Spectrum

Kohring constituents deserve explanation

I have read with interest the pros and cons regarding the furor over Rep. Kohrings use of the Legislatures unlimited per diem. In December 1997, the 90-day post-session per-diem cap was eliminated by a vote of of the Legislative Council, then chaired by Sen. Randy Phillips, R-Eagle River.

Reps. [Scott] Ogan, [Beverly] Masek, and Sen. Lyda Green were all present for that vote. With that vote, per diem can be taken year-round, without limitation.

For this part-time job, a representative to the State House is reasonably compensated. There is the $24,000 per year in annual salary. The legislator is allowed 100-percent reimbursement of any expenses incurred doing ones job as a legislator travel, lodging, meals.

During sessions, legislators are reimbursed 100 percent of moving expenses to and from Juneau, and paid a daily per diem for each day of the session. This compensation also includes liberal retirement and year-round family medical benefits. Per diem payments are even extended to family members during the move to and from Juneau. That so many legislators continue to run for re-election each year belies any notion that this is a poorly compensated avocation avocation versus vocation.

One is still expected to work at ones vocation as the primary means of income.

This very extensive and liberal compensation system definitely favors the legislator keeping the $24,000 annual salary virtually intact, given that every expense is reimbursable and that the daily session per diem paid each legislator.

This begs the question of why was it necessary to remove the 90-day limitation cap on per diem back in 1997. And, more importantly, why was this issue not presented before the full legislative body? To answer these questions, you need to ask the six people present at the Legislative Council session that day back in December 1997 they are all still in office.

I find Rep. Kohrings conduct somewhat hypocritical. In order to bring this issue into focus, I believe that a comparison with a profession heavily criticized by Rep. Kohring is in order.

To give an example from firsthand knowledge of statements made during the 1998 campaign, I heard Rep. Kohring state to the effect that he considers teachers to be overcompensated and to have exorbitant benefits. This occurred before the Valley Board of Realtors candidate session during the 1998 campaigns.

What of the exorbitant pay of the teachers criticized by Rep. Kohring? My wife works for Anchorage School District. She has not had a salary increase in six years. No matter how many courses she has taken over this period in order to retain her teaching certificate and, she is not reimbursed for those classes. No cost of living or inflation-compensating increases, unlike state employees who have enjoyed at least those increases yearly. And, the teachers of Anchorage School District have had their medical benefits cut almost in half. The same can be said for Mat-Su School District teachers. Where is Rep. Kohrings sacrifice in the face of his criticism of the teaching profession?

A popularly held belief is that a teacher works only nine months out of the year. Using $36,000 per year, about what a teacher with six years can expect to make, would give a monthly salary for the nine months teaching year of $3,000 per month.

No per diem, no reimbursement for professional certification required classes during the three-month vacation time, and no reimbursement for vehicle or any other expenses.

On top of this is the privilege of supplementing classroom materials out of pocket without reimbursement. Not to mention putting up with 20-40 kids per classroom for six hours out of each day, with at least two hours of additional prep and post day paperwork, and the weekend work taken home.

I have little doubt that Rep. Kohring would have little to complain about regarding his legislative compensation, working conditions, or benefits were he to trade places with any teacher. Nor do I doubt which job he would prefer.

To conversely apply the attitude of Rep. Kohring towards the teaching profession, one could reasonably state that the job of a legislator is full time, four months out of the year. This gives Rep. Kohring a monthly salary while employed full time of $6,000 per month without taking session per diem and moving expense reimbursement into consideration.

On top of this is the aforementioned liberal expense reimbursements, post and pre-session per diem, retirement, and medical benefits. Given that Rep. Kohrings per diem has been alleged to have amounted to an additional $11,000, thereby raises his base $24,000 salary considerably.

Yet, Rep. Kohring has been part of a majority that has raised the pay of state employees each and every year and increased the size of our state government each year. And, during the last two election cycles, both he and Rep. Ogan ran on a platform comprised almost exclusively of how important it was to be a part of the conservative Republican majority.

Rep. Kohring and the others of his party have become what they replaced six years ago. We voted Ron Larson and Jay Kerttula out of office because we were tired of excuses and the specter of a state government out of control.

Kohring et al ran on a platform of reducing government, moving the Legislature out of Juneau, and term limits. In the intervening six years, across the board, not one of these objectives has been met, even with this highly touted Republican majority a majority which overrode a veto by the governor to exempt Sen. Lyda Green from election requirements, but could not do the same regarding partial birth abortion.

What we have with the focus on Rep. Kohring is the attempted justification to make his position into that of a full-time legislator who can do nothing other than be a legislator. If we accept Rep. Kohrings use of per diem, we can expect the rest of our legislators to follow suit.

The idea of a citizen-legislator will go by the wayside once and for all.

We cannot afford to allow this to happen.

Rep. Kohring knew what the job was when he took it. He has seemingly forgotten what he represented to his constituency in order to obtain, and later, to retain his position. I would like to see Rep. Kohring justify how his use of this per diem meets those past representations. I would also like him to justify his use of per diem period with respect to his past criticisms of the teaching professions compensation?

If one believes that I am Republican bashing, think again. I do not consider the Democratic Party worthy of much commentary. After all, their president was sanctioned $90,000 for perjury a felony for us common folk.

Their vice president invented the Internet and obtained campaign funds from nuns under a vow of poverty. And then there are Gov. Knowles acts to violate Alaskas Statehood Compact and kow tow to the Alaska Federation of Natives outrageous demands in the face of ANSCA.

If you are tired of the status quo, please consider an alternative. The Alaskan Independence Party will hold its state convention in Palmer this April. Check out AIP on the Internet at http://www.akip.org for further information. Alaska First!

Larry Wood is a Palmer resident who campaigned against Rep. Scott Ogan, R-Palmer, in the 1998 race for the District 27 House seat.