The state House finds itself with the responsibility of debating the process of pay raises after the state Senate passed a resolution changing the way raises would take place in the future.
“It’s in the oversight committee, and we have a couple resolutions here,” said House Speaker Rick Johnson, R-LeRoy.
Johnson said he is unsure if people will approve of the resolution but is confident it will find its way to the House floor.
“It’s our intention to work through it,” he said. “I think that if people get something close to what the Senate passed, it will come up for a vote.”
Amid the controversial pay raise issue, Dianne Byrum, D-Onondaga, and other members of the Senate Government Operations Committee passed a resolution last week requiring public approval of any pay raise.
Byrum issued a release urging quick action on the resolution, which would first require House and Senate approval of any pay raise and then an approval by public election. Byrum is the minority vice chairwoman of the committee.
“It’s the only vote we’ve taken this year,” Byrum said. “I think if we can get it to the ballot, people will approve.”
A pay increase - providing some Michigan legislators and judges with up to a $20,000 raise - already has raised eyebrows.
Although the House was quick to turn down the raise before it went into effect, the state Senate seemingly ignored the resolution, which made the measure effective at the beginning of February.
The delay drew concern, leading to accusations that state legislators did not want to take responsibility for the raise.
Criticism also followed after Gov. John Engler revealed his budget, featuring much less economic growth than in recent years. The economic downturn led many to question the raises for legislators.
The Senate followed up by voting to approve the new joint resolution Thursday, and Byrum hopes the Michigan House will move fast on the bill.
The House and Senate have begun talks about changing the way pay raises occur in the future. The proposed resolution passed by the Senate would require a two-thirds approval of the legislature, followed by an amendment to the Michigan Constitution. Any vote by Michigan residents would occur in the 2002 election.
Because of term limits, a number of current legislators will not be present after the current term, meaning any changes would only affect incoming legislators. Despite the term limits, some think there is no need for a public vote on the raises.
Carol Weissert, MSU political science professor and director of the public policy and administration program, said taking such a vote would be unusual for a state.
“A lot of people in Michigan already think we take a vote on too many things,” Weissert said.
“That’s not the way most businesses, universities or legislators do things.”
