Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill and constitutional amendment package setting district attorneys' pay
Summary
The committee gave favorable reports to a bill setting a $140,000 starting salary and a companion constitutional amendment barring reductions in district attorneys' pay during their terms; members approved a separate amendment to decouple DA pay increases from judges and to return COLA adjustments to legislative oversight.
The Senate Tax and Finance Committee advanced a legislative package that sets a new statutory starting salary for district attorneys and moves a companion constitutional amendment to the ballot to bar salary reductions during a DA's term.
A bill discussed in committee would set the DA starting salary at $140,000 and preserve a longevity-type increase every six years. Committee members debated an amendment that decouples DA pay adjustments from judicial pay and restores the legislature's role over cost-of-living adjustments. The amendment was described as "friendly" by the sponsor and approved by the committee.
Representative Klaus, speaking later, explained the measure follows a traditional practice of aligning DA starting pay with judges but that the adopted amendment unlinks the offices and instead places a statutory cap with Legislature oversight for future COLA or longevity increases. A judge who spoke to the committee confirmed the amendment would decouple pay-setting and that the starting pay would be $140,000; committee members discussed whether the six-year longevity step is roughly 7.5 percent, but speakers said they were not certain of that percentage in every case.
Committee members also reviewed a proposed constitutional amendment (referred to in committee as HB3504) that would prohibit reducing a DA's salary during the official's term. Supporters said the DA's office and LSA (Legislative Services) recommended the CA as additional protection. Some members questioned the need for a constitutional change for a circumstance they said is rare; sponsors said voters should decide.
On the bill and the amendment concerning statutory pay-setting, the committee approved the amendment and then gave the underlying bill a favorable report. For the constitutional amendment measure, the committee also recorded a favorable report following a roll call; the chair announced the bill and the CA had been favorably reported.
Committee members requested that sponsors and staff confirm implementation timing and whether the statutory language could affect incumbents ahead of the next election cycle. A committee member referenced an effective date of Oct. 1, 2025 for related measures and asked staff to check how that date interacts with current officeholders' pay.
