BusinessReport.com

Editor's note: This column was written three days prior to Gov. Bobby Jindal's veto of the pay raise legislation.

Everywhere I go, the topic is about the legislative pay raise and the governor’s veto decision. Emotions are running high. Of the thousands of bills in the Legislature, most seem innocuous and of little interest to the public. But when it comes to a paycheck for their elected representatives, they understand that and want a say in it. Fact is, they didn’t get one here.

A majority of the legislators voted for a pay raise of about 120%—and an automatic increase every year to boot [based on the Consumer Price Index]. They justify it by saying they have not had a raise in 28 years. Granted, that’s a long time, and there’s never a good time to talk about a pay raise with taxpayers’ money.

Many people I have spoken to agree that a raise of some type might have been in order. But they didn’t like the way it was handled—rushing it through both chambers. And they believe the amount was excessive, including the automatic increases.

The Senate, with just about two weeks left in the session, initially proposed a 200% raise and passed it with no debate. The public pressure was swift and forced the House to reduce the increase—again without any debate, either in the committee or on the floor. Instead of something modest, the House made it 120%, making our legislators’ pay package rank 14th in the country. That’s too high. Despite that, the Senate concurred and it was done.

Fact is, many of the freshmen lawmakers were not expecting session after session and complained of the longer hours and low pay. They also were naive in listening to some of the vets who coaxed their vote and got them to sit silently on the floor. They were led—especially by House Speaker Jim Tucker and Ways and Means Chairman Hunter Greene—like lambs to the slaughter. Others are term-limited [like Tucker] and don’t have to run for re-election, so the money looks good and the retirement even better. In addition, some legislators feel a lot of the uproar is from voters who “don’t live in my district,” so they’re not even listening.

Tucker defended the raise, telling The Advocate, “This isn’t the priesthood where we take a vow of poverty.” [No, but like the priesthood you have a role as a public servant, or have you forgotten that?] Tucker also was quoted in The Times-Picayune saying, “I did the right thing for the Legislature.”

Greene agreed that the 120% pay raise was appropriate and deserved, telling The Advocate, “It’s definitely not something over the top. It’s definitely within reason.” The public doesn’t agree.

The Legislature’s strategy seems to have worked: They waited until the end of the session, and then struck like a snake—quick, with hardly a word spoken.

How individual legislators are viewed on the issue depends on one’s perspective. There are some in Baton Rouge who have started a recall effort against Rep. Franklin Foil. He is a very good man, and I am not sure why he voted for the raise. I was disappointed. He may now regret both his vote and the advice he got from his leadership. But I also know there are parents with autistic children who think Foil is a hero and would give him a medal.

Now, all eyes turn to Gov. Bobby Jindal, and many want him to derail the train with a veto. My anger toward the Legislature evokes the same sentiments. No one wants them to get away with it. [The governor should also veto the $30,000 pay raise for Public Service Commission members.]

Folks know I am a friend and strong supporter of the governor. He has accomplished much in the three sessions held since he was inaugurated. All that has been overshadowed in Louisiana by the pay raise.

The governor knows there is much more that needs to be changed in this state, and he knows that’s why we elected him. But all the bills have to go through the Legislature. If the leadership retaliates against the governor, his agenda can be buried and the next three years barren of reform. Is it worth it? Do we win the battle and lose the war?

You’re angry and engaged now—even enraged—but will you be there in the Capitol lobbying your senator next year? Decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. There will be a chain reaction to a veto—and we might not like the outcome. Have you looked past this moment and thought about the next session? The battle will not end with a veto, it will have just begun.

Legislators’ greed and their lack of respect for voters has put us in this dilemma. I would like to see the governor veto this pay raise and then call the legislative leadership together and discuss a modest plan that citizens can accept and support. If the Legislature balks, then the fight is on and the public must rally around the governor. Our continued success in reforming Louisiana will depend on it.

And they’re off ...

In one more week, the candidates start qualifying for fall races, including Congress, district attorney, mayor-president and Metro Council. Of course, many of the candidates are already hard at work for your vote.

Because of term limits on the council and some members who are just hanging it up, there will be a large number of new faces. In District 12, Councilman Mickey Skyring has decided not to run for re-election after one term. It appears from a few signs around his district that former council member Jim Benham is hoping to return. This is not a “new face” and, in my opinion, would be a move in reverse, not forward.

For those of you who are pleased with the turnover in our Metro Council this year because of term limits, you can’t thank Benham. As a council member, he opposed term limits and even voted against letting you have the right to vote to change your plan of government. When presented with the request to put term limits on the ballot, Benham told me, “I am against term limits. Even if I have to deny the people the right to vote on it, I will.”

Fortunately, despite Benham’s efforts to kill it, enough of his fellow council members believed in letting you vote on the issue of term limits, and you approved it by about a 2-1 margin. Benham was way out of touch with his constituents. This is not the kind of thinking or representation District 12 needs—and I live in District 12. Let’s hope we have better candidates qualifying next week.

So far in the other open council districts, there have been a number of attractive candidates stepping up, many young. That is a good sign for our community—people willing to do public service. I applaud them.

In the race for the 6th Congressional District, we could have a real showdown with Republican State Sen. Bill Cassidy challenging the new incumbent, Democrat Don Cazayoux.

With his Senate base and strong support from the business community, Cassidy has made this race a toss-up, according to The Cook Report out of Washington, D.C. [I too am supporting Sen. Cassidy.] Hopefully, former candidate Woody Jenkins will choose not to run. The big question is, “Will Rep. Michael Jackson register to run as an independent?” We’ll have the answer in 10 days.