When the Maine Senate on Tuesday effectively killed any chance that the next governor will receive a pay raise, it was acting in a long political tradition – though not a very honorable one.

The ink was barely dry on the federal Constitution when congressional pay raises became a source of fierce contention – and it wasn’t long before congressmen were voted out of office following charges that they were feathering their own nest. For more than two centuries, opponents have thundered that it’s unfair for Congress to set its own salaries – which seems persuasive until one asks who else is going to decide?

One might think that having the Legislature set the governor’s salary would be easier, but one would be wrong. Gov. Joseph

Brennan, who served during a period of high inflation, was stuck throughout his two terms with a salary of $35,000, because of a constitutional provision – dating from the days when governors had one-year terms – that forbids varying an incumbent governor’s pay. The salary for the state’s chief executive was so embarrassing that the Legislature, acting on the recommendation of a pay commission, agreed in 1986 to double it to $70,000 for John McKernan, where it has stayed ever since.

Angus King, a multi-millionaire by the time he took office, made it clear he didn’t want a raise, nor has he touched the governor’s $30,000 expense account or taken up residence in the Blaine House. None of the current aspirants for the job, with the possible exception of independent David Flanagan, has anything like King’s wealth, so it’s possible the next governor will actually have to live on what the state pays.

The governor’s salary now ranks 48th among the 50 states. Some 290 state officials make more money than the governor, including the entire cabinet. The new University of Maine System chancellor will be paid $175,000 and provided a car and housing allowance. Surely the governor is worth at least half as much. And, because of the constitutional provision, if the Legislature doesn’t act this year, the governor may not get a raise for 24 years.

The Senate knew all this when it voted, but it wasn’t even close. A motion to accept the Appropriations Committee’s report, which whittled the pay commission’s suggestion of $123,500 down to $101,000, was defeated 19-11. Only Jill Gold-thwait, the Senate’s lone independent, six Republicans and four Democrats favored the raise – and nine Democrats voted nay. Observing the roll call from the back of the chamber, one Republican quipped, “Lots of solidarity with John

Baldacci” – the Democratic front-runner for governor.

Pay-raise opponents mustered a number of arguments: It couldn’t be done in an election year. The public wouldn’t tolerate a raise when budget cutbacks are planned. There are plenty of people who want the job at the current salary.

These arguments are, to put it politely, ludicrous. The pay commission only meets in election years, so if it can’t be done then, the governor will be paid the same into eternity. There are plenty of increases in the current state budget, as well as cutbacks, and with a one-in-eight-year chance to do it, the state could find the extra $30,000. As for constituent reaction, did anyone ask? And yes, people do want the job, but so what? A New Yorker billionaire just poured $65 million into a mayoral campaign, but a democracy does not wisely limit its leadership only to those who can afford to serve without pay. That’s called a plutocracy.

Beneath the surface, there was an even less attractive bout of political envy. Legislators, stuck with a $9,000 salary since 1990, seem to despair of ever getting decent pay, even for six months work. One proposed amendment would raise legislators’ pay by the same proportion – to about $13,000. Perhaps the state could afford it, but it’s hardly germane.

There’s a larger issue at stake, too. What we pay our public officials says something about how we view them. Nobody expects us to match the pay of a big corporate CEO, at $50 million, or even an average big league outfielder, at $5 million. But denying the governor a suitable salary makes an unflattering statement about how we value government. The votes against the raise are cheap populism, unworthy of those we elect to make hard decisions.

Maine’s next governor will not go hungry, nor will he – no women are running, alas – have to pass the hat at his inaugural. But he has already been disrespected in a gratuitous and thoughtless way. Perhaps it will be of some solace not to be president of the United States. He hasn’t had a raise since 1969.

Douglas Rooks, a free-lance writer whose work appears in numerous Maine publications, lives in

West Gardiner.