Arizonans Deserve Better Than Legislators Trying To Triple Their Own Compensation

Arizonans Deserve Better Than Legislators Trying To Triple Their Own Compensation

By Diane Douglas, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 2015-2018 |

In the words of the famed NY Yankee catcher, Yogi Berra, “it’s like déjà vu all over again!”

In 2019, during the very last, wee hours of the legislative session the legislators passed SB1558 attempting to TRIPLE their per diem compensation.

This year’s attempt, by virtue of an eleventh hour “strike everything” amendment to HB2053, is to give themselves a very significant increase in their per diem because a salary increase must be passed by the voters. It’s probably safe to assume that such shenanigans would have been attempted last year as well had the session not been prematurely preempted thanks to the Covid “crisis.”

This session the legislators propose to increase Maricopa County legislators per diem from $35 to $56 for meals each day of the session. Legislators outside Maricopa County per diem increases from $60 to $207 – $56 for meals and $151 for lodging for every day in session.

Legislators are paid a salary of $24,000. This may not seem like a lot however consider that this is for a 100 day session (which includes in that count Saturdays, Sundays and Fridays when committee meetings or floor sessions are virtually never conducted and most have already left for home). Prorate that 100 days to the 260 days full time Arizonans work it equates to $62,400 per annum. Not bad, especially when considering that for many the legislature is a second job. Many of them have another career or are collecting at least one if not more, oft times government, retirements or own very successful businesses or charter schools for which they write the laws or all of the above.

But I digress, back to the per diem.

If nothing else, legislators should treat themselves by the same rules and standards which they impose on state employees.

But wait, state employees are not entitled to meal allowances unless they are traveling on state business and then, if I’m not mistaken, must be outside a 50 miles radius to qualify for meal or travel allowances. They are not given a meal allowance to buy their daily lunch at their assigned work site (nor are they frequently, if ever, the guests of lobbyists) so neither should Maricopa legislators.

For those legislators outside Maricopa County, in addition to the meal allowance, they will all receive the same travel per diem, $151, regardless of how close or far they are from the Capitol. Whether they travel the 190 or so miles from Kingman in Mohave County or Sierra Vista in Cochise County and stay in Phoenix Monday through Thursday; or travel the 40 miles home nightly to Apache Junction in Pinal County or Black Canyon City in Yavapai County the per diem is the same.

A benefit, by the way, that is not provided to a Maricopa County legislator should he/she live in Gila Bend almost 70 miles from the Capitol.  In my opinion the same 50 mile radius that applies to state employees should likewise apply to legislators regardless of their county of residence.

Finally, the per diem will be tied to the annual federal per diem rate for Maricopa County as determined by the United States General Services Administration and adjusted annually without future legislative action.

But let’s put all that aside. The real issue not just the “how much” – some will argue too much, others not enough.  It is the “how” that matters most.

In 2019 it was a bill slammed through at the last moments before the legislators voted to Sine Die at 12:58am. This session it is done through a “strike everything” amendment to HB2053. If that were not bad enough, allegedly part of the “deal”, to get Maricopa legislators to support this strike everything amendment, is to raise the Maricopa legislators’ lunch money as well. 30 pieces of silver this Easter Week, well, okay 21.

HB2053 originally entitled “superior court clerk; salary”, now titled “salary; superior court clerk” but nothing to indicate the true legislative intent of the amendment. – giving themselves an extra $2,100 for those in Maricopa and $14,700 for those outside.

(I’ve written about this legislative game of strike-all shenanigans in the past here.)

Legislators’ salary increases are supposed to be referred to the voters for approval however their “per diem” is defined in statute which takes no more than a majority and signature to increase. Effectively giving themselves what the voters will not – increased compensation.

If per diem is really just a backdoor way for legislators to do an end run around the taxpayers and give themselves a substantial increase in their compensation that the voters have not or are not otherwise willing to approve then, at the very least, legislators should be transparent and honest about it. Drop an appropriately titled bill at the beginning of the session. Do not do it through late night bills on the way out the door or late session “strike everything” amendments.

Especially after a year when untold numbers of Arizonans have lost their jobs and countless small business have had to close their doors Arizonans deserve better from their elected officials than the same old games. Deja vu Yogi, deja vu.

Anticipation Of Hotter Weather Prompts Glendale Vaccination Site To Move Into Gila River Arena

Anticipation Of Hotter Weather Prompts Glendale Vaccination Site To Move Into Gila River Arena

Warm weather is here, and in anticipation of ever-increasing temperatures, Arizona’s largest vaccination site at State Farm Stadium will transition to an indoor site at Gila River Arena in Glendale on Friday, April 23.

The State Farm Stadium site will move to nighttime hours starting Monday, April 5, to avoid daytime heat. It will conclude operations the morning of April 23 and move indoors to Gila River Arena, home to the Arizona Coyotes. Operating from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, the new Gila River Arena site will have the capacity to administer 1,000 shots per hour.

An indoor vaccination site at Yuma Civic Center transitioned to a state operation on Monday, March 29, with 8,000 appointments per week initially and capacity for 4,000 appointments a day.

An East Mesa distribution center operated by Dexcom opens Monday, April 5, as the Valley’s first state-run indoor drive-thru COVID-19 vaccination site, replacing the outdoor site currently operating at Chandler-Gilbert Community College. The site will start out offering 3,000-4,000 appointments a day.

The new indoor vaccination site in Glendale will use Gila River Arena’s main concourse to check in and vaccinate patients who have appointments, while the arena’s seats will be available for individuals to spend their 15 or 30 minutes of observation after vaccination.

Vaccine recipients will enter through the venue’s main entrance at Gate 4, and parking at the site will be complimentary.

At 11 a.m. every Friday, ADHS makes appointments available at state-run sites for the following week. Registration for these and many other sites is available at podvaccine.azdhs.gov or by calling 844-542-8201 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Both resources offer assistance in English and Spanish.

Happy Days Are Almost Here Again, But For How Long?

Happy Days Are Almost Here Again, But For How Long?

By Richard K. Vedder |

Moody’s Investor Service periodically assesses the financial health of America’s universities, and recently they issued a more optimistic report, rescinding their overall “negative” outlook for schools and replacing it with a “stable” one. Universities are improving financially for multiple reasons. First, growing Covid-19 vaccinations are contributing to a decline in the health threat from the novel coronavirus. Second, this means schools are moving cautiously away from remote instruction toward traditional in-person learning. College kids are happier because, in addition to more and better learning experiences, there will be more drinking and fornication than in the period of Covid-19 austerity. Never underestimate the socialization dimensions of college. Third, all this means enrollments are likely to stop falling and possibly even increase a bit, and that revenue producing dormitories and cafeterias will resume more normal operations. Fourth, colleges have cut their spending substantially.

>> READ MORE >>

Vaccine Passports: Why? How?

Vaccine Passports: Why? How?

Randall G. Holcombe |

There’s only one reason to require COVID vaccine passports: to coerce people into getting the vaccine. While vaccination is not required, a passport requirement would say, “Whether you get the vaccine is up to you, but if you want to travel or shop or do anything outside your home, a passport is required.”

For those who are concerned about getting the virus from unvaccinated people, get vaccinated! Unvaccinated people pose a very small threat to those who have been vaccinated. Sure, the threat’s not zero, but any time you are around other people, you could catch a cold, or the flu, or Ebola, from them. You could get hit by their cars or knocked down if they bumped into you on the sidewalk. The risk to the vaccinated from being around the unvaccinated is small compared to other risks of being in places where other people are present.

>> READ MORE >>

House Passes Bill Banning Abortion For Genetic Issues

House Passes Bill Banning Abortion For Genetic Issues

A controversial pro-life bill, SB 1457, passed on a party line vote of 31-29 after a contentious argument on the House floor.

SB 1457 prohibits abortion based on the diagnosis of a genetic abnormality, except for those incompatible with life. The bill classifies the following, except in a medical emergency, as a class 6 felony:
a) performing an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought because of a genetic abnormality of the child;
b) using force or the threat of force to intimidate a person to have an abortion because of a genetic abnormality of the child; or
c) accepting or soliciting monies to finance an abortion because of a genetic abnormality of the child (Sec. 2)

Arizona representatives passed SB 1457 on a party line vote of 31-29 after a contentious argument on the House floor.

House Vote – SB1457

Supporters say the bill is intended to protect the “most vulnerable from discrimination.”