Editor’s note: This commentary is by Paul Ralston, a small business entrepreneur from Middlebury. He is a Democrat who served in the Vermont Legislature from 2011-2014. He is the creator and host of “The Reluctant Politician,” a weekly one-hour news show that airs Thursdays at 1 p.m. on Radio Vermont WDEV 96.1 FM.
[H]ealth care, energy, education, corrections, human services, taxes. What’s going on?
When substantially the same group of legislators – good people who are honorable, hardworking and dedicated – annually face the same large, persistent problems and are unable or unwilling to make the changes necessary, one has to wonder if there are systemic, structural issues in the Legislature confounding the process. Where are the new members, the new ideas, the new determination?
Perhaps new people are reluctant to run because they just can’t afford to serve. If so, can we afford a system that discourages new people from running? Is it in our best interest to have a Legislature made up of only those who can afford to serve?
Someone who holds a job for 10, 15, 25 years looks not so much like a citizen legislator as a professional politician, though a poorly paid one.
According to Eric Davis, professor emeritus of political science at Middlebury College, “Turnover in the Vermont House almost always results from voluntary departures rather than from electoral defeats — in most cycles, fewer than 10 House incumbents are defeated.”
Incumbency is a powerful advantage in electoral politics. Parties frown on challenges to incumbents from within their party. Incumbents have good name recognition and have established ties to their communities, which rightly endears them to the electorate. And donors gravitate to incumbents who have important committee assignments. So does the low pay and lack of benefits provided to Vermont legislators amount to another form of “incumbent protection”?
The advantages of incumbency (along with good work, of course) have led to lengthy terms of service by members of the Legislature that can span decades. Someone who holds a job for 10, 15, 25 years looks not so much like a citizen legislator as a professional politician, though a poorly paid one.
Vermont legislators are paid $694 per week with reimbursement for travel, lodging and meals. With a 17- to 18-week schedule, that pay runs about $12,000 per year for a heavy and time-consuming workload. The state provides no retirement benefits and contributes nothing to the health care costs of these employees, so legislators must pay for coverage themselves from their meager salary, have coverage from a spouse, or be covered under Medicare or Medicaid.
Is it time to revisit legislative pay and benefits? Modest changes – say $1,000 per week for a 16-week session, plus a prorated share of health costs – could open the field to more citizen participation. An expanded field working with veteran lawmakers may find a sustainable consensus that brings much more benefit than the additional payroll cost. Let’s encourage more citizens to run.
