As a state representative in the 1990s representing southern Sandoval County, I introduced legislation to pay legislators a part-time salary and tied it to term limits. Times have changed—NOT!
Several decades later, we are still debating if our Legislature should be paid and if they deserve it. The answer is—yes they should be paid and if they don’t deserve it vote them out. And add term limits since 96 percent of incumbents are re-elected in spite of low approval ratings.
BUT, it is a big BUT, if we pay them we must tie to that salary strong conflict of interest measures, making it clear no one can vote on any issue they or their family have any interest in. And, further, that they can’t accept other government salaries (as a teacher for example) if they are getting a salary as a legislator—no double dipping.
There are three legitimate arguments for paying legislators:
•There is an old saying around the Roundhouse that is said somewhat tongue-in-cheek—that only rich or retired people can afford to serve in the Legislature. The truth is that a cross section of New Mexicans can’t afford to serve and that is wrong.
•Paying them and implementing a ban of accepting anything of value from anyone with legislation in front of them would go a long way in cleaning up the mess up there during the session where lobbyists are wining and dining legislators while their bills are being heard in front of the committees the representatives serve on.
•Paying them and providing staff would allow legislators better research and better constituent services. Only leadership has staff and that puts more power in fewer hands, which is less democratic. Everyone deserves staff support.
No, we don’t need district offices—coffee shops are just fine. But staff support, a salary and strong conflict-of-interest measures offer a balanced solution to upgrade our Legislature and its work product.
And here is the rub: Republicans don’t want any of this for no logical reason, while the Democrats generally don’t want term limits or the other ethics pieces I discuss above. I believe this middle ground I lay out above made sense in the 1990s and it still makes sense. Let’s compromise and pay them, rotate them in and out of service, give them staff to work smarter and ban them from accepting anything of value from anyone.
-Bob Perls
Bob Perls, a registered declined-to-state voter, has lived in Corrales since 1990 and represented the village in the state Legislature for two terms in the 1990s. He is a former tech entrepreneur, former U.S. diplomat and the founder of New Mexico Open Elections.
Letters to the Editor: March 6
Share this story and add your comments:
As a state representative in the 1990s representing southern Sandoval County, I introduced legislation to pay legislators a part-time salary and tied it to term limits. Times have changed—NOT!
Several decades later, we are still debating if our Legislature should be paid and if they deserve it. The answer is—yes they should be paid and if they don’t deserve it vote them out. And add term limits since 96 percent of incumbents are re-elected in spite of low approval ratings.
BUT, it is a big BUT, if we pay them we must tie to that salary strong conflict of interest measures, making it clear no one can vote on any issue they or their family have any interest in. And, further, that they can’t accept other government salaries (as a teacher for example) if they are getting a salary as a legislator—no double dipping.
There are three legitimate arguments for paying legislators:
•There is an old saying around the Roundhouse that is said somewhat tongue-in-cheek—that only rich or retired people can afford to serve in the Legislature. The truth is that a cross section of New Mexicans can’t afford to serve and that is wrong.
•Paying them and implementing a ban of accepting anything of value from anyone with legislation in front of them would go a long way in cleaning up the mess up there during the session where lobbyists are wining and dining legislators while their bills are being heard in front of the committees the representatives serve on.
•Paying them and providing staff would allow legislators better research and better constituent services. Only leadership has staff and that puts more power in fewer hands, which is less democratic. Everyone deserves staff support.
No, we don’t need district offices—coffee shops are just fine. But staff support, a salary and strong conflict-of-interest measures offer a balanced solution to upgrade our Legislature and its work product.
And here is the rub: Republicans don’t want any of this for no logical reason, while the Democrats generally don’t want term limits or the other ethics pieces I discuss above. I believe this middle ground I lay out above made sense in the 1990s and it still makes sense. Let’s compromise and pay them, rotate them in and out of service, give them staff to work smarter and ban them from accepting anything of value from anyone.
-Bob Perls
Bob Perls, a registered declined-to-state voter, has lived in Corrales since 1990 and represented the village in the state Legislature for two terms in the 1990s. He is a former tech entrepreneur, former U.S. diplomat and the founder of New Mexico Open Elections.
Related
The Paper staff
This story is a staff report from The Paper. More by The Paper staff