Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay And Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lieutenant governor's pay-plan request fails in committee after lawmakers raise funding and role questions
Summary
A committee voted down a request to move the lieutenant governor’s office into the state pay plan after members questioned the size of the percentage increase and whether the office’s duties justify higher grades; the motion failed for lack of a majority and a subsequent attempt to expunge the vote also failed.
The committee considered a request from the Lieutenant Governor’s Office to move its staff positions onto the state pay plan to align pay grades with other constitutional offices and remain competitive. Sandy Hall of the lieutenant governor’s staff told lawmakers the office had not sought to “max out” salary grades and that the requested change was intended to make up for nearly a decade without raises.
The issue drew sustained questioning. Senator Johnson asked whether the pay plan included an appropriation to cover increases; John Austin Lynch of the lieutenant governor’s office said the initial percent increase the office would implement under the appropriation would be “around 30.” Senator Bryant said he needed details on day-to-day duties to justify the increase and warned the office had been reduced over decades to a part-time constitutional role.
After discussion the chair called a motion to adopt the proposal. A roll call showed the motion failed for lack of majority — committee members reported eight votes in favor when nine were required. The chair said the item reverts to the present budget and may be brought back for another recorded vote if the committee chooses.
A later motion to expunge the failed vote from the record was put to a voice vote and did not carry. The committee returned to its regular agenda.
Why it matters: Moving a constitutional office to the state pay plan changes how staff salaries are set and could alter long-term personnel costs. Lawmakers pressed for clearer justification of workload and a precise accounting of state versus federal funding before approving a permanent change.
What happens next: The committee left the current budget unchanged; if proponents want another vote they must secure a recorded vote to expunge or re-consider the motion.
