This commentary is by Morgan W. Brown, a resident of Montpelier.
Gov. Phil Scott vetoed S.39, a bill concerning legislative salary increases and related matters, but the bill is more than likely to be revisited during the 2024 legislative session.
Certain questions arose within my mind about these proposals, including what the actual motivations could be when someone runs as a candidate for either the Vermont House of Representatives or the Senate in the first place.
In fact, just prior to writing this commentary, I emailed over 35 current or former state legislators, as well as candidates who had previously run for the Legislature and were not elected, to ask them: Why did you run for the state Legislature? For example, what were the actual motivations as well as reasons behind why you ran for office in the first place?
The underlying assumption behind this particular question is that it seems more than likely that people do not necessarily put themselves forward as a candidate for the state Legislature because of the allure of the salary, and instead probably do so for myriad other reasons.
However, if the reasons for running include the allure of the salary, that would also be good to know and would not be either criticized or judged (not by me anyway).
Having followed the state Legislature for over 30 years as both a casual politcal observer and as a volunteer (read: unpaid) citizen activist and advocate (now retired), I had come into contact with many state legislators as well as those who had run for the Legislature and were not elected.
To the best of my recollection, I cannot recall a single legislator or legislative candidate who had ever mentioned that they did it for the allure of the salary.
However, I have either heard or read over the years about how many current or former legislators have bemoaned being seriously undercompensated. Yet, with possible exceptions, this has not usually stopped those who have held legislative seats or otherwise ran for the state Legislature from doing so.
This leads me to believe that the vast majority of candidates have run for other considerations — because they were highly passionate about public service and about one or more issues that were important to them and to members of the community they sought to represent.
To my way of thinking, as well as by way of observation, the size of the legislative salary has not been an impediment from seeking election. Rather, the reasons for not running could be complete disillusionment with politics as well as the political process, including at the local and state level, not merely at the federal level.
Although it is admittedly mere speculation on my part, it could be that, once in office or otherwise having come to the realization regarding how political sausage is actually produced and what goes into it, the hopes, idealism as well as vision that initially led them to consider running in the first place ends up being dashed, and deep dismay and utter frustration with the reality of politics within the Statehouse and at the administrative level set in, which eventually causes some to give up and bow out.
There are many, including state legislators and other political observers, who suggest that politics beneath the Golden Dome in Montpelier is not anything like it is in Washington, D.C. However, while true, that is only by a matter of degree, as well as the level of gamesmanship and resulting nastiness at play.
Having witnessed the political process play out underneath the Golden Dome firsthand over the years, I can easily attest that political sausage-making can often be an ugly and somewhat nasty process at both the legislative and administrative level here in little old Vermont as well.
If my estimation is accurate, it is no wonder then that there are those who would give up and not continue, not due to a lack of sufficient enough legislative salary and benefits per se, but because of disillusionment with the political process at the legislative and administrative levels.
Yet, regrettably, this is not something that most current or former legislators or potential candidates or most other political observers are likely to speak about publicly.
If this, rather than the pay and benefits, is indeed what could be behind why people might not consider running for the Legislature, then the problem is not with individual members of the legislature per se, but instead with the leadership of the House and Senate and with committee chairs.
This is not a new issue, but rather an old, often repetitious, one.
What’s the solution? Voters could elect or reelect legislators who are willing to change the process in a real and meaningful fashion from within, and who are willing to elect legislative leaders who are committed to doing both better and differently in these regards.
Easier said than done, I know.
By the way, in terms of shortening the legislative session as some have proposed (versus raising legislative salaries), I have observed that the Legislature can get its work accomplished in rather quick order when it chooses to do so. Furthermore — and there can be no disputing the fact on this particular count — the recent veto session on June 20, with its relatively heavy workload, is a prime example of that.
