Tillis Explains Pay Hikes
The story of “exorbitant pay hikes” for the North Carolina Speaker of the House’s staff has lingered since a June 11, 2011 article in Raleigh’s News and Observer Newspaper. At odds was a Tillis statement in January vowing to cut his office payroll, followed by news that raises of up to 27% had been granted to certain staff members.
Defense and criticism of the raises made their way through the blogosphere (mostly criticism from both sides of the political spectrum), and follow-up stories in both the News and Observer and Charlotte Observer included bits of explanation from the Speaker.
Only yesterday, however, thanks to a post on a website affiliated with the Wake County Republican Party, did I finally see an in depth answer to the criticism directly from Speaker Tillis.
“When I took office, I decided to hire “nontraditional” staff for key positions, none of whom had prior government employment experience. All had political experience but working here day after day is a different beast so I was not entirely sure that all would work out (or want to stay). Therefore, I offered probationary salaries that were on average 25% lower than the typical compensation for the same roles in the Senate, Lt. Governor’s, and the Governor’s staff. After 90 days, and in a few cases it was closer to 120, I authorized increases that brought the staff up to compensation levels that are still at or below the comp for the same positions in the Senate, Lt. Gov, and Gov’s.
I met with the news reporter with the N&O and I explained this to her but it was clear that she did not want the facts to get in the way of a good story. In additional to explaining what I’ve written above I also told the reporter that we staffed for the “peak” and what proved to be the most productive session in modern times. I told her she could not annualize staffing levels because we would be ramping down staff after session ended and that our 2011 staff budget would be below the 2009 staff budget for the democrat-led session.
- Several of the staff I have hired were only on the payroll during session because it did not make sense to have a full complement of staff given the relatively short session and the very long interim period.
- Two of my staff whose annual salaries were posted actually worked gratis (no compensation including no reimbursement for travel) for over the month of January but the reporter still reported an annualized salary.
- Three policy staff who have been on my staff for the peak period will only be on my staff through the summer when they transition to other open positions outside of the Speaker’s office or they leave the legislative organization entirely.
- Two or three other administrative staff will also likely transition into other opportunities or will leave the legislative organization entirely.
There is not a single case where anyone on my staff is paid more than the comparable role in the Senate, Lt. Gov, and Gov’s office. In fact, when you consider that the first 90 days was 25% below their peers in the other areas and that the pay “raises” were not retroactive, my staff’s first year compensation will be substantially below their peers.
When you combine this with the fact that we will implement “lean” personnel practices during the interim (something the other branches have not done), my personnel cost will be well below my peers and below the Democrat’s personnel cost in the 2009 session. What’s more, we managed to end the session two months earlier (the earliest since 1973) at a savings of $40,000/day or roughly $1 million a month.
I’ve told my colleagues that the irony of the situation is that had I simply paid my staff more sooner, then it would not have been a news story because it would have been the same old same old way government does things. Instead, I opted for a business practice which resulted in lower annual salaries even after the probationary increase and reporters decided not to complicate the story by completing a simple spreadsheet and comparing easily calculated comparisons.
I appreciate that you, for one, do not necessarily believe the newspapers anymore today than you did before we won the majority.
Thanks again for your support.
Regards, Thom T.
I accept the explanation and appreciate it’s issuance.
In a similar vein, I remain incredibly interested in a response to repeatedly posted questions regarding the reinsertion of funding for Charlotte light rail into the ultimately passed (and veto overridden) budget. I have written to the Speaker’s office and to the Speaker himself via facebook, as have multitudes of others, but have yet to receive any detailed explanation as to the rationale behind the move. We remain very interested to see how the matter played out and would appreciate a similar response in line with the above.
Always praising where praise is due, I congratulate the House and Leadership for it’s series of recent veto overrides, including the Woman’s Right to Know act.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=6915
