Well, Washington State elected officials, you’ve done it again. Somehow you’ve managed to get me so fired up that I’m sitting down to write an open letter to you instead of spending what limited free time I have, with my family.

I read an article today in the Tacoma News Tribune^[1] regarding the Washington Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials (herein referred to as the WCCOSFEO) recommending an 11% pay raise for lawmakers in the state of Washington. I hadn’t even finished reading the headline before I picked up my pen and started taking notes. In this article, two quotations stood out to me as incredibly misguided and uninformed. The first quote was from Senate minority leader Sharon Nelson. In her justification for increasing lawmakers’ salary, Ms. Nelson stated that it was important that our legislature, “attract the best and the brightest” and equated the proposed salary increase to being an instrumental aspect to accomplishing this objective. Oh how I wish she would have avoided that terminology.

The second quote that really caught my attention was from a newly selected member of the WCCOSFEO named Steve Isaac. Mr. Isaac, in his justification for giving lawmakers a raise, stated, “Lawmakers shouldn’t have to take an oath of poverty to serve.” I don’t think I need to offer any analysis here as to how ridiculous, delusional, and flat-out offensive this assertion is. I cannot believe he would equate making a total of $52,006 to “taking an oath of poverty.” I’ll let one of you handle taking that one on. For the record, the United States Department of Health and Human services has determined the poverty line for an individual in the United States to be at $11,670.^[2] I am absolutely disgusted that he would suggest that making just under five times that amount is the equivalent to poverty. And just wait until you see my numbers later. You will be even more bewildered.

So what I finished with is this letter to the public. My hope is two-fold: first I’d like to raise citizen awareness as to how ridiculous things have gotten in terms of the use of reason and logic in our state government. Second, I’d like to use simple mathematics to expose some inconsistencies in the numbers we are being sold by our legislature and raise some very important questions of consistency in how we pay state employees.  My “bonus hope” is to offer numbers that are so indisputable that they will open a proverbial can of worms in our state legislature with how we fund my profession (teaching).

Before I get too far into my position, I need to define a few things. First and foremost, the National Council of State Legislatures (NCSC...don’t ask why there is a second “C” in there, no clue) has determined that being a lawmaker in the state of Washington amounts to working 70% of a full-time job.^[3] In odd-numbered years, such as when the state budget is debated upon, the State Legislature meets for 105 days, and in even-numbered years for 60 days.^[4] This year, lawmakers will work from January 12th until April 26th. Because of these inconsistent calendars, I am going to operate on an averages system and just say our lawmakers are paid to work for 82.5 days per year.

Now comes the real math. As previously defined, the NCSC has defined our lawmakers’ calendar as roughly 70% of the workload of a full-time job. The WCCOSFEO has clearly agreed to this definition so we can assume they are “cool” with it. Our state lawmakers make $42,106 per year.^[5] Because our lawmakers often have to travel great distances to serve, they voted last year to increase their per-diem rate in the House of Representatives to $120 per day, up from the previous amount of $90. Multiplied over the average 82.5 days of per diem and you’ll find that our lawmakers make a total salary of $52,006 in addition to other benefits (which are conveniently absent from their website and we are told to call the respective phone numbers if we want answers).^[6] At this point, we know $52,006 dollars amounts to 70% of a full-time salary. If $52,006 is 70% of a full-time job, then 100% of a full-time job would equate to making $74,294.29. We’re going to want to remember these numbers later as I’m going to put this on hold and move to some important context.

Despite my obvious math skills :-), I’m a high school Social Studies teacher. I love my job and wouldn’t trade it for the life of a legislator. I am incredibly satisfied with my salary even with the fact that I haven’t gotten a raise since 2008 and my salary was actually reduced by 1.9% in 2012.^[7] The workload is incredibly challenging and I’m sure I don’t have to convince anyone who knows a teacher, that we work far more than the 182 days we are paid for. But that’s like most of the other professions out there; you pay us to do whatever it takes to get the job done even if it means additional hours. I’m sure the life of a lawmaker isn’t much different. They are paid to work for 82.5 days per year. I’m sure there’s more to it, but definitions are definitions. I want nothing more than to be treated as equals to my respective lawmakers. I knew what I was signing up for when I pursued my degree in education.

I am paid to teach for 180 days per year and my district has us work an additional two days beyond that so basically I’m officially paid for 182 days of work. The state of Washington, as prescribed by the Washington State K-12 Salary Allocation Schedule for Certificated Instructional Staff which was created by lawmakers, pays me $48,249 per year. I’m in my 13th year of teaching and have my Bachelor of Arts degree plus an additional 45 quarter credits (or the equivalent to one additional year of schooling). Senate minority leader Nelson suggested that increasing pay for lawmakers would likely “attract the best and the brightest” to the field of lawmaking. Assuming that earning a PhD would be an indicator of “the brightest” in the field of education, using Ms. Nelson’s logic would suggest that it’s important to use pay increases to attract the best and the brightest to the field of education then, right? Wrong. A first year teacher with a PhD would make $45,860 in our state. It’s been that way since 2008. Technically, an individual with a PhD would have made more in 2008 than in 2012 thanks to the pay-cut teachers took in 2012. That’s just under $7,000 less than what our current lawmakers make under the current salary schedule, working at 70% of a full time job, without any degree requirements! And yet they are asking, and the WCCOSFEO are recommending an additional 11% in spite of these things. Baffling.

Here’s where it gets interesting; a lawmaker works for 82.5 days per year and that’s defined as 70% of a full-time job. This would mean that a full-time job would ultimately be defined as working just under 118 days per year.  This would therefore mean that a person working 182 days per year (teacher) is actually working 154% of a full-time job. A person who works 245 days per year (assuming 3 weeks vacation) would essentially be working 208% of a full-time job by the definition provided by the NCSC and agreed to by the WCCOSFEO! I won’t pretend there aren’t holidays and such, but I don’t want to do too much math. (I’m a History teacher, remember?)

The discrepancy seems very obvious here. It gets worse, however. Let’s base a full-time job off of what it really is for most folks outside of our professions: 49 weeks of work per year. This converts to roughly 245 days of work. Dividing 82.5 days of work by 245 days of work comes out to our lawmakers working the equivalent to just 33.67% of a full-time job. So my first real question here is, “Where are you getting that 70% number?” I mean lets be real here, a teacher is officially paid for 74% of what the real-world defines as a full-time job. Teachers, please don’t get it twisted, I know we all work FAR more than 180 days.)

But what’s a big rant without solutions? I have those, too! I’ve worked out four options for us:

Option 1) Reduce legislative salaries to reflect the actual percentage of a full-time job. If $52,006 amounts to what they’ve determined to be 70% of a full-time job, then 33.67% of an actual full-time job would result in their salaries being reduced to $25,014.89. Even here, they’d be making almost twice what a person struggling with poverty has to deal with. This would mean that, even with this reduction, they are still not taking an “oath of poverty,” as stated by Steve Isaac.

Option 2) I like this one a lot; let’s re-define all state employees job calendar to reflect the NCSC’s definition of a full-time job. Heck, if the Washington State Legislature is cool with it for themselves, and they are employed by the same taxpayers all other Washington State employees are paid by, then that’s only fair, right? This would mean that all public schools in the state of Washington would drop their calendars to 118 days of school. If that isn’t cool, as we’ve seen by our legislature taking steps to make sure students attend school for six hours a day for 180 days per year, then how about we move to option 3?

Option 3) We recognize and pay state employees for their work. If a state employee works for 245 days per year, we acknowledge that they are working the equivalent to 208% of a full-time job. This means that we technically would owe them a 108% pay raise from what they are getting right now...I mean per the NCSC’s definition of a full-time job, this would be correct, right? For teachers, this would mean a 54% pay raise since we are working the equivalent to 154% of a full-time job.

Option 4) We don’t give legislators a pay raise at all and we leave their salary where it’s at until it truly reflects the work they do (33% of a full-time job). And while we’re at it, let’s start an initiative that allows taxpayers the right to establish parameters for what a legislator is evaluated on, and then base the legislative pay off of their performance on exams. This is what they recommend we do for teachers, right? I mean, lawmakers seem to have no problems telling teachers how to do their jobs the right way; it’s only fair.

So there it is, my open letter to Washingtonians. I’m not in favor of giving our legislators a pay raise, especially in light of their refusal to reinstate the Cost of Living Adjustments they halted in 2008. I’d be remiss if I didn’t take advantage of this moment to tell you that, on behalf of all teachers, we are doing our best to serve our communities and our students. We ask for your trust and respect as we work hard to accomplish all of the new requirements passed down to us by our local, state, and national governments. We will always put the needs of our students at the forefront of our professional priorities and would love and appreciate your continued support. Thank you for your time. Oh...and Go Hawks!

Respectfully submitted,

A concerned taxpayer