Legislative Salary Council urges uniform, transparent per diem rules and pauses base pay increase

The Legislative Salary Council on a [meeting date not specified in the transcript] agreed to press the Legislature for clearer, uniform rules on per-diem payments and stopped short of approving a change to base legislator pay.

Chair Jim Fleming opened the council’s deliberations and invited staff briefings, after which members spent most of the meeting focused on per-diem transparency and how per-diem practices interact with base salary. Nick Nigro, the Legislative Coordinating Commission staffer who led an open-meetings and data-practices overview, told the body that “communications you all have about this topic could be made public,” underscoring the council’s obligation to conduct deliberations in public and to treat member communications as potentially discoverable.

Michelle Urick, director of the Legislative Coordinating Commission, presented two model data-practices policies (one for members and one for public requests) and confirmed the drafts list her as the contact person for requests. Staff later moved to adopt the policies and members approved both motions by roll call.

Budget staff from the state presented the November budget forecast, which council members said helped frame the compensation discussion. Brian Doll, financial planning director at the state budget office, warned that the November baseline forecast showed a growing structural imbalance through FY2029 and that members should watch an updated February forecast to be released March 6, saying the February update “may see larger changes” because of federal policy uncertainty.

The council then debated whether to recommend an increase in base legislative pay. Members repeatedly raised the lack of transparency and perceived inequities in per-diem (reimbursement) practices—currently capped at a maximum of $86 per diem during session—arguing that differences in whether and how members claim per diem make it difficult to treat base salary decisions equitably. Members also discussed lodging and receipt rules; staff noted a lodging cap example of up to $2,200 per month and a two-year cap figure discussed in the packet (approximately $39,600).

After extended discussion, one council member moved to set the base salary at the previous biennium level; that motion failed on a roll-call vote. Instead, the council instructed staff to draft a report that (a) recommends no change in base salary until the Legislature addresses per-diem transparency and uniformity, and (b) urges the Legislature—via its rules committee or by statute—to make per-diem rules uniform, transparent and non-discretionary so constituents and the public can clearly see total compensation. Ken White, a council member from a largely rural area, summed up the budget-angle concern: “I think the Legislature should enjoy some of the pain” of fiscal constraints, saying it would send the wrong message to raise base pay while the state faces long-term budget pressures.

The council voted to authorize the chair and vice chair to approve the final report after staff circulates a draft; it also authorized staff to prepare and the chair to approve the meeting minutes. Staff said it would circulate a first draft of the report in late February and that members could submit comments before a potential follow-up meeting ahead of the statutory March 31 deadline for the council’s report.

What the council asked the Legislature to do: make per-diem payments uniform between House and Senate, require consistent, non-discretionary claiming rules (so per-diem is not selectively reported or withheld), and increase transparency about per-diem disbursements and criteria. The council did not adopt an immediate base-salary increase and explicitly directed staff to reflect those principles in the draft report to be circulated for member comment.

Next steps: staff will circulate a draft report; the chair and vice chair are authorized to approve it on the council’s behalf if no further meeting is convened; members will have the opportunity to comment prior to the March 31 report deadline and prior to the February forecast public release on March 6.