One of the tough things about writing a newspaper column after having blogged for a while is the distressing lack of hypertext. Words have to stand on their own, rather than being butressed by photos, videos and links to sources.
So I'm going to use this opportunity to provide some linked context to today's Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel column on LePage's decision to exempt himself from cutbacks to the pensions of teachers and other public employees, and how the money the state saves from these cutbacks is to be used to reduce taxes for Maine's wealthiest residents.
MRSA Title 2 spells out the governor's pension and other benefits and Title 5 governs other state employees' benefits. They all currently pay the same 7.65% pension contribution. Part S of LePage's budget changes Title 5, but leaves Title 2 alone, which means that LePage's pension contributions will stay the same even as they are increased for other public employees. Title 2 also describes how LePage will be eligible for a pension worth 3/8ths of his salary as soon as he leaves office.
The numbers for teachers pensions based on length of service came from the MainePERS Report to the Legislature on Pension Costs.
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting did some great work on confidential employees, and how their contribution level increases to 3.65% under the proposed budget, but not to the 9.65% level slated for teachers and other unionized public employees.
For tax cut numbers and impact, I relied on an excellent budget analysis from the Maine Center for Economic Policy.
Thanks to all the folks in and out of govement who helped me to understand how these various statutes and the budget interact.
Update: It's been pointed out to me that Article V, part 6 of the state Constitution prohibits LePage from changing his own compensation while in office, which might prevent him from making satutory changes to his own pension contribution if that falls under compensation. Even if this clause applies, which it's not clear that it does, it wouldn't prevent LePage from increasing his contribution voluntarily and making the change permanent for his successors.
Nice try
The term compensation in the constitution does not refer to net compensation, but rather to the to the set gross pay level.
If the constitution were to forbid changes to the net pay of a sitting governor than it would be completely illegal to make tax changes that took effect during his term because those also would change his net (take home pay) exactly like changing the level of contribution he has to make to his own retirement!
The attempt to divert and deflect from lepage's more recent blunder is rather silly. He messed up. BIG TIME!
Here's the proof:
Employee compensation is subject to collective bargaining per Title 26, §979-D
If the proposed changes to employee contributions to the pension fund involve compensation then they MUST be agreed upon through collective bargaining.
The Lepage administration maintains that this proposal is NOT subject to collective bargaining and thus they are clearly and unequivocally stating that pension contribution level is NOT part of compensation.
The key word is "statute"
Anything set in statute can be changed by statute. That is why the governor presented a BILL that would result in a STATUTE that would change the pension contributions by other state employees. The governor has full power to propose a change to the statute controlling HIS pension contributions, just as he has done for everyone else’s pension contributions.
The constitution only restricts changing the governor’s "compensation" during his term in office. It does not define "compensation". In this case, the definition of compensation is left to the legislature.
In similar cases there have been rulings by multiple Attorney Generals serving under both Republicans and Democrats, that the legislature has the full power to define terms in the constitution if they are not precisely spelled out there. (see memos on the definition of "highway related" as used to determine which Public safety activities may be paid for with the Highway Fund).
So the ONLY controlling issue becomes the legislature’s prior definition of the term compensation. They have clearly and statuatorily defined compensation as NOT taking into account payments into the pension fund for all other government employees. Once that definition is set in statute it apples to all instances of the term unless some other statue reverses it.
The statue that Naran quotes does NOT define the term “compensation”, so the governor and the legislature are completely and utterly free to make changes to the governor’s pension contribution within his term without running afoul of constitutional restrictions on something that is quite simply not related to pension contributions.
LePage admin says they can do it
The governor's chief financial advisor has said it's legal, and will be asking the governor if he's willing to increase his contribution.
Still waiting
... for Naran's heartfelt apoligy for incorrectly slamming Tipping and spreading lies across every comment forum she could find.
What is that noise?
chirping?