baker.JPG

Gov. Charlie Baker holds a press conference on Jan. 27, 2017 after vetoing a legislative pay raise bill.

(SHIRA SCHOENBERG / THE REPUBLICAN)

BOSTON -- Gov. Charlie Baker on Friday vetoed a bill that aims to raise the pay of legislative leaders and other elected officials, calling it "fiscally irresponsible." But legislators in favor of the measure appear to have enough votes to override him.

"Given the commonwealth's fiscal outlook as we continue to right-size our budget, close the structural deficit and reduce the reliance on one-time revenues without raising taxes, we felt it was important to veto this fiscally irresponsible legislation," Baker told reporters at a press conference in his Statehouse office, with Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito standing next to him.

The bill, which the House and Senate passed this week, would raise the stipends paid to anyone with a leadership position or committee chairmanship in the House and Senate, and would raise expense payments for all members. It would significantly boost the pay of the governor and all the constitutional officers, such as the attorney general and treasurer. It would also raise the salaries of judges and judicial staff.

Baker said the fact that the pay raises for lawmakers would take effect immediately would place "unplanned burdens" on the state's financial situation, months after he made midyear budget cuts to keep the budget in balance. It would also raise the state's pension obligations to these officials over time, since pensions are based on salaries.

The bill also sets up a method for updating the stipends every two years in a way that correlates with overall wages in Massachusetts. Baker said that would ensure that lawmakers' salaries grow at rates that "exceeded any reasonable expectations for revenue growth."

The bill would raise the stipend for the House speaker and Senate president to $80,000, rather than $35,000. The chairmen of the budget-writing Ways and Means Committee would get an extra $65,000 annually instead of the $25,000 they get today. The majority and minority leaders would get an extra $60,000 rather than $22,500. The salaries of the constitutional officers would become $165,000 or $175,000, up from between $122,000 and $135,000 today.

In his veto message Baker wrote that the bill "is fiscally irresponsible, would eliminate voter-approved term limits for constitutional officers, and was enacted after limited debate and without a reasonable opportunity for public comment."

Baker was referring to a little-noticed provision of the bill that he says would repeal language in the Massachusetts General Laws establishing two-term limits for constitutional officers, which were approved by voters on the ballot in 1994.

The Republican/MassLive.com is seeking clarification from legal experts about the status of that law, since although the language appears in state law, the Supreme Judicial Court appears to have struck down the term limits in 1997. Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin has been in office since 1995 and is receiving pay.

Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Galvin, said the term limits were struck down by the 1997 SJC ruling, but the language remained on the books simply because the Legislature never took steps to remove it.

"It sat there for 20 years but there's no meaning because it's unconstitutional," McNiff said.

Baker's veto may have little practical effect, since legislators currently have veto-proof majorities in favor of the pay raises in both houses. The House passed the bill 115-44, with nine Democrats and all 35 Republicans voting against it. The Senate passed it 31-9, with three Democrats and all six Republicans voting against it. It takes a two-thirds vote to override a veto.

Baker said he hopes that, by vetoing the bill, he will give the public more time to weigh in with their legislators.

"Last week, hundreds of constituents shared concerns with our office, and I encouraged them to share those concerns with their own senators and representatives," Baker said.

He added, "For most folks in Massachusetts, the timing on this is just inappropriate and the scale and size of the adjustment is, too."

Baker would not commit to trying to flip enough votes to sustain his veto. He said only that his first step would be to talk to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who also oppose the pay raises.

There are legal questions related to whether or not parts of the salary adjustment could be put on the ballot for an attempted repeal in 2018. By law, anything dealing with judges or courts cannot be voted on, but it is an open question whether the parts of the law dealing only with elected officials can be.

Lawmakers who support the pay raises argue that lawmakers' salaries need to be sufficient to attract talented individuals and let them support their families. The stipends paid to legislative leaders have been unchanged for decades, although legislators' base salary is adjusted every two years according to a formula.

Everyone on Beacon Hill today knew the salary when they ran for the job, and many of them have second jobs, such as working as lawyers, Baker said. He and Polito have said they will not accept their pay raises.

Setti Warren, a likely Democratic candidate for governor in 2018, urged Beacon Hill Democrats to flip their votes to sustain Baker's veto.

"In principle I agree that legislators and other elected officials should be paid a reasonable wage, but the process of rushing this legislation through has been unseemly," Warren said. "If you think you deserve a raise, make the case to the people you represent, and then solicit their feedback."

The raises are based on a report issued by a bipartisan commission in 2014. Lawmakers held a public hearing on the report before releasing the bill, but did not have a hearing on the actual bill.

This story was updated with a comment from McNiff.