Per diem payments prohibition during a regular session of the legislature
Summary
SF5288 would change Minnesota law governing legislator compensation by prohibiting per diem payments during a regular legislative session. Under the bill, legislators could still receive per diem when the legislature is not meeting in regular session, but not while the regular session is underway. The bill also clarifies and narrows the sources of compensation a legislator may receive for work as a legislator.
Specifically, the bill amends Minnesota Statutes section 3.099 to state that a legislator may not receive compensation for legislative work except for a salary set by the Legislative Salary Council, state contributions to insurance benefits, state contributions to retirement plans, and compensation otherwise authorized under existing statutes governing legislative pay, mileage, and related reimbursements. The act would take effect July 1, 2027.
Impact
The bill would directly affect Minnesota Statutes section 3.099 by eliminating per diem payments during regular sessions and adding a new subdivision limiting permissible legislative compensation sources. It would not change base legislative salary, insurance, retirement contributions, or mileage reimbursement, but it would restrict additional compensation tied to legislative service and session attendance. The practical effect would be to reduce or eliminate one component of legislator pay during regular sessions and to codify a narrower compensation framework for members of the legislature.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be framed as a compensation-reform or ethics-style proposal focused on limiting legislator pay during active session periods. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so there is no documented public debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was still in the early stages of consideration.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the restriction on per diem payments during regular session, since per diem is commonly used to cover living expenses for legislators while in session. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to limit perceived excess compensation and tighten rules around legislative pay, while opponents may argue that per diem helps offset legitimate costs of serving away from home during session. A secondary issue is the bill’s broader limitation on compensation sources, which could raise questions about whether it unnecessarily constrains how legislators are compensated for official duties.
Establishes the position of member of the legislature as a part-time, volunteer position in the service of the state; provides that state legislators shall receive no salary, or any other compensation or benefit from the state; authorizes the payment of travel expenses and per diem for days the legislature is in session, provides that per diem is limited to 30 days per annum; provides that the legislature shall convene in regular session only on Saturdays and Sundays in January and February; accelerates the state budget process so that the state budget is enacted on or before the last Sunday of February each year.
(Constitutional Amendment) Provides that the timing and duration of regular sessions of the legislature may be set by joint rule of the legislature (EGF DECREASE GF EX See Note)