After the economy began its nosedive last fall, House Speaker Calvin Say said he would call for legislators to forgo their 36 percent pay raise that was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. He should follow through on the move, although it might necessarily freeze salaries of state judges and executive-branch managers while legislators decide upon the next step: repeal of the constitutional amendment that facilitated the pay spikes.

In 2006, voters ratified the amendment artfully designed to authorize generous salary hikes for legislators in amounts decided upon by a commission, most of whose members are chosen by legislative leaders. The amendment allows legislators to reject the raises, retroactively during the upcoming session to the first of the year.

However, another part of the state Constitution requires that rejection of a commission's recommendation for legislators' salaries also include rejection of modest raises for judges and executive managers, which also were recommended by the commission.

Given the continuing state budget crisis, such a broad wage freeze would be sensible, especially since pay cuts are foreseen among rank-and-file state employees. That would give the Legislature time to draft a repeal of the 2006 language, to be put on the 2010 ballot. The Star-Bulletin opposed the 2006 amendment on the suspicion that it was designed to allow legislators to receive raises without requiring them to vote.

At that time, legislators received salaries of $37,500, unusually high for the less than four months they are in session. Say has maintained that legislators are “;full-time,”; the apparent premise for the commission to recommend increases to $48,708 this month and $57,852 by 2014. In fact, the vast majority have non-state jobs, pensions or other household income.