When doing the people’s will is secondary to legislators’ self-interest, how strong is our democracy? The state Legislature is on the verge of overriding the Governor’s veto of legislation that includes sizable pay raises for state and legislative leaders. Their actions on this front will answer the democracy question.

Since legislators can’t raise their base pay, the hikes are limited to leadership positions in the form of increased legislative stipends. Base pay increases are formulaic and tied to the state’s median household income.   

The Boston Globe reported on several questionable aspects of the bill. It contains an “emergency preamble,” which means the raises would take effect immediately. The legislation also includes pay hikes for the judiciary, which, due to a clause in the state Constitution, makes it challenging at best to reverse via initiative petition. And because committee chairs and other leadership positions have not yet been officially selected, legislators don’t need to worry about violating conflict of interest laws for voting on their own financial interests.

In short, this was done swiftly and slickly, without public input and leaving members of the public with little recourse.

The Governor’s office received hundreds of calls from people opposing the raise, and with good reason: public pension rules make these raises for life.

The rationale for the pay raise stems from a 2014 special commission report that recommended a generous increase for presiding officers in the Massachusetts House and Senate.

The report included the usual comparisons to other states, but there was little focus on the fact that it excluded 39 of those states from the analysis. Without full information, it is impossible to make a reasoned judgment.

For example, the senate president and house speaker earn considerably less in the 10 states with populations most similar to Massachusetts. Speakers and senate presidents in those states are paid an average of $44,390, about one-quarter of what the commission proposed. Eight of these ten states were excluded from the commission’s analysis. Under the bill, the house speaker and senate president would get a 40 percent annual increase to $142,500.

With base pay for rank and file legislators remaining at about $62,500, the difference between what presiding legislative leaders make compared to rank-and-file members in Massachusetts would be by far the largest in the country, according to data from the Council of State Governments. This pay differential would only exacerbate power struggles over legislative leadership positions.

Instead of simply making legislative pay in all 50 states available to readers, the report compares compensation in Massachusetts to a select set of 10 states described in the report as having “full-time legislatures.” This doesn’t comport with the National Conference of State Legislatures’ designation. The NCSL classifies seven states as having “full time legislatures” and Massachusetts is not among them.  

The NCSL categories are based largely upon amount of legislative compensation, length of legislative sessions, size of legislative staff, and other factors. NCSL categorizes Massachusetts as a “full time lite” legislature, along with Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, Alaska, Michigan, and Florida.  Their average pay for presiding officers is $71,792.  

A New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR) report found that from January 2011 through March 2013, the Massachusetts House met in formal session for the equivalent of 69 eight-hour days, while the Senate met for 43 eight-hour days. More than half the sessions lasted less than half an hour.

There is more to the job than attending legislative sessions and hearings. Legislators respond to constituent requests, research public policy issues and attend meetings in their districts, but many state legislators across the country do the same. The special commission report did not present adequate objective data to allow legislators and the general public to make an informed judgment.

If the Legislature gave reasonable notice and adequately posted a hearing on the topic, the public could have provided input on legislative pay in other states, making legislators better informed before they voted. The public, which should have been very much a part of the process, was caught off guard.

A healthy democracy hinges on an informed electorate and a Legislature comprised of stewards of the public trust. Thursday’s vote will tell us whether Massachusetts is one.

Greg Sullivan is Research Director and Mary Connaughton is Director of Government Transparency at Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank.