Report: Democratic House Staffers Spent Months on 2006 Campaigns

September 13th, 2007, posted by CindySnyder

Eight employees of the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research spent months away from their state jobs to campaign full-time last year and still received taxpayer-financed bonuses ranging from $5,000 to more than $15,000 apiece, according to a published report.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette examined campaign expenditure records to trace the activities of legislative staffers who shared in bonuses that the House Democrats paid in 2006 – the year they reclaimed the majority after 12 years of minority status.

State Attorney General Tom Corbett’s office has empaneled a grand jury to investigate whether bonuses by all four legislative caucuses were rewards for government work, as legislative leaders contend, or illegal payments for political work they did to advance their parties’ candidates.

House Democrats gave out $1.9 million in bonuses last year, which is $700,000 more than the combined total for the other three caucuses.

Legislative staffers commonly use vacation days and other authorized time off to work on campaigns and sometimes are paid with campaign funds, but it is illegal for them to do political work while they are being paid by the state.

Investigators have said they are scrutinizing all of the nearly $4 million in bonuses paid to legislative staffers in 2005 and 2006.

Filed under:

BR posted the controlling laws

On September 13th, 2007 Anonymous said:

Since these folks all had taken unpaid leave from there regular jobs, they are allowed to work on campaigns or partake in partisan activity. The P-G simply repeating over and over that there’s a link between campaign work and bonuses because some staff worked on campaigns and got bonuses simply does not make it so.

Tomlin

On September 13th, 2007 Anonymous said:

What was it that coach Mike Tomlin said about the New England Patriots’ recent questionable activity….oh yeah, “...where this is smoke, there is fire.” Public service, Public service, Pulic service. A $15,000 bonus is about 40% of what the average yearly salary is for a person working in the private or public sector. Regardless, let us find out where these reports lead. After first hand dealings with staff of a previous senator, and what I witnessed, let us not put anything past any politicians.

Spurious correlation

On September 13th, 2007 Anonymous said:

Have you ever heard that term? I’ll never forget a graph from one of my introductory econ text books that showed a perfect correlation between the strikeout/walk ration of the 1927 NY Yankees and the stock market of that year. Of course, neither thing was related, but if you didn’t know better, you might think they were.

What I am saying is that there is a preconceived notion out there in the media and perhaps with some of the public, too, that campaign work and bonuses are related because staffers who did campaign work got them. Some have a theory these things are related and these two “facts” indeed “prove” it.

ignorance is bliss

On September 13th, 2007 Citizen Driven said:

They bring to the table these massive bonuses, and you come with the yankees and the stock market? Answer this question: should we allow $15,000 bonuses in politics?

Yes, we should.

On September 13th, 2007 Stanley said:

Yes, we should allow $15,000 bonuses for some employees. Public sector employees often work at a massive discount to what they’d make in private business. The government has a terrible time keeping lawyers, IT professionals, and many other types of people in government jobs. They all jump ship for the private sector. Bonuses are one way to even out that playing field.

Would you rather have the recipient of that bonus doing research on behalf of the government or on behalf of a lobbyist?

Go back and read what I wrote

On September 13th, 2007 Anonymous said:

What I said was because something APPEARS correlated, that does NOT MEAN IT IS. Thus the example of the stock market and the Yankee strike out/walk ratios.

You have obviously concluded, based on no evidence except that staffers who worked on campaigns also got bonuses, that there is a connection. There may or may not be.

Here’s how payrolls work. There is a set amount of money to pay employees. That money does not all have to be paid out in set salaries. It can be divided between salary and bonuses. DeWeese said on a PCN call-in last year that the House Dems deliberately paid their staffers lower salaries in order to have more money for bonuses. In fact, the P-G
reported DeWeese’s chief of staff made $35,000 in salary – quite low in my estimation for the tremendous responsibility he probably had. I can’t say why the house Dems decided to do what they did, but perhaps it was to motivate their employees to work harder to earn extra money in the form of bonuses, which would be exactly what private sector advocates recommend.

Ok, read it again.

On September 13th, 2007 Citizen Driven said:

“You have obviously concluded, based on no evidence except that staffers who worked on campaigns also got bonuses, that there is a connection. There may or may not be.”
Perhaps you can point to where I “concluded” anything, other than putting forth curiousity about where the investigation will lead us.

Your commentary

On September 14th, 2007 Anonymous said:

Well, your commentary has pretty clearly indicated to me that you think there is a connection.

Citizen, Get Used to It...

On September 13th, 2007 Anonymous said:

My friend, I hate to break it to you, but the yankees/stock market response is typical of pd. He/she could probably give you a three-hour dissertation on the price of tea in China. Don’t get yourself too worked up over pd’s pattern of non-answers.

Nice try, anonymous

On September 14th, 2007 Anonymous said:

LOL! I guess trying to point out the fact that things that seem related on the surface may, in fact, not be, by using an example is just too hard for some, including you, to understand.

chia pet

On September 13th, 2007 Citizen Driven said:

I will agree on competitive salaries. Bonuses however, I would need to be more educated about. I have no understanding of the metrics they use to determine such a bonus. So Stanley, I will give you competitive salaries but I will not give you $15k bonuses just yet.

Follow the $

On September 13th, 2007 Anonymous said:

I find several aspects of this ordeal fascinating. Perhaps some state Dems should look at second careers in hedge funds – they seem to move other people’s money around quite well. Why is it that taxpayer-funded bonuses spiked heavily in a year when the recipients spent more time AWAY from Harrisburg (the work for which the bonuses were supposedly paid out) than in it? Why is it that the vast majority of bonus recipients were connected to Mike Veon (a man who could’ve really cleaned up as a contestant on the “The Price Is Right” shell game)? Let’s just cut away the political rhetoric and get to the heart of the issue: Democrats used taxpayer-funded money (i.e., the bonuses) to pay their staffers for campaign work as opposed to utilizing campaign money as compensation. In essence, they put the theory of publically-funded campaigns into practice. The only problem is that Pennsylvanians haven’t quite consented to that yet. Pd’s contention that the staffers were paid for work in Harrisburg is laughable. Please inform me of the job were I receive thousands of dollars MORE than I normally would for showing up LESS than usual? I would really consider changing careers. The lecture on payrolls would be relevant if the bonuses were actually paid out as the Dems claim they were (i.e., work in Harrisburg). However, if I hold two jobs, my first boss doesn’t pay me more for putting in more hours at my second. Isn’t a former state Rep. currently sharing a bunk with Big House Bruno for this very same scheme? Were the Democrats really that arrogant as to try to duplicate it the VERY SAME YEAR Habay went up? I guess I’m just under this silly notion that it’s not the government’s money – it’s our money. I keep forgetting that when “it’s a Democrat, it’s just different”.

Habay

On September 14th, 2007 Anonymous said:

I believe Habay’s problem was that his staff was doing campaign work on government time, not to mention Habay’s problem with sending the hoax letter.

There have been no allegations that any of this campaign work was done on government time are there? That is what is illegal, not receiving bonuses. As far as we know, all the staff interviewed that we know of was on some kind of leave from their civil service jobs. That is what the law requires.

But, if you believe what you wrote, then where’s your outrage over the allegation Tim Murphy used his staff to campaign during working hours?

Pd's Legal-ese

On September 14th, 2007 thegentlemanfro... said:

It is also illegal for GOVERNMENT employees to receive GOVERNMENT-FUNDED compensation for NON-GOVERNMENT work. The Dems attempt to skirt this minor detail by placing their employees “on leave” while they ran around the Commonwealth campaigning simply doesn’t and shouldn’t fly. I have no problem with government employees receiving bonuses – if, as you say, the bonus-related performance actually occurred
on government-time. How is it that you are justifying a public-sector reward paid out for private-sector work? Oh, wait – I get it. Campaigning for Democrats must’ve been in the job description. If Republicans happened to pull this off, you’d be the first one out of the box ranting and raving about a “right-wing taxpayer rip-off”. Shameful.

Your faux outrage is amusing

On September 14th, 2007 Anonymous said:

PghTory, you aren’t a very good lawyer and you should stop trying to play one on political websites.

Go and read the statutes BR posted. It’s not a “niceity” it’s a legal requirement that government employees take leave from their government jobs to participate in partisan activities.

But, given your logic, it would have been fine by you if the staffers had received 100% of their compensation in salary and 0% in bonuses. I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem if they’d been paid their bonuses prior to leaving to campaign, etc. Somehow I doubt it, though. You’d have been yammering about Dem staffers got big salaries or bonuses to make sure they had enough money to tide them over during campaign season.

You coud actually care less about the money, which was already budgeted and allocated for payroll or the legality
given your amazing silence on Tim Murphy or what sins party might have committed. Your primary interest is in having a partisan issue that you can beat to death.

Your Faux Defense is Laughable

On September 14th, 2007 thegentlemanfro... said:

PD, you aren’t a very good commentator and you shouldn’t play one on political websites. I believe “partisan hack” is a job description you’d capably fill, although I question your value there as well. You certainly haven’t done your Dem brethren any favors on this issue. In no post on this thread have you addressed the core issue. Nobody has brought into question the notion of government workers receiving bonuses. The pertinent issue at hand is THE TYPE OF WORK for which the bonuses were received. Namely, private-sector campaigning unrelated to their government positions in Harrisburg. The Dem staffers were reimbursed via the bonuses for their campaign expenses WITH TAX DOLLARS. Whether the staffers were “on leave” is completely irrelevant. The point of contention is the nature of the work for which they were rewarded their taxpayer-funded bonuses. Your “bugeting” argument is both laughable and infuriating. I’m guessing that you’d have no problem with ANY EXPENDITURE by Harrisburg, just as long as “they’d planned for it”? “Hey, what the heck – just throw taxpayer dollars out the window. At least we planned ahead!” I’m sure glad you aren’t watching the government’s books. The bottom line is the Dems ran a shell game and got caught. You, being the unbridled partisan that you are, cannot bring yourself to admit it. I don’t care what politician attempts to run this con – Dem, GOP, et. al.. If the Murphy allegations are true, he should face the music as well. It’s simply wrong to use Joe Public’s money for partisan campaigns and all involved should face punishment. C’mon, pd – give yourself at least the appearance of credibility on this one.

um ok

On September 16th, 2007 Anonymous said:

Based on the exstremely poor job they did they should have been docked pay instead of gettin a bonus