While their feelings over the necessity and value of per diems may differ, at least two of Duxbury’s legislators in the Senate and House both collected more of the funds than in 2002.

Under state law, legislators are entitled to travel expenses for mileage, meals and lodging collected for each day they travel to and from their home to the Statehouse in Boston to perform the official duties of their job.  Legislators record these days with the state’s treasurer’s office to collect the per diem funds, which range from $10-100 per day, depending on how far that individual lives from the Statehouse.

Four years ago, the Legislature approved a move to double the taxpayer-based per diems legislators receive as well as the separate expenses paid to each legislator, which went from $3,600 per year to $7,200.

In 2002, Senator Robert Hedlund was paid for 153 days at a rate of $18/day, accounting for $2,754.  Hedlund estimates that for 2003, he spent 172 days at the Statehouse, meaning he will get back $3,096 in per diem funds, but has yet to file his record of the last six months of the year with the treasurer’s office.   The treasurer’s office did report that through the week of June 20, Hedlund collected for 91 days, totaling $1,638.

Hedlund said that factors that account for legislators’ varying attendance during the first and last halves of the year can include an election year, that requires more time to campaign in a district, as well as this year, when the budget session ended on July 31.

“Just because the session ended doesn’t preclude me from going in,” he said.

Per diems as a whole, he added, are based on the honor system and date back to colonial times when citizen legislators were not paid.  The system has continued, however, and there have been celebrated cases in the media of legislators who collected per diem funds for days they were never at the Statehouse, he noted.

“The system has flaws and I proposed last year that these days get recorded with the clerk and they keep track of per diem [funds] as opposed to legislators,” said Hedlund.  “It’s stupid ñ it’s a colonial [practice] that was the sole compensation legislators received [in those days].”

While he wanted to see this rule change at the beginning of this year’s session, the move went nowhere, he said.

The other issue with per diems Hedlund noted is the temptation by some to use it as a yardstick for how hard or how many days a legislator truly works.   Relying on his own experience, Hedlund said that he spends lots of time in his Weymouth-based office working on legislative matters and making phone calls as well as attending numerous events and meetings in his legislative districts.

State Representative Thomas O’Brien agrees with Hedlund and said he too spends a great deal of time in his district and feels per diems are just a partial indicator of a legislator’s total workload.

“It shows our time in Boston,” he said.  “For myself, I have a 100% voting record, which is not easy to do, so it is clear that I take my responsibilities in Boston seriously.  Our job demands a number of meetings, holding office hours [and more].  I easily work 70-80 hours a week.  If you want a real estimate [of my workload], talk to my wife and kids.”

In 2002, O’Brien collected $4,628 for 178 days at $26/day and last year, for 184 days, was paid $4,784, a slight increase.

O’Brien said that he tries to be consistent from year to year in his per diem collected, but that he logs a lot of travel, having the largest land-based state representative district east of Springfield.  He likens the per diem pay legislators receive to those in the private sector to cover an employee’s mileage and travel expenses and feels the system is working.

“It is probably as fair as possible,” said O’Brien.  “We can’t submit for [exact] mileage and there are taxes on our parking spaces [in Boston], so it is unfortunate that there is the perception that legislators receive all of these ëperks.’  Our ëperk’ is serving the public.”

O’Brien added that he would have no problem with Hedlund’s move to take the reporting aspect of per diems out of the hands of legislators, but felt the cost to regulate might outweigh the benefit of independent analysis.

Duxbury’s other state representative, Daniel Webster, had yet to report his per diem request for calendar year 2003 as of press time.  He did say he checked with the treasurer’s office and he is still allowed to file for last year’s days, but added he was not aware of any set time limit to submit the information.

In 2002, Webster’s predecessor, Francis Marini, collected $2,808 for 108 days at $26 per day.

In total, the 200 members of the House and Senate received $662,026 in per diems in 2003, up from $620,000 a year earlier according to the treasurer’s office.