noted Congress gets automatic increases because its compensation is tied to the federal employees pay scale.

    Mr. Storey outlined the trends in Legislator compensation. He said that, in real dollars, from 1972, total legislator compensation has deceased by about 7 percent. The issue has been removed from the political arena by formulating citizen commissions that make binding decisions or by tying compensation increases to an index. Per diem rates generally mirror the federal per diem rates. He said that compensation is affected by: more public access and awareness because of technology; term limits; devolution resulting in more special interests focus on state legislature; and issue complexity. He reiterated that there needs to be a balance

between keeping good people in the system through adequate compensation and not making compensation too high.

    Speaker Brown said that he felt that legislators are making choices based on compensation because they get paid to attend meetings at the Capitol but not when they meet with constituents in their districts. Mr. Storey noted that there is a lot of legislative work that does not show up on the legislative calendar. Rep. Goodfellow asked if legislators are paid to attend NCSL conferences. Mr. Storey said that most states compensate legislators for attendance, but he has not done studies on this area. Sen. Blackham suggested a study of the demands placed on legislators. Mr. Storey said that it would interesting to know if compensation prohibits some professions from serving in the Legislature. Chair Harward said he felt the shortness of the general session aids encourages citizens from all walks of life to serve in the state legislature.

    Rep. Olsen asked if the states who pay more get better laws or management. Mr. Storey said that there may be a level at which government suffers due to a lack of compensation. Speaker Brown asked the members of the Compensation Commission for a report outlining how the annualized salary of $25,000 is determined. Mr. Mark Bedel, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, staff for the Commission, said that if the compensation amount paid now on a daily basis was annualized, the resulting amount would equal $25,000. It was noted that retirement is part of the compensation. Mr. Duane A. Frandsen, Compensation Commission, said that the retirement package is included in their recommendation. He added that there is a strong feeling of volunteerism in Utah and that influences the compensation process. Speaker Brown asked if the Compensation Commission would like to have their recommendations automatically adopted. Mr. Frandsen said he would not change the process while Mr. Thackeray said he felt making it automatic would be a smoother process.

    Rep. Goodfellow said public perception is that the state legislators make large amounts of money. Sen. Blackham said that the compensation he receives does not adequately make up for the business he loses. He noted the time and travel demands on rural legislators are much greater than the Wasatch Front legislators. Rep. Harward said that leadership members and senators have greater demands because there are fewer of them.

    Chair Harward said that there will be a future meeting on this issue and invited the Legislative Compensation Commission to be involved in the discussion.
    
4.    Length of Legislative Sessions -- Mr. Smith distributed two handouts summarizing information on the legislative session length. He reviewed the material with the committee noting that session days are counted either as legislative or calendar days. He explained that many states have organizational sessions. He said Utah has one of the shortest session lengths. He added that some states can lengthen their session by a majority vote of their members. He

said that some states limit session length by limiting compensation. Mr. Smith said that some sessions have no constitutional or statutory limits on days. He also discussed alternating session lengths.

    Rep. Olsen asked if the idea of calling an information session before calling a special session has been discussed. The answer was yes but there are limitations in even-numbered years because of charitable activities the legislators participate in that could be a conflict of interest by qualifying as campaign contributions taken during a legislative session. Rep. Tanner said that the number of days outside of the 45-day session needs to be reviewed to see if the work is being done efficiently.

    Speaker Brown said that he would like to know if productivity is increased by some of the other processes. He felt a list of criteria is needed for a comparison of efficiency. He said that he would like to know if legislators feel that they are well informed on the bills they receive. He also wanted to know how the number of bills passed is influenced by different session lengths. Rep. Harward said he would like to know the number of bills reviewed through public process and how many public hearings are held per bill. Mr. Storey said the number of legislators also affects specialization. Sen. Evans said that he wondered if the length of the session makes the agencies more accountable to the process. He noted that real growth has not occurred in the legislative branch as it has in the executive branch.

    Chair Harward said that further information will be distributed before a future meeting in which there will be a discussion on these issues. He asked members to inform staff of their questions and concerns about the quality of the session as well as the length of session so that information could be provided.

     Rep. Goodfellow suggested that individual legislators' staff assistance is more available in some other states than in Utah and wondered what changes could be made to the length of session to increase the quality of the service for the public. Sen. Blackham said that he felt that he needed a block of time during the session to meet with constituents. Rep. Olsen suggested that he needed time to meet with other legislators. Speaker Brown noted that having legislative days in a larger calendar period would allow time outs for discussion. Rep. Davis said the final days have more pressure and wondered how other states handle that pressure. Mr. Storey said that this is a common problem. Speaker Brown said there are some issues that will always wait until the last minute. However, if the process is managed properly with calendaring to permit public input, the process is smoother. Rep. Davis said that proper management would be his hope as well, but he has concerns that it works in practice. It was agreed that other states' processes could provide information. Chair Harward asked that budget and staff requirements also be reviewed.

5.    Legislative Ethics -- Mr. Fellows distributed a packet of information. He said that, after reviewing those states that govern gifts by regulation, he found no consistent process. He added Utah does not regulate as comprehensively as other states. He said there are two approaches to regulating gifts: 1) the inclusive approach which attempts to make a narrow definition of gifts; and 2) the exclusive approach which is a broad definition of gifts with a laundry list of exclusions.

    Mr. Fellows said there are about 14 things that are generally considered gifts including payments, investments, loans, tangible goods, real property, promise of employment, art, collectibles, transportation, honoraria, services, rebates, entertainment, and hospitality. He also outlined the list of things that are not considered gifts. He noted there is a lot of ambiguity in this area.

    Mr. Fellows discussed statutory approaches that restrict gifts by defining "gift" and then providing extensive exclusions; 1) define gift broadly to mean "anything of value" and develop extensive inclusions ; 2) define gifts broadly and developing an exclusion list; 3) gifts that are acceptable under monetary limitations with few exclusions; and 4) a constitutional prohibition of gifts governed by bribery statutes.

    Mr. Fellows outlined statutes addressing gifts of tickets to sporting events or other entertainments. He also provided two charts outlining the inclusions and exclusions connected with the definition of gifts. Rep. Olsen said he would like to consider gifts to the executive branch as well as the legislative branch.

    Chair Harward asked for further direction from the committee before this issue is calendared for discussion. Rep. Olsen asked about restrictions of other governmental entities including cities and counties. He also asked what happens to gifts presented to the governor by other states and countries. Rep. Tanner requested that the committee study the regulation of intangible gifts and restrict them to $50. Chair Harward requested that staff provide the committee with copies of the statutes concerning bribery, gifts, executive ethics, and legislative ethics. Speaker Brown requested options for the definition of "gifts." Mr. Fellows acknowledged the efforts of Ms. Nina Norton, paralegal in the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, in researching this issue and publicly thanked her.

6.    Other Committee Business

    Consideration of an Additional Study Item -- Senator Blackham distributed a handout outlining proposed process changes for the legislative budget process. He said that the purpose of the proposal is to more efficiently accomplish the budgeting process with less stress to legislators. The governor would make the budget proposal to the Executive Appropriations Committee. There would be time for study and work meetings to give additional attention to

areas that need it. Then the subcommittees could make recommendations, hold hearings with public comments, and complete consideration and preparation of the final legislation.             

     MOTION: Sen. Blackham moved to add the budget process to the committee's study list. The motion passed with Sen. Evans voting against.

    Budget Review Options -- Legislative Auditor Wayne Welsh recommended a review of the Department of Corrections because of operating and building costs, the Division of Wildlife Resources since it has not be audited since 1985, and the Division of Purchasing involving the service contract bidding process to determine whether the contracts are sufficiently well defined, sufficiently specific to protect the state's interests, and whether the contracts are enforceable. Sen. Evans declared a conflict of interest in the area of the Department of Corrections.

     MOTION: Rep. Olsen moved to approve the recommendation to review of the Department of Corrections in 1998, the Division of Wildlife in 1999, and the Division of Purchasing in the year 2000 for consideration by the Executive Appropriations Committee. The motion passed unanimously.

    Next Meeting - Chair said that the next meeting would be held on Tuesday, August 19, 1997.

8.    Adjournment
--     

    MOTION:
Sen. Evans moved that the meeting be adjourned at 11:50 a.m. The motion passed unanimously.
    
Minutes reported by Karen E. Mecham





[Back to the Interim Directory][Back to the Monthly Schedule][Back to the Committee Listing] Utah State Legislature