Just a hunch, but one of the loudest arguments the Maine Legislature is likely to enjoy come January may be about the proposal to increase the salary of the next governor by 76 percent. This surmise is based upon two clues: A number of legislators already have said this hefty boost will occur over their dead bodies; and an even greater number of citizens already have volunteered to help construct that morbid barricade.

You require background. The pay of Maine governors has been frozen at $70,000 per year since 1987 – what was then one of the fattest gubernatorial pay envelopes in the country now is the third slimmest. The plan to boost it to $123,500 – back up to ninth place – when the next governor takes office in 2003 comes from the Department of Administrative and Financial Services and is based upon an average annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent, compounded since the last raise.

We’ll pause here a moment while those of you who are beneficiaries of Maine’s excellent public education system do the necessary calculations. You’ve figured out that $70,000 increased by 2.5 percent each year during the 15 years that passed without raises brings the total to $101,000 and change, nowhere near $123,500. You’re wondering if this sort of discrepancy may be why numbers that come out of Augusta so often seem more like wild guesses than actual math.

There is an explanation, straight from the department mentioned above. The Maine Constitution (Article V, Section 6) bluntly states that the compensation of the governor “shall not be increased or diminished during the Governor’s continuance in office.” That is, since the next governor could continue in office for eight years, 2003 is the last chance for a raise until 2011. Assuming there is a level of compensation that precisely fits the job description, the proposal is based upon the premise that, rather than paying the governor exactly the right amount the first year and underpaying the next seven, it’s better to overpay the first seven so the last is exactly right. Hey, I only said there was an explanation. I never promised a rational one.

This is not the first time that constitutional clause has caused Maine’s gubernatorial pay to lurch from one extreme to another – the raise to $70,000 in 1987 doubled the $35,000 that started out in 1975 as one the best and ended up as the absolute worst. Ditto the $20,000 in effect before that. Each time, the matter was put off for so long that the percentage increase was enormous and the arguing very loud (The ’87 increase produced one news story almost entirely devoted to a description of legislators yelling at each other to shut up.) They probably didn’t do it on purpose, but the folks who put this state together back in 1820 did it in such as way as to ensure that a Maine governor would either live like a king or spend cold, dark nights huddled under a blanket in the Blaine House eating box mac ‘n cheese.

The question of paying elected officials is a muddle at all levels, from town hall to the State House. We want the brightest, most energetic public servants possible, we say we’d prefer they weren’t all idle millionaires or pensioned retirees seeking office as a respite from boredom, yet we make every pay raise occasion for a squabble. Then we wonder why it’s so hard to get somebody to fill that $300 selectman’s job or why every election there’s more and more uncontested legislative seats or why that bright/energetic thing doesn’t always pan out.

A lot of states have had this problem; some have fixed it. Arizona recently amended its constitution so that the salaries of all elected state officials – legislators, certain officers and commissioners, judges and so on – are specific percentages of the governor’s pay (currently $95,000). If the Legislature gives the governor a raise, and it can do so while that governor is in office, everybody gets a raise. Because putting off that many raises for 15 years, to a point where 76 percent increases could even be thinkable, would blow a gigantic hole in the Arizona budget, the idea is that the amendment will result in small, regular increases, just like normal people get.

It’s easy to see why Maine’s founders would prohibit a governor’s pay from going up or down while in office – politics back then was not the mannerly, high-minded activity it is today and the potential for shenanigans was great. Some states in those primitive times had even worse ideas. The early governors of Ohio, for instance, were paid whatever officials of the various counties cared to contribute. It wasn’t long before wealthy counties learned that the more they contributed, the more goodies they got from Columbus, while poor counties languished from inattention. Imagine – state policies that actually aggravate economic disparity. No one would put up with that today.

The trend among public-policy thinkers in these enlightened times is to view a governor not just as a chief executive, but as a CEO in the business sense, the person who ultimately answers for the state’s bottom line. Two especially relevant aspects of this model are that the pay of business CEOs usually is related to the size of the company and always reflects (at least this is what boards of directors tell shareholders) how well CEOs perform.

The size part doesn’t bode well for the next Maine governor. Maine’s sluggish economy produces jobs that puts it a mediocre 38th in per capita income – the 38th best-paid governor would get something in the $95,000 range. California’s governor is the third-highest paid in the country at $165,000, but is responsible for the care and feeding of some 40 million souls, less than a half-cent a head. Divide Maine’s lowly $70,000 salary by its 1.2 million residents, and you’re getting more than a nickel per. That explains all the personal attention you get.

The performance part offers hope, for two reasons. One is that a couple of academic studies (University of Maryland and Paul Smith’s College) suggest there may be a connection between the pay of a state’s governors and legislators, the effectiveness of that state’s government and, ultimately, the health of that state’s economy. It’s always been obvious that states doing well can pay lawmakers well, but there now is some evidence it may work the other way, too.

The other, unacademic and somewhat whimsical, is that business CEOs often get modest regular salaries but huge bonuses when they produce profits. It’s a proven motivator, even if the motivation is to lay workers off and move jobs offshore. The Maine Constitution may prohibit salary increases for a governor while in office, but it is silent on the matter of bulging envelopes of cash when leaving. I’m thinking something in the neighborhood of a thousand bucks for every good job attracted to a high-unemployment area and five grand for every family brought back to those regions losing population out to be about right, but I’d be happy to argue about it.

Bruce Kyle is the assistant editorial page editor for the Bangor Daily News.