After much agonizing, Maine’s underpaid and overworked lawmakers wrapped up their session by killing a proposal to set up an independent citizen panel to study legislative compensation.

The capitol was torn. The Senate, concerned that $9,000 a year isn’t enough to attract a representative sampling of the public to public service, wanted a commission to study the issue, to hold public hearings and to make recommendations. The House, stressing the service aspect of public service, objected, saying the process looked too much like a done deal and inevitably would have lead to lawmakers voting themselves a raise. Those differences were not settled and the measure died.

The issue is important and the sensitivity shown by legislators is commendable. Which makes the quick and quiet way they increased their retirement benefits all the more puzzling.

L.D. 1100, an act relating to vesting in the Maine State Retirement System, didn’t draw much attention. The dense jargon of the fiscally oriented subject matter ensured that. With an initial price tag of nearly $1 million and an ongoing cost of close to $700,000, it lowered from 10 years to five the length of employment required for pension benefits for state employees, teachers, judges — and legislators.

For the first three classes of individuals, the bill makes sense. In today’s job-hopping workforce, five years is becoming the standard vesting time in the private sector and state employees, teachers and judges deserve no less. It even appears to make sense for legislators; 10 years is five terms; one term more than is allowed under state law.

But including legislators in this pension boost now, with an initial cost of about $50,000, doesn’t add up for two reasons: the nature of the job and the contradictory message this sends. Lawmaking is part-time work and part-time workers usually do not get the same benefits as full-timers. Even though the monthly check retired legislators will receive in their golden years will hardly cover a round of golf, voting for this just didn’t jibe with the concurrent hand-wringing over pay.

It’s unfortunate that the independent commission was scrapped. Good legislators — those who study bills, research issues, attend local town and school meetings, spend morning, evenings and weekends dealing with constituents — have a solid half-time job on their hands and $9,000 a year simply doesn’t cut it. Maine doesn’t need a full-time, $75,000-per-year legislature like California; it doesn’t need to be absurdly stingy like $100-per-session New Hampshire. But Maine does need a legislature that represents the entire state, and that includes the wage-earning family types who at present cannot afford to serve.

Now that the issue has been broached, it’s likely that a future legislature will form such a commission. It should. The entire package for lawmakers — pay, health benefits, mileage reimbursement, meal and lodging allowances — should be assessed in an orderly way. Unfortunately, one part of the package — the retirement plan — already is off the table.

This is a bad way to start a process that must have public participation and acceptance if it is to succeed. The commission is sure to hear from plenty of mistaken taxpayers who think lawmakers already are a self-serving, high-living lot. By voting themselves a tiny piece of retirement heaven, the Legislature inadvertently has strengthened their argument. Seems like a high price to pay just to tee it up.