Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Compensation Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Caucus debates cuts to employee pay increases and legislators’ compensation amid tight forecast

2852600 · April 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senators proposed several amendments to delay or reduce scheduled pay and benefit increases for state employees and to cut proposed increases or per diem for legislators, framing the actions as leading by example during fiscal restraint.

Senator Lundin offered a suite of amendments aimed at the state compensation package for the current fiscal cycle: eliminating the 3% salary increase (amendment 58), shifting all insurance cost increases to employees (amendment 59), reducing the salary increase to 1.5% (amendment 60), and splitting insurance increases 50/50 (amendment 61). Lundin framed the set as proportional responses to a tighter budget forecast and said the combined suite would yield multimillion‑dollar savings.

Senator Pelton separately proposed an amendment to remove legislative pay increases or per diem adjustments for legislators, arguing that lawmakers should share in restraint. Pelton said he has previously cut his own salary while serving in elected office.

Why it matters: Compensation and benefits are large recurring budget items that affect workforce retention and provider rates. Senators in caucus debated the equity of asking state employees and providers to accept smaller increases while also considering legislative leadership’s example.

Discussion: Several senators questioned percentages and asked staff to compute exact impacts on PERA contributions and on the legislative compensation line. Senator Kirkmeyer noted prior large increases in recent years (steps and pay adjustments) and compared those to the proposed changes, and sponsors asked staff for precise percentages so they could more clearly make the case to colleagues.

Status: The caucus discussion did not produce immediate votes. Sponsors said they would work with staff to quantify impacts and collect votes prior to formal committee consideration.