I've voted for State Rep. Stephen Kulik of Worthington every time he's come up for re-election in the last decade.
As one of his constituents—Kulik represents the rural 1st Franklin District, as well as a number of rural communities in Hampshire County—I am continually impressed by Kulik's commitment to a part of Western Massachusetts that too often gets ignored in Boston. As he did recently in his effort to bring broadband cable access to the many underserved communities in the region, Kulik responds to the unique needs of rural places in a state where urban and suburban issues tend to dominate politics.
As a journalist, I find in Kulik a compelling subject: a pro-gun rights back-to-the-lander who embraces a decidedly progressive political agenda, a guy as comfortable mixing it up at a Select Board meeting in any one of his 16 rural towns as he is in the more urbane climes of Beacon Hill. Unlike many politicians, Kulik never ducks reporters' questions and never fails to return phone calls, which he does personally, eschewing the common practice of having aides vet the calls first. I have never heard Kulik lie or dance around controversy in ways intended to obfuscate.
My admiration for Kulik may, in an indirect way, color my view of a controversial issue: a scheduled pay raise for lawmakers. Simply put, I support the pay hike, even though it comes when state budgets are being pruned back tighter than a privet hedge. Kulik, it turns out, is one of a few lawmakers to risk being on the wrong side of voters by saying that he'll accept the approximately $3,200 pay increase. Many of his colleagues have gone the other way, pledging not to accept the automatic hike, the result of a 1999 constitutional amendment that tied legislative pay increases to increases in the median household income.
The issue of pay raises for lawmakers is always thorny, even in relatively prosperous years for the state. Some people wonder why politicians should see an increase when other workers watch their wages stagnate or decline. Others object to the pay raises as one of myriad governmental expenses that only grow, never shrink. For others, lawmaker pay should be cut merely to register contempt for what they view as a corrupt and self-serving body.
The fact is, however, Massachusetts pays its legislators a full-time salary for what is supposed to be full-time work. We do so, at least in part, to avoid the problems that come with part-time legislative bodies, which often are populated with wealthy people or with people who only take office because they believe they stand to benefit personally and professionally from being lawmakers.
Were the raises based entirely on merit, not all legislators would deserve a bump this year. But since the pay hike, a 5.5 percent increase tied to a commensurate rise in household income over the last two years, is a cost of living adjustment applied to all members of the General Court, we must either reward or punish all of them, the deserving with the undeserving.
In a recent phone conversation, Kulik confirmed that being a state rep is his one and only job, his full-time career. Such is the case for most if not all of his colleagues from this part of the state, he says. He isn't a lawyer or a real estate professional on the side, like many Boston-area lawmakers. In fact, he doesn't believe that someone representing well more than a dozen towns spread out over a wide area 100 or more miles from Boston could find time to pursue a sideline. Kulik notes that he isn't reimbursed for the miles he travels throughout his district, or for tolls on his many trips to and from Boston.
As controversial as the pay hike may be, Kulik supports a living wage for lawmakers as a way "to avoid having a Legislature filled with millionaires and retired people who can afford to do it for little or no pay."
As I see lawmakers in Boston offering a symbolic gesture to voters by refusing to accept the extra pay, I have to wonder how much real sacrifice it represents. In the end, I'd prefer to be represented by someone who needs a $3,200 raise as much as I do. Better that than being represented by someone who views that sum as an insignificant part of his earnings, hardly worth the political trouble it may cause.
