Eye On Boise

Keough: ‘We shouldn’t shy away’

Posted by Betsy

Jan. 22, 2010 1:25 p.m. • 9 comments

Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, says she thinks lawmakers should consider cutting their own health benefits just as the state has cut health coverage for other part-time state employees. “We ought to have that discussion - I don’t think we should shy away from it,” Keough said. She was responding to a column by Dan Popkey in the Idaho Statesman today, which called lawmakers “tone-deaf” on the issue. It noted that all but 18 lawmakers take the coverage that’s the same as that for full-time state employees, though Idaho has a part-time citizen legislature. Keough said she’s one of the 18; she gets her health coverage through her employer.

“I am not rich or retired, I spend on average 20 hours a week off session on legislative responsibilities but am available 24/7 including but not limited to the grocery store, the gas station, romantic dinners with my husband, 4 am in the morning when farmers and loggers start their days. Plus I work a full time job and have 2 kids,” she said in a note to Popkey and other reporters. “During session I work a minimum of 12 hours a day and after that meet with constituents who may be in town with one group or another. All that being said, I was and remain willing to take the same cuts we are asking of our state employees and Idahoans.”

Nine comments on this post so far. Add yours!

boiserocks on January 23 at 12:31 a.m.
Thank you Ms, Keough for agreeing to bring this issue to the table, although I could do without your passive-aggressive response.

I’ve tried numerous times to contact legislators in the “off-season,” yourself included. With the exception of small group (2-4, all Democrats), I have NEVER gotten a response back. When I’ve contacted the legislative services office for advice on how to reach our elected officials, they usually laugh and say “lawmakers never check their state email when the session isn’t going on.” I’ve gone on hunting expeditions to find contact information for legislators, and it is apparent that most of them make themselves difficult to find. I don’t believe that you work anywhere close to even part time after the session ends.

I’m a state employee, and for years we’ve been told that “this is the job you chose” and to just deal with all of cuts and inadequate compensation. You decided to become a public servant, and are part-time by your own admission. I can’t work long hours for two or three months, then work 20 hours/week the rest of the year and expect to receive insurance, retirement benefits, or a housing allowance; especially while you continue to cut everything else.

You are (barely) deserving of the same benefits as any other part-time state employee, it’s up to you and your colleagues to decide what those benefits are going to be for ALL PART-TIME STATE EMPLOYEES, yourself included.
shawn_keough on January 23 at 9:40 a.m.
Here are the internet links for off session contact for legislators:

http://legislature.idaho.gov/senate/membership.cfm

http://legislature.idaho.gov/house/membership.cfm

If people contacting me live in my district I try to respond as soon as possible. For those not living in my district I try to refer them to their legislators and give contact info. I respond to my legislative email year round and again if people contact me from outside of my legislative district I try to refer them to their legislative delegation. If I have missed your contact, please accept my apologies.

I continue to believe, especially in these tough economic times, that elected officials salary and benefits packages should come under the same constraints and scrutiny as all other state employees, and be in balance with those of the public we serve.
duckster1 on January 23 at 3:17 p.m.
Boiserocks, Back off! I too am a state employee. Your comments about Senator Keough are out of line. Please remember the founders of this famine for part timers are Governor Otter and his sidekick Mike Gwartney who did this without the advice or consent of the legislature. I say kudos to Senator Keough for having the ethics and intergrity to raise this question of fairness. I hope the legislature takes up the question—not so they will loose the health benefit but so the benefit can possibly be reinstated to those part-timers who really need it.
dukenukem on January 24 at 8:17 a.m.
Comparing part-time state employees with legislators is a poor comparison. Do part-time state employees have to run every two years to keep their jobs? Do part-time state employees regularly work past 5 p.m. to attend meetings and address the concerns of their constituents? I know a few legislators who take a leave of absence from their regular jobs without pay during the session, losing thousands of dollars in the process.

Legislators already cut their pay by 5 percent last year. If you raise their insurance costs, you will ultimately end up with two types of people in the legislature — the retired and the wealthy. Does that represent the diverse population and views of Idaho?
thewho on January 24 at 8:28 a.m.
Duckster1; stay informed. Boiserocks is not that far off. The only reason Sen. Keough chimed in on this issue was a result of Dan Popkey’s article last week. Otherwise, she would have stayed “tone deaf” herself on the issue. I highly doubt she would have come out on her own to support reduction of benefits for her peer group. In fact, I’m still curious why she choose to throw the majority of Legislators who take advantage of full time benefits under the bus. Make no mistake, if she didn’t receive her benefits from Associated Logging Contractors, Inc up here in Northern Idaho, she’d be reaping ful time state benefts as well. I do agree with you that part time employees did get the benefit shaft, and our statewide lawmakers enable hipocracy every time they roll into town.

Duckster1, if you are as you say, a state employee, you should listen more to Ms. Keough’s budgetary solutions for solving our financial woes: Reduce state salaries accross the board. Yep, some lawmakers continue to go after the folks who throw blood, sweat and tears into their jobs, trying resovle budget shortfalls on your (state employees) backs. All in the spirit of “being fair.” I suggest you learn more about Keough’s agenda before singing her praises. You might be surprised.
Sisyphus on January 25 at 9:56 a.m.
I applaud Senator Keough for coming out on this issue. I’m sure it didn’t make her popular in her caucus but its absolutely the right choice in avoiding the inherent hypocrisy. dukenukem makes a weak case for for an inapt analogy. As Otter said in the SOS, “we’re all in this together”. But I didn’t see him proposing any cuts to the legislature and few to his own office, and certainly not to his salary or bennies. Instead he’s hiding his policy wonks in other budgets. Its a sign of poor leadership when he talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.

If Republicans are going to limit themselves to a slash and burn approach to this fiscal crisis then they should not exclude themselves from the pain.

And one more thing to nukem. I’ve known many part time employees who put in full time work to accommodate the budget cutting Republicans have been doing for decades so their office can fulfill their mission. They were capped in pay and they did it for access to the bennies. Wise policy makers like Margaret Henbest were keenly aware of this formula to keep quality employees at low cost. Clearly Gwartney and Otter were not. It implies an agenda to make sure government does not work. The comparison to legislators is indeed inapt who often have other career enhancing motives for seeking office. But I see no reason to pay bennies for them when, as you acknowledge, they already have real jobs.
dukenukem on January 25 at 2:45 p.m.
Sisyphus:

Again, if you take any incentive away to serve in the legislature, you will have only retired and wealthy individuals making all law-making decisions for our state.

It’s interesting that you fail to acknowledge that lawmakers voluntarily cut their pay by 5 percent in 2009 and turned back a scheduled lodging/food increase (amounting to another 2.2 percent). If a 7.2-percent cut in pay and expenses is not enough for you to even acknowledge, what is acceptable to you? Ten percent, twenty percent?

The Statesman recently ran a piece showing that some in the legislature have no other job due to the sour economy. If you had your choice and could cut their pay and benefits, wouldn’t that make it difficult for you to defend raising the minimum wage to a liveable wage? I believe legislators make just over $16,000 a year now. Again, I’d like some specifics from you just how much legislators should make to show you they are not excluding “themselves from the pain.”
Sisyphus on January 25 at 4:05 p.m.
Um, when was the last time state employees had a pay increase, even for cost of living? And who’s talking about last year?

You’re avoiding the topic. If cutting bennies was so good for part time state employees, why aren’t the legislators doing it to themselves. I can’t see anything more hypocritical particularly when it would save them from cutting off the 100,000 people who rely on the Council on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing who rely on this agency to access the court system, not to mention the Council on Developmental Disabilities and State Independent Living Council, which serves people with disabilities.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/idaho/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1601843/IDAHO.Local/Budget.Cuts.Could.Hit.Deaf.and.Hard.of.Hearing.Council

I’m guessing that by doing so they may be opening themselves up to some equal protection lawsuits costing more than they’re trying to save, a process I’ve documented in several aspects of this budget process, tripping over dollars to pick up pennies.

I agree that we should pay pols more, just like we should provide part time employees with bennies, but your point is completely lost in all the slashing and burning going on. As far as incentive, you are comparing apples and oranges. I think I provided ample incentive for pols to run, their own egos. Employees are in it for the compensation. And you get what you pay for in both cases. Please link me up to the article you cite. That’s pretty funny arguing that some pols are doing this for a living. That’s a joke right?
thewho on January 25 at 6:07 p.m.
Dukenukem,

Last year’s legislative action rejected a pay increase of 5%. They did not take an across the board pay cut. There is a very big difference. State employees have had no salary increases in two years. This session’s outcome will result in a third. Some legislators are positioning themselves to spearhead an effort enacting a state-wide salary cut. Again, this is very different than a salary freeze. Regardless of one’s position on who needs to throw more “skin in the game”, we should not steer too far from the facts.

By the way, if you tallied up the employment status of our current legislators, I’d say a large portion of them are retired and/or wealthy.