into being a member of the General As-
sembly. An examination of the salaries
paid in other States will indicate that in
recommending a figure of $8,000, we en-
only on the conservative side.
It may always be that there may be
some individuals who do not deserve the
full amount, but be that as it may, we be-
lieve that by and large, on the basis of the
testimony that we have heard, the vast ma-
jority of the members of the General As-
sembly are entitled to a substantial increase
in wages. We believe that not only will it
help attract valuable and capable people to
public office, but it will also retain in the
General Assembly of Maryland, men who
have made considerable dollar sacrifices
over the years in order to perform public
service.
We believe, therefore, that the $8,000
figure is one which certainly ought to be a
floor.
Now, after the adoption of the Constitu-
tion, assuming the favorable action on the
transitory legislation by this Convention,
thereafter the General Assembly itself may
vary the salary, but no increase in salary
shall take effect for those members of the
legislature and that particular General As-
sembly which voted for it.
In other words, when a salary increase is
enacted, those people who vote for it will
not have the benefit of it, unless and until
they stand for election and are reelected,
at which time they return as a new Gen-
eral Assembly and shall be entitled to the
increase; so that there is an opportunity
for the public to demonstrate by the way it
selects or fails to select those who return
to the General Assembly what its reaction
may be with respect to the salary increase.
We have provided that there be no living
expenses only during the regular sessions
of the General Assembly. This does not pro-
hibit off-regular session payments for com-
mittee work, or per diem expenses for meet-
ings of the special sessions of the General
Assembly. All this does is to guarantee, if
adopted, that while the General Assembly
itself is in regular session, there shall be no
per diem payments.
This probably will act to some degree as
a restraining influence upon those who
might be tempted to vote for a continuation
of the 90 day session for another 30 or a
second 30 days, simply on the enticement
of the additional $25.00 per day. Conse-
quently, the meeting of the regular session
will not be accompanied by this additional
payment. |
Now, I should like to say one word about
pensions. The General Assembly has cre-
ated a pension system which is more favor-
able to itself than to the other State em-
ployees. However, I should point out that
the 15 percent contribution which is re-
quired on the part of the members of the
General Assembly is the second highest in
the nation of all those states in the Union
which provide for pensions for members of
the legislature, and those States are in the
vast majority.
Now, in the ordinary course of events,
one retires voluntarily from one's position.
That, however, as so many in this room can
testify to, is not the case with those who
hold public office. One has not the slightest
control over whether one continues or fails
to continue in the General Assembly. There
is a higher non-parenthetical power known
as the electorate that takes care of that
particular matter. Consequently, the risk
involved in holding public office and the
risk in setting oneself up for reelection
means that a member of the General As-
sembly is in a different kind of category
from the regular state employee. He may
under the present system be entitled to,
and is entitled to, some pension benefits at
the end of eight years.
The Committee recognized, having heard
testimony, that the pension system was in-
deed quite generous. It recognized that the
increase of the salary to $8,000 would have
a corresponding increase in the impact of
the beneficial aspects of the pensions upon
the members of the General Assembly.
Consequently, the Committee authorized
writing to the Speaker of the House and
the President of the Senate to request that
they review the pension arrangements of
the General Assembly, and I am told that
the Legislative Committee has met and has
decided to recommend a review of the pres-
ent pension arrangements.
We did not feel it was our duty, and
certainly it was beyond the scope of our
knowledge, to attempt to change the pen-
sion system, because this would have in-
volved an exploration into actuarial areas
which would have consumed far more time
than our Committee could have possibly
allotted to it.
We believe that the question should be,
how much salary should the General As-
sembly be paid in good faith, and rightly,
because of the work that the General As-
sembly does and the amount of time that
it devotes to the office.
We have concluded what the figure should
be, and we believe that the matter of the |
