For all of Gov. Phil Scott’s tough talk about the budget and how tight we’ve got to be with our money, you might not guess that he and his top officials are due to get some very healthy raises in the new fiscal year.
The Pay Act, H.889, has been floating serenely through the Legislature to little to no public notice. The House has passed it, and I don’t doubt the Senate will follow along before adjournment. I hadn’t heard a peep about it until Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky tweeted this the other day:
Yep, that’s right, 6.4% pay raises for the governor and all his appointees.
To be fair (if only for a moment), that figure is exactly what state employees are getting in their collectively-bargained contracts. But you know, it might have occurred to the governor and his tight-fisted apparatchiks that a voluntary gesture of self-discipline might be in order. You know, in light of the fact that we allegedly can’t afford to provide enough shelter for our homeless population.
Especially the governor himself. Especially when, as Sen. Vyhovsky pointed out, the Pay Act would make him the second highest paid governor in the country.
That’s right. Humble ol’ Gov. Phil Scott is pulling down a top-of-the-heap salary for leading our brave little state. Emphasis on “little,” because if we compared state budgets and governors’ salaries, Scott would lead the pack by a country mile.
I can’t guarantee that online lists of gubernatorial salaries are up to date, so it’s possible that Scott might actually be third or fourth or fifth by the time he starts collecting his bump. But according to the statistical website World Population Review, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has the most generous salary at $250,000. Under the Pay Act, Phil Scott would earn (can I put “earn” in air quotes?) a cool $234,379 in the new fiscal year.
New York: Fourth largest state by population at 19,469,232.
Vermont: 49th biggest state at 647,818.
New Your state expenditures, per the Kaiser Family Foundation: $209.3 billion, second highest behind California.
Vermont state expenditures, same source: $7.6 billion, larger than only South Dakota and Wyoming.
Vermont’s budget is 3.35% the size of New York’s. And yet Phil Scott is earning almost exactly as much as Kathy Hochul.
Feel like you’re getting your money’s worth?
I can maybe understand why the Legislature hasn’t raised a fuss, since the pay increase is the same percentage (on a much, muuuuuuuuch larger base) as it is for unionized state employees. But this is the same governor who vetoed a bill to raise legislators’ pay from its currently abysmal levels. I wouldn’t blame House and Senate leadership if they put out a press release or even held a press conference pointing out the obvious contradiction. Their restraint might be morally admirable, but it’s politically ridiculous.
Scott’s lofty salary also kinda helps explain his opposition to additional taxes for high earners. Aside from his state pay, he’s also collecting hefty sums from the 2018 sale of his half of Dubois Construction. Under the terms of that deal, Scott was to receive interest-only payments of $75,000 a year for the first five years and interest plus principal after that. So he’s pulling down something north of 75 G’s from that sale, which would mean his total compensation is at least $310,000 and probably quite a bit more. He’s not in the top bracket, but he’s awfully darn close.
It seems like this ought to be a bigger deal than it is. Phil Scott is preaching fiscal discipline, but his own pay is completely out of whack with the scale of his responsibilities. Why is that? Why do we pay our governor so much?
The Vermont Political Observer. 
“Why do we pay our governor so much?”
Good question and why is the administration preaching austerity for us as they get the bucks. It’s always those telling us to do as they say, not what they do, who are hiding something behind that. This should go public.
It has to be considered, however, that Vermont does not provide housing, meals, or other amenities for the Governor as most state’s offer. 45 states provide the Governor with a “Governor’s Mansion,” with Vermont joining Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Arizona, and Idaho as those without. But for example in Massachusetts, the Governor gets an annual housing allowance of $65,000 in addition to their salary of $185,000 – so coming out to about $15,000 higher, when combined, than the proposed gubernatorial compensation.
Beyond that, I’m not sure less compensation is the answer. The Governor is responsible for many institutions that provide higher leadership salaries. For example, the UVM President earns over $600,000 per year. A number of state health care leaders – such as the Chief Medical Examiner and her deputy, the state Medicaid Medical Director and his deputy, etc. – earn more than the Governor. While Supreme and Superior Court Justices earn a bit less than the Governor, the compensation package overall is far more generous given their uniquely generous pensions.
I think Vermont suffers a great deal due to reduced legislative compensation relative to the Executive Branch, but Vermont’s Executive Branch is also not particularly well compensated relative to other states – or the Judiciary branch of our own – once you factor in the lack of a housing provision and relative pension benefits.
And while I certainly don’t think Vermont’s Governor needs a true mansion, or as much as $65k/year in a housing allowance, I do think that some level of housing should be provided with the office. Folks in Central Vermont/Chittenden County – or with money to buy a second home there – can commute to Montpelier no problem, but it would be an obstacle for many potential candidates in Southern Vermont, the NEK, etc. And while I understand the goal of the generous judicial pension system is to disincentivize retired Justices from serving as Counsel to clients with lucrative interests before the courts, I don’t see why the same wouldn’t be true for a former Governor.