43
Faber unhappy that pay raise legislation didn't pass
By Marc Kovac
COLUMBUS
The Republican head of the Ohio Senate voiced disappointment that a proposed constitutional amendment to revamp pay raise decisions for public officials failed to move out of the Legislature before the end of the session.
But Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina, said he would pursue the matter in the new session next year.
“While there is a case that can be made for a lot of elected officials and whether the compensation is reasonable, that is better determined and made by citizens than it is by politicians,” he said.
Faber was the primary sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 9, which called for the creation of a nine-member commission to decide changes in pay for most public officials.
Commission members would consider pay rates for similar positions in the private sector, those in place for elected officials elsewhere in the country, the economic position of the state and other factors.
The commission would offer changes to pay rates for statewide, county and township officials and judges but not some other officials, whose pay is established via resolution at the local level.
Lawmakers could override pay recommendations from the commission, via a three-fifths vote of the House and Senate.
The resolution was adopted by senators earlier this month but failed to gain support in the Ohio House, which passed separate legislation outlining pay raises for judges and other elected officials.
The latter legislation, HB 661, would reinstitute cost-of-living increases of up to 3 percent for statewide office-holders and lawmakers.
Judges would see larger raises — 5 percent plus cost-of-living adjustments for several years, then cost-of-living increases thereafter. The Ohio Senate did not take up HB 661 after the House’s approval.
Faber said he does not support lawmakers making decisions about public officials pay.
“This whole issue about how you compensate public officials to me is a problem that we need to fix to promote good government in Ohio,” Faber said. “I don’t think it’s a good idea to have politicians setting the pay for other politicians.”