Measure 116 would change who sets salaries for state elected officials

How Oregon sets the salary of state legislators and other elected officials could soon change.  If enacted by voters, Measure 116 on the November ballot would take away from the Oregon legislature the responsibility for deciding how much lawmakers, the Governor, and other state elected officials get paid, and give that task to an independent salary commission. 

In this episode of Policy for the People, we speak with two supporters of Measure 116. Isabela Villarreal is Policy and Communications Manager for Next Up Action Fund. Robin Ye is Political and Strategy Director at East County Rising.

Transcript

In February 2022, three Oregon lawmakers, all of them women, announced that they would not be seeking reelection. Outside of their duties representing their constituents, they worked as a lawyer, a nurse practitioner and a social worker. 

Citing the low pay that historically has accompanied serving in the legislature, the departing lawmakers said in a press statement: “Balancing our work, multiple day jobs, families and our service has become unsustainable.” In reporting about the departure of these three lawmakers, OPB wrote, “There is a reason why the state continues to be represented primarily by people who are older, retired or no longer have kids at home.”

Up until now, the decision of how much lawmakers get paid has been in the hands of lawmakers themselves. But as a number of commentators have pointed out, politically, it’s tough for lawmakers to give themselves a pay raise, fearing how voters might react to such a move. 

How Oregon sets the salary of state legislators could soon change. If enacted by voters, Measure 116 on the November ballot would take away from the Oregon legislature the responsibility for deciding how much lawmakers and other state officials get paid. Measure 116 would amend the Oregon Constitution to require the creation of an independent commission that would decide the salaries for members of the Oregon legislature, the governor and other state elected officials. 

In this episode of policy for the people we speak with two supporters of Measure 116. Isabella Villarreal is policy and communications manager for Next Up Action Fund. Robin Yee is political and strategy director at East County Rising. Here’s my conversation with Isabella and Robin regarding Measure 116.

Juan Carlos Ordóñez (host): Isabella, can you start off by sharing a little bit about Next Up Action Fund? What does your organization do? 

Isabela Villarreal: Yeah, absolutely. So we’re an organization that has been around for over 20 years now, and we’ve really been focused on expanding democracy to ensure that it’s accessible and equitable for all communities across Oregon. So we’ve really focused on advancing voting rights, policies like paid postage for your ballots, so you don’t have to get a stamp to put on your ballot. Or pre-registration for 16 and 17 year olds, so when they turn 18, they automatically get their ballot. So lots and lots of different policies that have really worked to ensure that our democracy is actually accessible and everyone’s voices are heard in it.

Today we focus specifically on young people. So we do a lot of voter registration work, voter education work and things of that nature to really advance the rights of young people and ensure that they’re adequately represented and have all the things they need to have thriving communities. 

Juan Carlos: And, Robin, what about East County Rising Action Fund? What does your organization do? 

Robin: So East County Rising is a scrappy advocacy org. We were founded in 2018 in response to this feeling that in our region, East Multnomah County, despite being in the most populous county in Oregon, there was a real lack of civic engagement or just community organizing. In fact, if you look at Multnomah County and you split it in half, west and east, if you just looked at Multnomah County east of 205, it’d be among the poorer counties in Oregon.

And so that has consequences, going down to people’s ability to be involved in government, to partake in elections, to even run for office and represent the really diverse communities that live out in east of the county. And so our organization for the last six years has been really trying to build out ways for people to get engaged, from the legislature to local city councils, metro races, you name it.

So we’re an advocacy shop and election shop wanting to create a government where everyone can see themselves represented. 

Juan Carlos: Both of your organizations support Measure 116 on the November ballot. Can you give us a summary of what the measure would do? 

Isabela:  Absolutely. So basically Measure 116 removes politicians’ ability to set their own pay. It would create an independent commission that sets the pay for statewide elected officials, including state legislators, the governor, district attorneys, and also state judges. You know, like I mentioned before, at Next Up, an organization that is really concerned with the rights of young people, we all know that young people are really chronically underrepresented in our democracy.

And ultimately we want to reduce those barriers to participating. And not only being active participants, but even running for office, if that’s what someone is interested in. So we are interested in more young people being able to serve in these positions. But as you probably know, and resonates with many people, a lot of young people have things like student loan debt. We see housing and living costs are becoming more and more unfeasible to keep up with year after year. So running for office is not even a consideration for many people because it can seem so out of reach. And if we don’t have young people’s voices at the table, we’re missing a really critical constituency just like every other one.

Everyone deserves to be heard. Everyone deserves to be represented. So with Measure 116 and the People’s Independent Commission we’re really ensuring that we’re putting everyday Oregonians in charge of setting pay for elected officials to bring more fairness and bring more accountability to our government, and really ensure that people, regardless of background, are able to serve in our state legislature should they be interested in doing so.

Juan Carlos: A couple of years ago, three members of the Oregon Legislature, and all of them women, declined to seek office again, to run again. And in their press statement announcing their decision, they said, “Balancing our work, multiple day jobs, families and our service has become unsustainable.” How hard is it right now, financially, for working parents, for regular folks in the community to serve in the Oregon legislature?

Robin: So you point to this long standing problem that we’ve had. And to add even more commentary to that example that you shared, not only was it three really qualified legislators – a lawyer, a nurse practitioner and a social worker – but at the same time we were in the midst of the Covid pandemic emergency. As a government, we lost our chair of Health and Health care, our chair of Health and Human Services, and our chair of the Climate and Environment committee.

So three huge blows to the policy expertise and the perspectives to serve our government and produce good policy in a really critical time. And I think it points to what Isabella said: there’s so many barriers in place for people to even consider running for office, let alone staying in office to do the people’s work.

We’re categorically denying a whole host of Oregonians because of this pay problem. Lawmakers right now make $35,000 a year as a salary, which is, I think, far too low for the amount of work that they do to serve the people. It’s a year round job. And, you know, not many people can be in professions where they could afford to take off six months every year to go legislate in Salem.

So we’re not having the kind of government that is fully representative of the people. And I think that has consequences when it comes to policies and making sure perspectives are at that table when they’re thinking about issues that affect Oregonians across the board. 

Juan Carlos: Robin, I know that you have worked in the legislature in years past as a staff member for an elected official. I’m wondering if you can talk about what a day looks like for lawmakers. The lawmakers who resigned who decided not to run for office again, mentioned holding multiple jobs. What does that look like from someone on the inside?

Robin: So Isabella and I both are really involved in advocacy, so I definitely wanna hear what Isabella says too. But I would say that I feel like the lawmakers that I’ve seen and that I know — they don’t want to just go to Salem to be average or mediocre lawmakers. They really want to represent their communities.

They really want to do all the work and bring all the perspectives that got them there in the first place. And so it’s really hard when you’re asking legislators to choose between providing for their families, putting food on the table for their families, working other jobs and then doing the people’s work. You know, there’s an unlimited amount of time you could be spending in community, poring over budgets, poring over policy details that could have a huge impact on people’s lives. And so every day you see legislators trying to do their best. But the economics of it, the fairness of who’s able to serve and how much time they can devote to this really critical job – it puts everyone in a less optimal position.

So lawmakers are spending their time meeting with constituents, meeting in their committees, trying to tackle what’s right in front of them in terms of the policy that they’re voting on, amendments, and also trying to plan for the future of our state. All of that. There’s not enough hours in the day and there’s not enough legislative days in a session.

And so anything that we could be doing to make sure our government is more responsive and transparent and fair, I think is a really great move. And I think we can do that with Measure 116 this November. 

Isabela: I just want to echo what Robin is saying. I haven’t worked in the state legislature, but I’ve done a lot of advocacy work and community with young people. And, you know, what we see reoccurring is a really big disconnect between our communities and the state legislature a lot of the time. And I don’t mean that necessarily in policy per se, but I mean in terms of feeling like the state legislature is actually the people’s place to go, that, you you have a right to be there as much as anyone else.

And we really want to connect those dots again, especially for young people, so they feel like, they can talk to their legislators, they can go to the Capitol, they can feel comfortable. They’re advocating for things. And I think if we aren’t investing in how we’re actually building our democracy up or building the legislature or supporting people who, once they get in office, are a really fantastic advocate for their communities and a fantastic representative, but can’t continue to serve, I think that points to a really critical issue in terms of how we’re functioning. And we need a functioning democracy. We need a government that is working for the people consistently. And again, we can’t really do that in the best way if we’re not supporting the people in office to actually be successful in their positions and carry out their duties and fulfill their role to serve Oregonians and their constituents.

Juan Carlos: It would seem that if you want the legislature to prioritize the interests of working people, of ordinary folks, of parents, then it helps to have those kinds of people serving in the legislature. Is that the basic point? 

Isabela. Exactly. It should be by and for us, and it cannot be by and for us if there is a really big price tag on being able to serve. And that means a lot of people’s interests aren’t being represented or aren’t necessarily represented in the way that they should be, and as consistently. So we really need to open those doors to ensure that people are able to run and serve their communities and stay in office in a healthy way. And like Robin has said and like I’ve mentioned, this has been like a chronic, ongoing issue.

You saw many women leave the legislature who were fantastic legislators and really wanted to stay there and continue investing in their communities, but it’s simply unviable with how our system is set up for a lot of people. 

Juan Carlos: I want to switch gears here and talk a little bit about how the measure came about. Can you explain who drafted the measure? Who proposed this idea of the Independent Salary Commission? 

Robin: So in the 2023 session, if we can think back that far, it passed by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote towards the end of session and referred it to voters for this November. And the yes on Measure 116 campaign is now backing it. It’s a coalition of close to 30 organizations from every corner of the state. 

I think it’s a really effective measure. And that’s why, you see, communities ranging from small business to our community foundations, community based organizations, the largest labor unions in the state, and even organizations that for the first time have taken a position on the ballot measure. So two examples are the Women’s Foundation of Oregon and Oregon Futures Lab making their first endorsement in a ballot measure because they understand that this is a question about fairness and equity and transparency and accountability, where the people can decide, this really important question about elected officials and who they serve. And we can, you know, remove politicians from this equation once and for all. 

Juan Carlos: In a story that OPB published back when the three lawmakers decided not to run for office, the reporter said that raising salaries in the legislature is politically fraught because lawmakers often fear a backlash from the optics of increasing their own pay. Do you think that that’s correct? 

Robin: I think that, you know, we have a situation where politicians have a role in setting their own pay, and that’s really unique. You don’t really see that in any other industry, any other job. And so I do think it leads to decisions and outcomes about our democracy and who can serve.

That wouldn’t happen if it wasn’t for politics. If we looked at the the publicly available data, if we look at what other states do and how they tackle this question, I don’t think that Oregon would arrive at the current system that we have. And so Measure 116 is a long overdue solution in part.

It would remove lawmakers and politicians from the pay question. That’s good. That’s a step that’s fair, that’s more transparent. And it puts it in the hands of the People’s Commission, which would do this work publicly. It’d be professionally staffed. They would make a decision every two years. We’d just have this conversation in a way more transparent way.

I think that if we had that kind of process, and Oregonians were in charge, and they were thinking about what’s best for our government and our democracy and making sure everyone can have a seat at the table, that we would have different outcomes and hopefully a more vibrant democracy. 

Juan Carlos: You mentioned other states. Are there other states that have independent commissions that set salaries for elected officials? Or maybe said differently, how unusual would it be for Oregon to establish such a commission? 

Robin: So when voters pass Measure 116 this November, Oregon will join 22 other states in our country that have an independent commission for elected pay. So Oregon would be able to take into account all the great ideas that have come from other states. It’s a really popular model. We see it in our neighbors Washington and California. So we find the right mix for Oregon. But I trust that those other states have have done a good job. Other states that have this kind of system. And they’ve addressed a lot of their issues. And so I think Oregon could follow suit this November. 

Juan Carlos: To follow up on that, you said that Oregon could borrow ideas from other states. In my reading of the text of the measure, this is a constitutional amendment that would put the idea of an independent salary commission into the Constitution. And the text of the measure provides some sideboards, some basic requirements of the commission, but some of the details still have to be fleshed out. Is that correct? 

Robin: That’s correct. I mean, the question before voters in November is: Do we want a status quo where politicians are involved in setting their own pay, or do we want to put it into decisions made by this independent commission? And, you know, this independent commission would meet publicly, would be subject to all the same public meeting laws. It’d be another great commission that we have in Oregon where people actually have a role. You know, too often we see public bodies convened and they do the work, but then they’re ultimately ignored by politicians based on whatever factors. But in this case, I think it’s great that this independent commission would have the final say.

Of course, implementation is super key. It’s key in all policy. And so in 2025 and 2026, this commission will be built out. And the legislature has a role to create those guardrails and to really implement it. So making sure that nobody connected to politicians or lobbyists or any special interests would be on the commission. Making sure that it could reflect geographic and demographic representations of Oregon. Making sure that they factor in the budget considerations and the economy, how it’s doing at every given time, which is what we see in other states. All these best practices would be on the table for Oregon’s independent commission.

Juan Carlos: Critics of the measure say that the legislature already has the power to raise salaries, and that the reason why lawmakers referred this measure to the ballot is so that they can get a pay raise without having to take responsibility for it, without having to answer to the voters. How do you respond to this argument? 

Robin: I think voters should look at this as an opportunity to put more power in the people. I don’t think it serves anybody to have a situation where politicians are involved in setting their own pay. No one who draws their pay from the state, from taxpayers, from Oregonians should be able to set their own pay. I think that’s a belief that a lot of Oregonians share, and that’s what they have the chance to vote for.

And so when we have this independent commission that will make this determination every two years publicly, transparently, we’ll have Oregonians with expertise on this commission that will arrive at the right decision for Oregon each time. And I think that’s really exciting and really great to bring more people into this important conversation.

Juan Carlos: Isabela, I’m wondering if you want to weigh in on this question. 

Isabela: Sure. There’s a reason there’s not organized opposition to this measure and that there’s nearly 30 organizations and unions that have endorsed it. We know that this is a critical issue that is simply beyond the idea that legislators need to raise. It’s that legislators should not be the ones deciding fundamentally what their salaries are.

And also, we need to ensure that the voices of all Oregonians are able to be heard in our legislature to move forward policies that best serve everyone. And, you know, I’ve said it, but there’s so many organizations like ourselves and American Federation of Teachers, NAYA Action Fund, Oregon AFSCME, PCUN, SEIU 503 – these are just some of the nearly 30 organizations that are supporting it, because we know that this is really our opportunity to move our state forward for Oregonians. 

Juan Carlos: I want to ask you both: Is there any final thoughts you want to share with us about Measure 116, something that we haven’t covered yet, perhaps, or anything you want to conclude with?

Robin: I just would say that the choice before us is simple. Do we want to move towards having a government where everyone can have a seat at the table? And to do that, we need to make sure that all Oregonians from every background, every walk of life, every corner of the state could be a part of our government and, and think about representing their communities and bringing those perspectives in.

And we could move towards a better government, a more transparent one, by removing politicians from this pay question. So voting yes for Measure 116 would bring more fairness and accountability to our state government. 

Juan Carlos: Isabela, any final thoughts from you? 

Isabela: You know, like I was saying, it’s really our opportunity to ensure our legislature works for us and that politicians aren’t the ones getting to set their own pay. We’re really excited to support this measure and see it come to fruition this year, and see the opportunities for voters to weigh in on this really important issue, and you can certainly learn a lot more – this has been a short conversation, but a great one – at our website, which is voteyeson116.org.