Scrutinize high public salaries

Chet Culver may not agree, but we think it's OK that his isn't the state's highest paying job.

After all, there are a lot of other perks that come along with being governor. Besides that, public service - not salary - should be the big appeal for applicants.

And certainly some of those state employees who earn more than the governor are being paid what they're worth. The state undoubtedly needs many of those employees' expertise and specialized skills.

Even so, after looking at the numbers, we have to wonder: Does the public really have enough of such work to justify paying 2,343 employees more than we pay the Gov?

Leaders should take a hard look at these high-paying, or even good-paying, government jobs to make sure they're really necessary.

They should look for structural changes that will save money while still allowing the state to take care of business in good times and bad.

If fiscal responsibility isn't incentive enough for lawmakers, the governor and Regents to run lean and efficient operations, our state's massive budget crisis should be.

According to a Gazette analysis of the recently released Legislative Services Agency's annual “salary book,” 519 state employees were paid $200,000 or more last year.

Among the 499 top earners, men made a median salary of $245,805, while women earned $148,359.

To compare, Culver makes $130,000 a year as governor - less the 10 percent voluntary pay cut he's taken as the state suffers through this tough economy. Even before he took that personal financial hit, there were 1,733 state employees earning as much as or more than Culver.

We have to ask - are they all really earning these generous salaries?

Rep. Mary Mascher, D-Iowa City, made a great point earlier this fall when she asked why the state has so many supervisors - about one per 11 employees.

When Mascher was a teacher, she directed 30 or more students in the classroom. She said she thought state workers ought to be able to operate with less supervision than school children.

Makes sense to us.

And while we're asking questions, here are a few more that state leaders should be asking: What programs and departments can the state live without? What benefits does the state offer that are out of line with the private sector?

Regents institutions, for example, have proposed saving money by temporarily cutting their contributions to employee retirement funds from 10 percent to 8 percent - still an unusually generous employer match when compared to what's offered by most private companies.

It's time for leaders to take a hard look at how to bring the numbers in line with reality.

Even in good times, tax money should be spent wisely. In times like these - it's the only option.