By Michael M. Shapiro
printer friendly | add to del.icio.us | e-mail the editors
Double-dipping, pension-padding, and conflicts of interest have become routine in the New Jersey State Legislature as officeholders juggle multiple jobs, some public and some private, and some with interests before the Legislature. While our legislators do need to financially support themselves and their families, the practices in which many of them engage compromise the integrity of the Legislature and legislative decision-making. As a result, public trust in our government and in our elected officials continues to plummet.
Could a full-time legislature be part of the solution to many of New Jersey’s political problems? New York and Pennsylvania, as well as Michigan and California, currently have full-time legislatures, with salaries ranging from approximately $69,000 to about $110,000 per year. Currently, our part-time legislators earn $49,000 per year plus health and pension benefits. Perhaps a full-time salary plus benefits might be the way to go.
What are the advantages? On a full-time legislative salary, our legislators could financially support themselves and their families. Double-dipping and pension padding by our elected officials would die a quick and painless death. Conflicts of interest would significantly decrease. The public’s confidence in the Legislature and our elected officials would increase, helping to stem the tide of voter apathy. Meanwhile, a full-time Legislature would provide other benefits: it would allow for more time for hearings and debate both among legislators and the public, thus producing more informed and thoughtful decision-making and a more civically-involved public.
What are the common arguments against a full-time Legislature? Fewer people may be available to serve if the Legislature becomes full-time. Because they have to have a second (or third or fourth) job to support themselves and their families, legislators are more in touch with “the working man.” Full-time legislators would build up huge campaign war chests so that they could keep their jobs. More (useless) legislation would likely be proposed and adopted. A full-time Legislature would also be more costly since it would require increasing the salaries (and pensions) of elected officials, more full-time staff members, and other expenses.
Most of the arguments against a full-time Legislature are not persuasive. More people would likely be willing to serve if it were a full-time position with a full-time salary. Full-time legislators would likely be equally out of touch with “the working man” as part-time legislators because they would still spend a great deal of time fundraising and going to events, most of which rarely feature guests who fit the label of “the working man.” Huge campaign war chests are a fact of life in many legislative races in New Jersey and a transition to a full-time Legislature will likely not impact this phenomenon to a great extent. The cost of a full-time Legislature would be a minor expenditure in the State’s multi-billion dollar budget and the savings from eliminating double-dipping and pension padding may make up for some of the shortfall.
The idea of a full-time Legislature is not new but is one that should be examined with open minds. An independent study that provides the advantages and disadvantages of the idea should be conducted to provide an educated basis for determining whether New Jersey and our residents would benefit from having a full-time Legislature. With all of the problems plaguing New Jersey politics and citizen distrust and apathy on the rise, the concept of a full-time Legislature should be considered as one of an array of possible solutions.
Michael M. Shapiro is an attorney who resides in New Providence. An archive of his columns can be found at ShapTalk.com.
Comments