The General Assembly's handling of Gov. Daniel J. McKee's proposal for significant raises for nearly a dozen of his cabinet members has highlighted a willingness of the new Senate leadership to break sharply from the House despite one-party dominance in the legislature.
While the House voted 68-0 to block McKee's raises on May 13, new Senate President Valarie J. Lawson chose not to act on the matter, clearing the way for the salary increases to take effect automatically on May 18.
House Speaker J. Joseph Shekarchi had strongly opposed the raises for 11 directors, saying they were "inappropriate" because of the state's financial woes. He even introduced the resolution rejecting the pay hikes.
But Lawson – in her first major decision since assuming the role of president on April 29 following the death of Dominick J. Ruggerio – defended her choice not to bring the resolution to the Senate floor, saying it would have been a “highly unusual intervention” by the legislative branch.
“I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by the speaker, particularly with regard to optics during a challenging budget year,” she said. “I also recognize that the governor believes these adjustments are necessary to keep salaries competitive with other states so that we can attract and retain talented professionals to run complex state departments.”
John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island – which did not take a position on the pay raises – said whether state lawmakers choose to exercise the veto power is the “prerogative of the respective chambers.”
But with Democrats ruling in both the legislative and executive branches, Marion said he was more surprised that the House took a vote – and a unanimous rejection at that – than that the Senate leadership declined to take action.
Indeed, it was the first time on record that the General Assembly had exercised its veto authority over executive salary increases.
“There is a strong deference to not embarrassing governors if they’re in the same political party,” he said. “That is a problem in a system with a separation of powers.
“It was a missed opportunity for senators to weigh in on the raises,” added Marion of the Senate leadership's decision. “But that’s probably why the statute was structured to allow, but not require, a vote. “
Sen. Samuel W. Bell, D-Providence, while ideologically opposed to excessive salary increases, supported Lawson's choice, he said.
And Bell said a Senate vote – which he believes would have ultimately been against a veto – could have been perceived as a partisan move, given Shekarchi may choose to run in a primary against McKee in the 2026 election.
It could look like the chamber was taking political sides against a chamber that this session has been blocking some of the Senate’s key legislative initiatives, particularly on health care, according to Bell.
“This is very much a signal from the House,” he said.
“Any progressive legislation that passes the Senate is dead in the House," he said. "It's much more disproportionate. And that challenge has to be addressed.”
In March, McKee had proposed raises for 11 cabinet members that amounted to about a combined $75,000, most of them 5% increases. At the same time, the state is facing a projected deficit of about $250 million for the coming budget year, beginning July 1.
The McKee administration defended the raises, saying that many cabinet salaries have fallen behind industry standards and have not kept pace with inflation, complicating recruiting and retaining department chiefs.
Not every senator was on board with Lawson's decision not to allow a veto vote.
Senate Minority Leader Jessica De la Cruz has lambasted the pay raises, arguing instead for the legislature to “increase accountability and affordability before rewarding highly paid political appointees."
“As average hard-working Rhode Islanders face staggering energy prices and historic highs for housing costs, the Governor’s proposal is tone deaf and irresponsible,” she said.
