My position on the issue of a pay raise for legislators and a ban on outside income cannot be explained in a soundbite because it is a more complex issue than some might lead you to believe. I wish I could boil it down to a simple yes or no answer but I think it is important to note the nuance in this conversation.

It is important to note what the bill does. It raises the salary for members of the NYS Legislature for the second time since 1999 from $110,000 to $142,000. The numbers build off an independent commission recommendation from 2018 that recommended an increase plus a limitation on outside income.  The bill also places a limit on how much income a legislator can receive for employment outside of elected office. That limit is $35,000. The total financial impact to the state is $6.8 million.

I know there is the sentiment of “why do the legislators deserve a raise, some don’t even do their jobs” “everyone else is struggling too” etc. I share those same concerns however I do look at it from the viewpoint of a person who does the job day-to-day and as most can attest, I treat it as a full-time job and am very responsive to the needs of my constituents. I often say that being the 108th District Assemblymember is an honor that I will never take for granted. I know I work for the 108th District and for all New Yorkers.

Whether lawmakers deserve a pay raise is debatable, but New Yorkers deserve a functioning government. We talk about the “career politicians” and there is understandable frustration with what people perceive to be a corrupt system. We have seen far too often what happens when we have elected officials who do not hold themselves to a higher standard. The bad apples make the headlines but there are many legislators who show up, get their jobs done, and have valuable experience and institutional knowledge. I have downstate colleagues who are smart, committed, and excellent representatives with a breadth of knowledge about NYS government. Keeping these members of the Legislature is important for our legislative bodies to function and properly serve New Yorkers.

I am fortunate to live a short drive from the Capitol and I go home every night after work. I am aware that my downstate colleagues must deal with a whole host of issues that I do not have to. I am empathetic to their concerns and have seen many committed public servants (elected officials and staffers) leave for the private sector because it is no longer financially viable for their families.  To put this in proper perspective, since I joined the Assembly 10 years ago over 130 members have left and most were not for retirement purposes. This loss and turnover have had a detrimental impact on how government functions and how responsive our government can be to our communities.  In as much as I do not feel individuals should make a full career in the legislature, I do believe members who are here more than four years tend to be more fully informed and educated on the issues which can lead to more thoughtful actions and outcomes in the process.  Unfortunately, with the turnover I described above, we have seen the opposite as some members arrive in Albany to make a name for themselves as they focus on positioning themselves to leave for the New York City Council which pays just under $150,000, has many more perks and staff, as well as the ability for individuals to live in their communities throughout the year.

This does not mean that I think a pay raise for Legislators is any more important than the issues that the Legislature seeks to address for our constituents. I do think of a parent putting on their oxygen mask first so they can safely assist their child. Our state needs a healthy and responsible legislative body made up of people who are there for the right reasons, otherwise, it is New Yorkers who suffer the negative consequences and that is not right.

As for outside income – I personally do not support a limit on outside employment as I believe it will diminish the talent in the legislature going forward.  It is not widely known that since 2013 all legislators are required to publicly disclose in annual financial filings any outside income and are also required to get an opinion of ethics counsel if their outside employment has any conflicts. These are strong safeguards that have drastically limited public corruption related to outside employment and I do not believe the outside employment limit will be of any benefit. I believe that people who were misusing their positions as elected officials have been the actual problem. If you look at any of the high-profile cases we have seen, this seems readily apparent. I carry legislation to make public financial disclosures even more accessible to the public. They are already posted online for anyone to view currently, but I want to make sure candidates post them on their campaign websites (before they are elected for full transparency) and that the file is searchable. (If you check my official state and campaign websites you will see my disclosure). Outside work is important to keep elected officials connected to the people that they represent. Allowing certain outside work is how we prevent the “career politicians” and provides a transparent source of income that is not publicly funded, which means the public servants who are interested in furthering the public good can remain in their positions. As the only elected official who is actively practicing health care, I believe I bring valuable knowledge to the table on issues that are relevant today, especially on Health Care/Medicaid issues which make up one of the largest parts of our annual budget. When I talk to people in the pharmacy, they talk to me about issues related to housing, childcare, and issues unrelated to filling a prescription. I think having those interactions helps me to be a better legislator. Simply put, outside employment keeps legislators out of the ivory tower and connected to the people that they represent.

There are questions about why the outside income ban is delayed until January 2025.  The reason is that in the most recent elections, legislators ran and made employment plans based on the current framework and therefore this provides time for implementation and allows legislators to make plans for divesting from outside employment or wrapping up business matters related to outside employment if the need exists. If legislators choose to run again (and win), they will have already made decisions knowing they are limited in what they can earn from outside employment.

While some may not agree with my positions here, I wanted to provide insight into my thinking and another perspective on what is not as simple of an issue as it may appear. In the end, there are some who voted no on the bill not on principle but to publicly hem and haw that this is an injustice, knowing full well the bill is going to pass. I understand there are valid reasons to vote no but some are trying to take advantage of the moment to posture themselves as heroes but knowing full well they are going to receive the raise and will benefit from it. Personally, if the state constitution allowed me to decline the raise, I would decline it – however, that is not permitted.  Therefore, after careful consideration, I voted for the bill (which passed 81-52 in the Assembly) with the intent that this will help improve the functioning of the legislature going forward which will in turn benefit the taxpayers.