$6 million appropriation for year-round legislative staff draws ire at Roundhouse

SANTA FE — A $6 million appropriation — less than a percent of the Legislative Finance Committee’s proposed $10.1 billion budget — became a point of contention Monday at a House Appropriations and Finance Committee meeting.

The committee voted 13-3 to advance a tweaked version of the general appropriation act, which makes up the majority of the state budget.

Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, was one of the three committee members who voted in opposition, saying there was a lack of transparency around the $6 million figure, setting a “horrible precedent.”

The line item sets aside additional money to employ legislative staff year-round. New Mexico’s Legislature is part-time and voluntary; state lawmakers are not paid a salary. Thus, there’s a select number of year-round legislative staffers.

Last year, there was a push to change that. The Legislative Council Service commissioned a study about bringing on year-round staff to support lawmakers.

Three staffing models were proposed in the report. The number of full-time employees ranged from 30 to 112, based on the model; the estimated cost ran from $4.1 million on the low end to $14 million. Depending on the model, all, some or none of the roles would be partisan.

“This is a big change as to how we’ve done things in the past,” Montoya told the Journal. “It requires a bill. But they’re just going to shove it in there.”

Montoya said the appropriation was added late last week.

For the upcoming fiscal year, LCS is requesting about $18 million to cover salaries and employee benefits to staff the agency as well as the House and Senate chief clerk’s offices and legislative building services.

Currently, there are about 180 permanent staff members, said Raúl Burciaga, director of the Legislative Council Service. During the session, the agency hires between 300 and 400 temporary employees.

The Legislative Finance Committee discussed the LCS study in September. The month after, the study was presented to lawmakers during a public meeting. Part of the study included surveys with current legislators about how they would like to see year-round staffing implemented. A legislative modernization committee also met to discuss changes.

Nathan Small, D-Las Cruces, LFC vice chairman and HAFC chairman, said that money for new positions in existing agencies, like LCS, sometimes is included in the general appropriation act, rather than creating stand-alone legislation. And, he said, unlike in past years, the public has had a chance to make comment on the budget.

“To run a separate bill for each agency, for each job, would be highly, highly abnormal,” Small said.

Montoya said there were few details in the line item, including where offices would be located, the hiring process and what agency the staffers would report to.

He said he will introduce a bill to adopt the least expensive staffing recommendation in the study, which would create 12 regional staff offices run by 30 full-time, nonpartisan employees. They would report to the LCS, he said.

Mason Graham, policy director at Common Cause New Mexico, a nonprofit advocating for legislative modernization and open government, said full-time staffers could help lawmakers with policy research and constituent services.

An October poll from Common Cause, conducted by Research & Polling Inc., found that 67% of likely voters support paid legislative staff.

“It’s a delicate balancing act that they have to perform in order to fulfill their role as a lawmaker,” Graham said. “By having legislators be given a year-round staff person … our legislators could spend more time addressing constituent concerns.”

Graham said appropriations added to the budget, like the $6 million, are still debated and “the only challenge” later is determining details like the appointing authority, what agency staffers report to and other logistics.

The big picture

The debate over permanent, paid staff coincides with several other proposals to change how the Legislature operates, including one which would extend the length of the 30-day legislative session and another which would allow legislators to be paid a salary and create a citizen commission to decide how much that should be.

Although voters will decide in November whether they want to create the commission, a fiscal impact report estimates that a salary of $50,000 for all 112 representatives would cost $5.6 million; if health care and pensions are included, it would cost about $7 million.

The general appropriations act is headed to the House floor next.

House Minority Leader Ryan Lane, R-Aztec, and House Minority Whip Jim Townsend, R-Artesia, wrote that putting the money through as part of the budget, rather than a stand-alone legislation, was effectively “preventing or greatly reducing needed discussion and debate.”

A letter Lane and Townsend sent last week to Small addressed “rumors circulating in the Roundhouse” that the staffing proposal was moving through the legislative process as part of the budget, rather than a bill.

“We have serious concerns about using taxpayer money to hire hundreds of staff people to work at the pleasure of House and Senate members,” Lane and Townsend wrote. “Further, providing a fair opportunity to express that opposition … is an essential component of thoughtful consideration.”

The next day, Small responded, calling claims the process lacked transparency or opportunity for debate, “unfounded.”

“The budget, like all other bills in our legislature, is subject to robust scrutiny and debate as it moves from committees to floor votes in both chambers,” wrote Small in reply. “Discussions about legislative staffing are ongoing, as are conversations about the budget, which is still being developed … these budget hearings will continue to be open and transparent, with thorough committee review and debate, along with public comment, at each step of the project.”