T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol Reporter

Two local Republicans may have to wait awhile.

Sen. Ray Vandeveer, R-Forest Lake, and Rep. Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan, argue the recent per diem increases the DFL-controlled House and Senate adopted should have been debated on the House and Senate floors.

“It’s all about transparency and trust,” Vandeveer said at a Capitol press conference on Monday.

“I wouldn’t take a raise six weeks after I got the job,” Vandeveer said of the hike, which, on a committee vote, upped the Senate daily expense allowance from $66 to $96 a day.

Buesgens also criticized the daily allowance increase — which in the House jumped from $66 to $77 per day — for taking effect the same year it was voted in.

Public officials should be willing to face the voters when proposing a pay increase, he argued.

There should be an election between a vote to increase pay and the pay hike going into effect, Buesgens said.

Vandeveer said the action on daily allowances was unconstitutional.

“No increase of compensation shall take effect during the period for which the members of the existing house of representatives may have been elected,” reads the state constitution.

Lawmakers earn $31,141 a year, excluding the daily allowance plus other benefits.

Another view

At least one legislative leader argued there was nothing wrong with the increase.

“The per diem increase was handled properly, in a thoughtful and deliberative manner, and passed on a bipartisan vote with no dissent in the Senate Rules and Administration Committee,” said Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis.

Vandeveer attempted to force debate on the allowance issue through a parliamentary move that if successful would have pulled a bill he authored out of the Rules and Administration Committee onto the Senate floor.

The bill, if approved, would have had the full Senate voting on the daily allowance increase.

Vandeveer’s motion failed on a 19 to 46 vote, two Republicans voting against it.

“To me, that’s the way it should be done,” said Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley, of having bills move through the committee process, not being pulled onto the floor.

Koering said he didn’t feel obligated to vote for Vandeveer’s motion simply because most Senate Republicans did.

Vandeveer thought the motion was worthwhile, saying arguments against having a full Senate debate were “red herrings.”

Had Vandeveer’s motion succeeded, Buesgens would have attempted the same maneuver in the House.

But he did nothing.

Buesgens argued his opposition to the daily allowance increase was procedural — he’s not arguing dollar amounts, he said.

Neither Buesgens nor Vandeveer will take the additional allowance money, they said.

Top of Page