Reply #17: There's no need for an amendment. [View All]

[gcomeau]

The current wording is perfectly clear enough in it's intent. No having legislators pass pay raises for a position they expect to be shortly occupying so they can make a quick buck for themselves. It's a conflict of interest concern.

The salary roll back addresses that intent 100%. There is no problem here. The position Hillary is being offered is, to be precise "Secretary of State with annual salary of $186,600". Is that raised from where it was before? No. Is she therefore receiving any material compensation she had a hand in awarding herself? No. So no problem. She is NOT being offered a position whose salary has seen a recent increase she herself voted on.

The only way you get a problem is if people decide that semantics are more important than clearly expressed intent and start blabbering about "but... but... but... it was raised before it wasn't raised and technically if you think about it in just this way from just this angle it still doesn't matter one single tiny little bit but I can make it look like it does! So there!"

And to those people I say 'screw off'. If we had to amend the constitution for things like that we'd be doing it half a dozen times a year. It's frivolous.