{"id":40472,"date":"2026-03-18T08:10:59","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T14:10:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/?p=40472"},"modified":"2026-03-18T08:10:59","modified_gmt":"2026-03-18T14:10:59","slug":"attempt-to-raise-constitutional-officers-salaries-stalls-shell-bill-advanced","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/?p=40472","title":{"rendered":"Attempt to raise constitutional officers\u2019 salaries stalls, \u2018shell\u2019 bill advanced"},"content":{"rendered":"

An effort to use an Appropriations Committee shell bill as a vehicle to increase salaries for various constitutional officers fell short March 17, but lawmakers advanced the underlying bill to keep the proposal alive in case a compromise can be found.<\/p>\n

\"Sen.
Sen. Robert Clements<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

LB1210 was introduced by Elmwood Sen. Robert Clements as a shell bill for the committee. He offered an amendment on general file to replace the proposal with an amended version of LB345. That proposal, which was introduced last year by the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee and advanced to general file, would increase the salaries of seven offices established in the state constitution.<\/p>\n

Calling the proposed increases \u201cmoderate,\u201d Clements noted that salaries were last increased nearly 20 years ago in 2007. The amendment would authorize an increase equivalent to a 1.3% per year raise over the last 20 years, he said, far less than what an increase tied to the consumer price index would be.<\/p>\n

“If you would apply 2.38% per year, it would increase these [salaries] by 60% rather than 29%,” Clements said, “so this is half of what inflation would allow for in these salaries. I think it’s very reasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added that the increase would have only a $97,500 impact on the current two-year state budget because it would not take effect until Jan. 1, 2027.<\/p>\n

Clements said the next opportunity to increase these salaries will be four years from now because they cannot be raised when the current office holder would benefit.<\/p>\n

The amendment would increase salaries as outlined below:
\n\u2022 governor, from $105,000 to $130,000;
\n\u2022 lt. governor, from $75,000 to $95,000;
\n\u2022 attorney general, from $95,000 to $120,000;
\n\u2022 secretary of state, from 85,000 to $110,000;
\n\u2022 state treasurer, from $85,000 to $110,000;
\n\u2022 state auditor, from $85,000 to $110,000; and
\n\u2022 public service commissioners, from $75,000 to $85,000.<\/p>\n

Norfolk Sen. Robert Dover supported the amendment, saying state employees were given a 3.5% pay increase in the current state budget at a cost of $10 million with no comparable boost for constitutional officers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese people do deserve a wage that somewhat reflects current-day salaries,\u201d Dover said, calling the overall cost to the state \u201cinsignificant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha also supported the pay increase, even given the state\u2019s current budget crisis.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhere there\u2019s a will, there\u2019s a way, and paying people what they\u2019re worth is important,\u201d Cavanaugh said.<\/p>\n

Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad opposed the amendment, saying senators had received an email from the executive branch indicating opposition to the proposed pay increases from Gov. Jim Pillen and other constitutional officers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ones who are impacted have unequivocally stated that they don\u2019t want these raises to move forward,\u201d Conrad said. \u201cAs has been noted, we are in a significant structural budget deficit. We are making painful cuts due to the recklessness of our constitutional officers.\u201d<\/p>\n

She noted, however, that the auditor of public accounts has indicated on a number of occasions that the salary for his office needs to be addressed, particularly as it relates to compensation levels in other states. She offered an amendment to increase the state auditor\u2019s salary to $120,000, leaving all other constitutional officers\u2019 salaries unchanged.<\/p>\n

Clements opposed the amendment, saying all salaries should increase if any of them do. All Nebraska constitutional officers\u2019 wages lag significantly behind the average of neighboring states, he said, and the only way to raise them is through legislative action.<\/p>\n

The Conrad amendment failed on a vote of 6-27.<\/p>\n

La Vista Sen. John Arch opposed the Clements amendment. While acknowledging the importance of paying a wage that would attract the best candidates to the state\u2019s top jobs, he said a budget crisis was not the time to make the adjustment.<\/p>\n

\u201cI will personally be voting no on this bill, and honestly, it is purely because of timing,\u201d Arch said.<\/p>\n

Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha also opposed raising any of the salaries, while acknowledging the intent behind the effort. She said she would consider supporting a pay increase for constitutional officers if implementation were delayed until 2031.<\/p>\n

In addition, Kauth said, lawmakers should look at \u201cpinning\u201d those salaries to a data point \u2014 such as a structured cost-of-living adjustment or having salaries \u201cfloat\u201d in tandem with the state\u2019s median wage \u2014 so that changes would be automatic.<\/p>\n

Lawmakers rejected the Clements amendment 21-18. Twenty-five votes were needed.<\/p>\n

Cavanaugh then urged senators to advance the shell bill to select file without the amendment, suggesting that a compromise on pay increases might be reached before the next round of debate.<\/p>\n

LB1210 advanced on a vote of 34-4.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An effort to use an Appropriations Committee shell bill as a vehicle to increase salaries for various constitutional officers fell short March 17, but lawmakers advanced the underlying bill to keep the proposal alive in case a compromise can be found.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40447,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"colormag_page_container_layout":"default_layout","colormag_page_sidebar_layout":"default_layout","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[240],"class_list":["post-40472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-appropriations","tag-sen-robert-clements"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/LB1210Clements3-17-26a.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=40472"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40472\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40475,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40472\/revisions\/40475"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/40447"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=40472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=40472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/update.legislature.ne.gov\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=40472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}