Blogging Blue

A few days ago, I asked if State Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) would give back her 5.3% pay raise for this year, and along with that blog entry, I sent Sen. Lazich an email. Today I got an answer to my question:

Dear Zachary:

Thank you for your e-mail about the legislative pay raise.

In the past, I have returned legislative pay raises to the state in the form of submitting written monthly checks, only to see first-hand during one budget process after another how the state subsequently squanders the money. Returning the pay raise, I am afraid would only result in moiré wasted expenditures. Therefore, I have decided to accept the pay raise that I will use toward charitable contributions.

In addition to explaining that she’s going to accept her very generous pay raise, Sen. Lazich took a moment in her email to explain that she voted against approving state employment contracts for the 2007-2009 biennium because the raises negotiated for state employees were simply too generous. In defense of her argument, Sen. Lazich cited a memo she received from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau which indicated that state employees would receive a minimum raise of 8.00% total from 2007 to 2009. The memo in question compares the state employment contract raises to the qualified economic offer (QEO) raises employees of school districts receive using a methodology the LFB admits is problematic (much like comparing apples and tomatoes), and what Sen. Lazich seems loathe to admit is that in terms of real dollars, the raises state employees received over three years are in many cases less than the 5.3% raise Sen. Lazich will receive this year alone.

For example, the memo Sen. Lazich cited indicates the Professional Social Services (PSS) bargaining unit received an 8.00% raise for the 2007-2009 biennium (when compared to the QEO), but in real actual dollars (not some number obtained using suspect methods), state employees working in the PSS bargaining unit received a 5% raise over the three years of the 2007-2009 biennium, a figure lower than Sen. Lazich’s own 5.3% raise for 2009 alone.

In choosing to vote against giving state employees a 5% raise over three years while accepting her own 5.3% raise for just 2009, Sen. Lazich has clearly demonstrated that she holds state employees with little regard.

As a part of their continuing efforts to raise awareness on drunk druving in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel sent a survey to Wisconsin’s legislators asking them a series of questions regarding alcohol-related policy issues. The MJS posted the results of those surveys, and as I was perusing the results, I came across this gem from Sen. Mary Lazich, who seems to think it’s a good time to make jokes when talking about Wisconsin’s alcohol issues (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s question in bold, Sen. Lazich’s response in italics):

6. Beer tax: Wisconsin hasn’t raised its beer tax since 1969, and the tax rate is among the lowest in the country. Do you support any increase in the beer tax rate?

Wisconsin taxes are so high, they likely already drive people to drink.

She’ll be here all week…try the veal!

A week ago today, I blogged about the 5.3% raise state legislators were due to receive this week, and I noted State Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer (D-Manitowoc) had already indicated he planned on giving his raise back. Now sure, Ziegelbauer’s gesture is wholly symbolic, given the fact that he makes over $78,000 a year as the Manitowoc County Executive, but smybolic or not, at least he offered to give his pay raise back.

I also noted State Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) was not among those who announced they were giving back their 5.3% pay raise. Coincidentally, Sen. Lazich was one of only a few lawmakers who voted against approving labor contracts for thousands of state employees, citing the costs of the raises in those contracts, raises which in many cases totaled 5% over three years.

While there’s still been no word from Sen. Lazich or her office on whether or not she’s going to return her hefty raise, two more state legislators have announced they won’t be accepting their raises:

Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Waunakee) and Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) have said they won’t take the pay raise because the state faces a two-year deficit of $5.4 billion. Others could join them in coming weeks.

It remains to be seen if Sen. Lazich will be among those who refuses to take her pay raise, but given her previous opposition to a 5% pay raise for state employees over three years, logic would dictate she’d refuse her own 5.3% raise for this year alone, lest she be labeled a hypocrite.

State lawmakers are due to get a 5.3% pay raise effective January 1, 2009, boosting their yearly salary to 49,943 a year. State Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer (D-Manitowoc) has already said he’s going to give back his pay raise, and shortly after Rep. Ziegelbauer’s announcement, a few other legislators followed suit in announcing they too would give back their pay raises. While Ziegelbauer’s announcement is largely symbolic, given that he also earns roughly $71,000 a year as Manitowoc County Executive, it’s still a sign that some legislators understand that they don’t deserve a raise at a time when Wisconsin’s economy is going through some difficult times.

Not among those who announced they were giving back their 3.5% pay raise was State Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), who was one of only a few lawmakers who voted against approving labor contracts for thousands of state employees, citing the costs of those contracts (emphasis mine):

At a time when Wisconsin continues to struggle with high rates of taxing and spending, a looming structural deficit of over $1.6 billion, high gas and food prices, and per capita income below the national average, hard-working families in the private sector expect state government to exercise fiscal responsibility.

The state Senate is being asked to approve state contracts that according to data I requested from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau would be greater than the increase required for a QEO (Qualified Economic Offer).

The biennial QEO increase amount would be 7.74 percent. Proposed state employment contract increases over the 2007-09 biennium range from 8.0 percent at the low end to 11.0 percent at the high end.

Many workers across the state struggling to pay their bills and our high taxes can only dream of such increases.

This is an inappropriate time to be offering contract increases beyond the rate of the QEO and beyond the rate of inflation. I voted against the contracts.

First, I’d like to make it clear the contracts that were ultimately approved for most state employees mandated a 5% total raise spread out over three fiscal years. As a state employee, my pay increased 2% last year, and it will increase 1% this year and 2% next year. That’s a 5% pay increase over three years, just a little less than the 5.3% State Senator Lazich will receive this year alone.

So as State Senator Lazich wrote - if she in fact was the author of the blog entry I linked to - “At a time when Wisconsin continues to struggle with high rates of taxing and spending, a looming structural deficit of over $1.6 billion, high gas and food prices, and per capita income below the national average, hard-working families in the private sector expect state government to exercise fiscal responsibility.” As a hardworking taxpayer, I do expect my state government - which includes legislators like State Senator Mary Lazich - to exercise fiscal responsibility, and I expect them to start by showing a little less hypocrisy. If a 5% pay raise for state employees over three years is too rich for Sen. Lazich’s tastes, then surely her own 5.3% raise in one year is too rich as well. I expect to see State Senator Lazich forgo her raise for the upcoming fiscal year, because anything less would be fiscally irresponsible and hypocritical.

Wisconsin State Senator Mary Lazich is obviously not among my favorite legislators. Putting aside her outrageous belief that Wal-Mart should run our health care system, I also take issue with the conduct of her staff, including the propensity at least one of her staffers has for abusing his vacation leave.

Given my own problems with Senator Lazich and her leadership style, it should come as no surprise that she was the only State Senator who voted against approving the contracts of every state employee bargaining unit. In justifying her vote against the contracts on her blog, Senator Lazich cited the lagging state economy, as well as pay increases she deemed to be too generous, but a quick look at the numbers says a different story. According to this article, as well as my own personal knowledge of at least one of the contracts Lazich voted against, employees made concessions in order to get the contracts approved:

Under the contracts Doyle signed Monday, state employee contributions to health insurance will increase 15 percent starting in January.

A previously scheduled 2 percent pay increase in July is being cut to just 1 percent.

A 1 percent raise scheduled to take effect in April 2009 also is being eliminated. Instead, workers will get a 2 percent raise in June 2009.

While I don’t have intimate knowledge of the language in each of the contracts, I do know the employees covered under the Professional Social Services contract will receive raises of 2%, 1%, and 2% in each of the three years of the contract, for a total pay increase of 5%. Additionally, those same employees will pay more for their health insurance coverage. Interestingly enough, while Senator Lazich seems to have a problem giving state employees a 5% raise over three years, I’ve yet to hear her complain that she doesn’t deserve the 6.3% raise she’s getting next year.

While she doesn’t come out and say it directly, that’s the impression I get from reading a recent blog entry by State Senator Mary Lazich. Now while one can’t be completely sure if Senator Lazich wrote that blog entry - or if it was written by Kevin Fischer, her loyal aide - it’s curious that Senator Lazich would opine that Wal-Mart should run our health care system, considering the problems Wal-Mart has in running its own health care plan. Here’s just a few points about how well Wal-Mart has administered health care coverage for its employees:

• Wal-Mart reported in January 2006 that its health insurance only covers 43% of their 1.39 million employees, leaving over 775,000 employees without health insurance coverage.
• Wal-Mart doesn’t even cover as high a percentage of its employees as other large companies. On average for 2005, large companies (200 or more workers) cover approximately 66% of their employees, while Wal-Mart only covers 43%.
• Since the average full-time Wal-Mart employee earned $17,114 in 2005, he or she would have to spend between 7 and 25 percent of his or her income just to cover the premiums and medical deductibles, if electing for single coverage.
• Between 2000-2005, the cost of premiums rose 169 percent for single coverage and 117 percent for family coverage.

Now maybe I’m crazy, but that doesn’t sound like a health care plan I’d want to be a part of, nor does it sound like a health care plan that’s well administered. Then again, considering the generosity Wal-Mart has shown to Senator Lazich, I suppose I shouldn’t be all that surprised that she thinks Wal-Mart has done a great job of insuring its employees. If I were her, I wouldn’t want to anger my corporate benefactors either.

H/T to Greg over at Metro Milwaukee Today.

First of all, many thanks to Cindy Kilkenny over at Fairly Conservative for all her hard work to help break this story and bring to light a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars, not to mention a willful violation of state employee leave policies.

As first reported by Cindy, it’s been confirmed Kevin Fischer, a legislative aide in State Senator Mary Lazich’s office, used more vacation time in 2007 than he was allotted. In fact, Fischer used up 46 more hours of vacation than what he was allotted, which given his yearly salary, equates to roughly $2,000 in pay (if my math is correct). In other words, Kevin Fischer milked the taxpayers of Wisconsin for more than $2,000 worth of pay for vacation time he wasn’t entitled to take. What’s more, this isn’t the first year Kevin Fischer has overused (abused) the vacation time allotted to him, as Fischer went negative on vacation hours in 2006, too, to the tune of 46 more hours that had to be returned in 2007.

Here’s the real money quote from Cindy’s blog entry:

Kevin Fischer likes his vacation time. Let’s hope 2008 is a little more true to what he earns. The Senate administrator that just gave me a call indicates they are doing their best to tighten up these policies. He also indicates that there are very few employees that have this much trouble keeping their vacation resources in check.

First of all, I’m of the belief this is a little more than an employee having “trouble” keeping his or her vacation resources in check. I don’t know about Kevin Fischer’s paychecks, but most other state employees get an updated accounting of their leave balances with each new paycheck stub they receive, so there’s absolutely no excuse for a state employee not being able to keep track of how much vacation, personal, or sick leave time they have, other than willful disregard of course. However, while I believe Kevin Fischer should be held responsible for his continued pattern of abuse of the state’s vacation leave policies, I’m not holding my breath, simply because he’s been allowed to continue to abuse his vacation leave time by his supervisor, who seems oblivious - or unconcerned - about his abuses.

State employees are disciplined all the time for these kinds of abuses of their leave time, and I can only hope Kevin Fischer is held accountable in some way for his chronic abuse of his vacation time.

For the past few months, Cindy Kilkenny over at Fairly Conservative has been blogging about the escapades of Kevin Fischer. Among the topics Cindy’s blogged about has been the suspicion that Fischer has been blogging in his personal blog on state time. After careful examination of Fischer’s time sheets, Cindy has come to the realization Fischer used roughly 209 hours of vacation in 2007. What’s interesting about the amount of vacation Fischer took is the fact that as an exempt state employee with 5 or less years of state employment, Fischer should only be eligible for 120 hours of paid vacation time per year. Here’s more from Cindy:

Fischer consistently defends his time spent on WISN as his own. He takes vacation for it. When he filled in every day the week of 12/3 to 12/7, it’s on the time sheet for 2 hours each day. Lots of other WISN/vacation days line up, too. (He’s got most of the dates on his blog.) The wild thing is, in 2007 - even with September’s number unkown - Fischer claimed (and Lazich signed off on) 209 hours of vacation. Ok, I thought, there’s something I’m missing.

What I’m wondering - and I know I’m not alone - is how Kevin Fischer managed to take 209 hours of vacation time in 2007, despite the fact that he should only have 120 hours to take. As a taxpayer, I’m more than a little concerned about this situation, and I hope Kevin Fischer and his boss, State Senator Mary Lazich, have a good explanation.

A bunch of folks across the blogosphere - including capper at Whallah!, Kay at Kay’s Blue Racine, folkbum, and Michael Mathias at Pundit Nation have been talking about Kevin Fischer, the aide to State Senator Mary Lazich, who has his own blog over at Franklin NOW. In his free time, Mr. Fischer seems to be fond of acting like a boor, which wouldn’t really be anything newsworthy, except for the fact that Fischer is one of Mary Lazich’s aides, and as such his behavior towards a constituent of hers is certainly uncalled for.

Perhaps Mr. Fischer should think before he types, or at the very least, he should try not to be such an outright ass (yeah, I said it), because in my mind his behavior in the blogging community most certainly reflects on his boss.