logo
Salary board recommends automatic pay changes for Alaska governor, legislators, top officials

Salary board recommends automatic pay changes for Alaska governor, legislators, top officials

Yahoo30-01-2025

The State Office Building in Juneau is seen on Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2024. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
A state commission is recommending automatic inflation-driven raises and salary cuts for Alaska's governor, lieutenant governor, members of the state Legislature and top officials at state agencies.
The recommendation, approved by the three members of the State Officers Compensation Commission on Wednesday, will become effective after the 2026 state election unless the Alaska Legislature and Gov. Mike Dunleavy enact a law disapproving the decision.
'If we're really going to have a system where anybody can run (for office) and be able financially to do it, we have to have salaries that are commensurate to that need,' said Larry LeDoux, a member of the commission.
Alaska's governor currently is paid approximately $176,000 per year in salary. The lieutenant governor's salary is approximately $140,000, and the salaries of state commissioners — in charge of agencies — are approximately $168,000 per year. State legislators receive $84,000 per year in salary.
Under Wednesday's vote, each of those figures will be regularly adjusted according to the Anchorage Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation.
The salary commission is required by law to meet regularly, but before 2022, it had been over a decade since the last salary adjustment.
As a result, the commission recommended significant raises for top state officials to make up for inflation in the intervening years. In addition, it recommended increases for legislators that were substantially higher than inflation. The state Legislature failed to block the recommended raises.
Speaking Wednesday, LeDoux said he believes there is significant political pressure to keep salaries low, 'so the system hasn't worked well in the past.'
Inflation adjustments will allow gradual, small raises instead of the large bump that occurred two years ago.
Lynn Gattis, a former state legislator and member of the commission, noted during Wednesday's meeting that the CPI may change downward as well as upward, meaning that the commission's proposed adjustment could result in salary cuts as well as increases.
Since 1960, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Anchorage CPI has posted a year-over-year decline only once, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
'I struggle with automatic increases,' Gattis said after the vote, but explained that if the state wants to attract quality commissioners, she believes that it needs to pay more.
'We're talking about looking for quality people that will take a leave of absence from their jobs for a couple years. And nobody's doing that for an amount of money that keeps them from feeding their kids and paying their mortgages,' she said.
In the Alaska Capitol, legislators are considering whether the wages of regular state employees should be raised to fill a significant number of vacant positions. A review of state salaries, ordered by the Alaska Legislature in 2023, is overdue from Gov. Dunleavy's office.
Gattis deferred comment on the broader salary issue.
'We stayed inside our box and did what we were supposed to do,' she said.
The commission doesn't have control of ordinary workers' salaries, LeDoux said.
'It's not an issue that I have control of — the governor and Department of Administration and their employee groups. That's far out of our bailiwick. We're just trying to do what we believe is right with the charge that we've been given as commissioners on the salary commission,' he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bill lays out options for transferring small businesses
Bill lays out options for transferring small businesses

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Bill lays out options for transferring small businesses

BOSTON (SHNS) – Warning that a 'silver tsunami' of Baby Boomer businessowners looking to sell in the next 15 to 20 years could lead to vanishing local small businesses, advocates asked lawmakers Thursday to provide incentives for employee ownership structures. John Abrams, who said his business was employee-owned for 40 years and has written two books on employee ownership, said about three million American small businesses including about 70,000 in Massachusetts have founders older than 55 and are likely to transition ownership in the next two decades. 'Some of those companies will be passed down in families, but less than in the past. Many will unceremoniously close their doors finding no buyer, leaving holes on Main Street. Others will be targeted by strategic buyers and private equity. They may be absorbed, bundled, relocated, carved up, sold for parts, their mission and culture undone. Jobs will be lost,' he said as part of a panel organized by the Coalition for Worker Ownership and Power. 'While many founders wish to preserve the businesses they devoted much of their life to, they and their advisors, financial planners, succession consultants, business brokers, accountants, know little of the employee ownership options available that can accomplish that.' Coalition members pitched the Joint Committee on Economic Development on a bill (H 503 / S 305) they said would make it easier for employees to buy the businesses they work for during ownership transitions, including by giving employees a right of first refusal, making technical assistance available and incentivizing the selling owner by exempting sales of less than $1 million (or the first $1 million in sales of a greater value) from the state capital gains tax, according to a committee summary. Halsey Platt, the owner of a residential construction business based in Ayer, told the committee that he is in the process of converting his business into an employee cooperative. He said he has been building the business for 33 years. As he begins to think about exiting the business, he said 'the notion of being able to have my employees be able to build generational wealth was incredibly appealing to me.' 'I think by the Legislature enacting these laws, it will make my choice and that business transition more normalized. And I think if the Legislature moves forward with this, part of what happens here in Massachusetts will be that it changes the landscape, that then employees get educated about what an employee cooperative is and they are able to start to think about that,' Platt said. 'This bill is not restrictive in terms of the owner of the business who wants to sell. It is simply giving those employees the opportunity to match that offer.' WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget
‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. Dec. 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen has accepted responsibility for mishandled line-item vetoes to the state's next two-year budget while reiterating that many of the suggested cuts will be reconsidered in 2026. Pillen, speaking with the Nebraska Examiner after the Legislature adjourned for the year, said the veto process includes 'human beings' in his office, the Clerk of the Legislature's Office and the Secretary of State's Office. On May 21, his office delivered Legislative Bill 261 and LB 264 with line-item vetoes to the Secretary of State's Office, which is the right place for the bills to go when the Legislature is out of session, but not to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office on the other side of the Capitol, which is where bills must be returned when senators are in session. The Governor's Office says LB 261 was line-item vetoed at 1:08 p.m. on May 21 and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's Office said the bills were delivered to that office around 5 p.m. the same day. The Legislature did receive a separate letter from Pillen the night of May 21 detailing the line-item vetoes, as well as a copy of the bills with the inscribed vetoes, but lawmakers contended the next day that a line-item veto is constitutional only with the inscribed vetoes on the actual bills. Those bills remained at the Secretary of State's Office until morning. The Nebraska Constitution requires vetoes to be returned within five days of being presented to the governor, excluding Sundays. The bills passed May 15 and went to Pillen's office at 1:12 p.m., so the deadline was by the end-of-day May 21. Pillen said the mistake on the night of May 21 was 'a miscommunication on where it was supposed to go.' Pillen was in Washington, D.C., the following day, for a 'Make America Healthy Again' event at the White House. 'Bottom line: We made a mistake. I'd have thought, because we all work together, that a flag would have been thrown and said, 'Hey, let's do X,' but there wasn't, and then the glass of milk was spilled the next morning,' Pillen told the Examiner. The intended vetoes targeted $14.5 million to the state's general fund and $18 million in repurposed cash funds for improvements at Lake McConaughy. He sought to save $14.5 million that the Legislature's budget aimed to use from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve by trimming spending — $152 million from the rainy day fund went to help balance the budget. The Nebraska Supreme Court, which faced about $12 million of Pillen's proposed general fund reductions (83%), has said the loss of those funds could close vital court services. This was Pillen's second two-year budget — he vetoed $38.5 million in general fund spending in 2023 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. Lawmakers restored about $850,000 of the trims. Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Speaker of the Legislature John Arch have pledged to clarify the line-item veto process for the budget ahead of 2026, and they've agreed that the suggested reductions should be considered when the budget is adjusted next year. Arch has said that to his knowledge, nothing like this had happened before. Pillen, whose office now insists the matter is resolved, said, 'As I told our team, we look in the mirror, we accept responsibilities. I've not met a human that doesn't make a mistake yet.' Pillen and his staff have declined to detail exactly what happened the night of May 21. Rani Taborek-Potter, a spokesperson for Evnen, said no one from the Secretary of State's Office delivered the actual LB 261 and LB 264 with the line-item vetoes to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, 'nor is it our office's responsibility to do so.' 'When bills are vetoed by the Governor, the vetoed bills are delivered directly to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office by the Governor's office, as was the case for LB 319 and LB 287 to the best of our knowledge,' Taborek-Potter told the Examiner, referring to the two other bills vetoed this session related to expanding SNAP benefit eligibility and fighting bedbugs in Omaha. Taborek-Potter confirmed the Governor's Office delivered the budget bills to the administrative assistant in the Secretary of State's Office just before 5 p.m. on May 21. The Examiner on May 23 requested all records and communications regarding the line-item vetoes from when the budget bills passed May 15 to the date of the records request. The request sought texts, emails and digital messages. It also asked for communications within the executive branch and between Pillen's office and the legislative branch, including staff and state senators. Documents provided in response indicated that Pillen's veto letter detailing his objections was ready by 6:05 p.m., when the state budget administrator, Neil Sullivan, sent it to Pillen's staff. Around 6:27 p.m., Kenny Zoeller, director of the governor's Policy Research Office, the main research and lobbying arm for Pillen, confirmed the letter among gubernatorial staff. 'We are handing this off back to the Legislature POST adjournment,' Zoeller wrote of next steps. 'I will text when it's handed off.' Laura Strimple, the governor's primary spokesperson, sent a draft news release regarding the vetoes at 8:21 p.m. to Sullivan. It was sent to reporters around 11:23 p.m. The Legislature adjourned at 9:20 p.m., and a reporter could see legislative staff discussing the veto letter. Through much of the day on May 22, legislative leadership met off the floor, including Arch. Several emerged just before adjournment at 2:37 p.m. when Arch announced the vetoes could not be accepted and that the Legislature had concluded they were constitutionally improper. Some members of the Appropriations Committee hugged, threw fists in the air and smiled after. Pillen's spokesperson, Strimple, sent a statement to reporters at 4:48 p.m. stating it was the governor's position that Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.' She said the Governor's Office would consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel. The Policy Research Office, executive branch budget staff and other members of the governor's staff met around 5 p.m. on May 22. Strimple sent her statement on the governor's position to all members of the governor's staff at 5:23 p.m., then to lawmakers at 5:53 p.m. On May 27, the next legislative day, Pillen, Arch and Evnen released their joint statement around 2:54 p.m., ending the possible constitutional dispute and returning to their respective corners, with no one taking blame for the situation until Pillen spoke with reporters this week. Pillen's office asserts that it searched texts and digital messages as part of the public records request but found no responsive records, including from Zoeller, who had pledged to text after delivering the veto letter in one of the emails. The Governor's Office provided no records reflecting communications with the legislative branch. None of the records indicate what happened to the bills after being delivered to Evnen's office. Evnen, speaking with the Examiner on Friday, reiterated that the Secretary of State's Office's role with legislation is to file it, and 'when it's brought to our office and we're asked to file it, that's what we do.' 'There's a certain amount of confusion, really between the legislative branch and the Governor's Office, about those line-item vetoes, and I think that what we will do is sit down and talk through together how that will be handled. That's a really good thing to do,' he said. Multiple lawmakers beyond Arch have quietly teased the suggestion with the Examiner, asking how much clearer the process can be. Asked if there was a reason the original bills in the Secretary of State's Office by about 5 p.m. could not be delivered by midnight on May 21, Evnen said: 'You would have to ask the Governor's Office.' Strimple, asked about the remaining timeline on May 21 and May 22, said that with the Arch-Evnen-Pillen joint statement, 'The matter is concluded.' One of the top targets of Gov. Jim Pillen's intended line-item vetoes to the state's budget bills was about $12 million in spending earmarked for the Nebraska Supreme Court. Corey Steel, state court administrator for Nebraska, told lawmakers that the line-item vetoes to the courts could eliminate various services, including three problem-solving courts in Lancaster and Sarpy Counties, a drug court in Gov. Jim Pillen's home of Platte County, transition living reimbursements for certain adults and non-statutory services for juveniles on probation. Pillen told the Examiner that while he has the 'utmost respect' for the separation of powers between Nebraska's branches of government, he believes each one must look at government differently. He said the courts have significantly increased spending and have money sitting around. Steel, as well as Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, have said that position isn't accurate and that increased spending has been in part due to legislation that came without new funds. The judicial branch leaders have said that the 'money' held in various funds is now exhausted. However, Pillen said he's not backing down and that the reductions will be considered in 2026. 'We have to be fiscally responsible,' Pillen said, 'and that's all we're asking.' — Zach Wendling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods
Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods

While tariffs are a headache for retail, that doesn't necessarily mean the space should be avoided entirely. Dick's Sporting Goods has enjoyed a few years of growth in a turnaround from what was a stagnant business. Macy's, on the other hand, is struggling with weak annual top-line growth and it is shuttering stores. 10 stocks we like better than Dick's Sporting Goods › Retail is a confusing segment right now, with the price of goods impacted via increases in tariffs causing a tougher situation for not only consumers, but also sellers and producers. Let's take a look at two major retailers, Macy's (NYSE: M) and Dick's Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS). In all, I think one of these two retail titans is showing more signs of life, whereas the other is being forced to shrink to improve its bottom line. Macy's saw an uptick in the few years following the COVID-19 outbreak but has since been in slow stagnation, with revenue declining over the last two years. Looking into 2025, the retailer's first quarter beat estimates, but the overall outlook underwhelmed. The company reported adjusted earnings of $0.16 per share versus estimates of $0.14 per share, while total revenue came in at $4.60 billion compared to expectations of $4.50 billion. From another perspective, things didn't look that great. While revenue came in above expectations, it trailed last year's total sales of roughly $4.85 billion. Operating income fell 24.8% year over year to $94 million, and net income declined 38.7% to $38 million. Diluted earnings per share declined from $0.22 in the first quarter of 2024 to $0.13 per diluted share this year. These year-over-year declines are something that is haunting Macy's and putting downward pressure on the stock. For this year, the company reiterated net sales guidance in the range of $21 billion to $21.4 billion. In comparison, it reported sales of $22.29 billion in 2024. All in all, Macy's cut its profit outlook for the year and expects to raise prices on products to offset the impact of tariffs on its goods. In contrast, Dick's Sporting Goods has done surprisingly OK. First-quarter results included a 5.2% year-over-year increase in sales revenue, to roughly $3.18 billion, while non-GAAP income was flat at $275 million. The company has been building sales annually and provided good guidance for 2025, reiterating its previous expectations of $13.80 to $14.40 in earnings per share. The high end of that range would beat out 2024, which finished with diluted earnings per share of $14.05. Net sales are expected to be in the range of $13.6 billion to $13.9 billion, which would outperform last year's revenue of $13.45 billion. Dick's is also looking to expand through its announced acquisition of Foot Locker for $2.5 billion. This drastically increases the company's position within shoes and sets up Dick's for future growth, as Foot Locker had been in the midst of a turnaround itself. This story is a comparison of a company that is shuttering stores in an attempt to become a leaner machine, relative to a company that seemingly is looking to grow. Though improvement is slow, Dick's has been reporting better year-over-year sales figures than Macy's, with plans to open new stores and even make an acquisition, whereas Macy's plans to close over 100 locations and raise prices. While the potential for tariffs to cause headaches for both of these companies is something to be mindful of, I think you have to go with Dick's Sporting Goods here. Its diversified offerings give it a broader consumer base, while Macy's is more heavily concentrated in clothing, perfumes, etc. Unlike a lot of tech, there's still some value in retail, with Dick's trading at a little over 12 times earnings and offering a 2.73% dividend yield. While the short term might be a bit choppy due to tariffs, long-term this company seems to be making the right moves. Before you buy stock in Dick's Sporting Goods, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Dick's Sporting Goods wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 David Butler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods was originally published by The Motley Fool

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store