PSC chairman seeks opinions on executive pay rule

2013-04-23T00:00:00Z PSC chairman seeks opinions on executive pay ruleBy BILL GALLAGHER Helena Independent Record
April 23, 2013 12:00 am  • 

Much hubbub has been made recently in the press about the commission’s decision to consider repealing what has come to be called the “PSC Executive Pay Rule.” Much of the commentary has been misleading, even downright inaccurate.

The Public Service Commissioners need and want your input and feedback on the matter. I’ve outlined a number of issues for your consideration and hope you’ll take the time to call us or send your commissioner feedback.

Issue No. 1 — Duplication: One argument for repeal is that the Executive Pay Rule is duplicative, and simply repeats what is already in the state law (MCA 2-6-102) as well as the PSC’s rule (ARM 38.2.303). All utility information, including executive compensation is, even without the Executive Pay Rule, public information and available to the public at the PSC unless a request for protection is requested and granted before we get it. We get relatively few of these requests. The Executive Pay Rule states that if the PSC has it, the compensation of the top three utility executives is public information unless a request for protection is requested and granted. But, that’s already the rule and law!

What is your opinion? Are you in favor of having more rules even if they duplicate or restate other existing rules and laws, or should duplicative directives, such as the Executive Pay Rule, be repealed?

Issue No. 2 — PSC authority to make new law. Some claim that the Executive Pay Rule is not just a restatement of other existing law, that it does, in fact, change the law. Some argue that the PSC does not, and should not, have the authority to make new law, especially law or rules affecting constitutional rights. They argue that new law should only be made by the people or the Legislature and not executive agencies. (Although some judges may argue they too have the power to make new law.)

What is your opinion? Should executive agencies like the PSC, DEQ, FWP and others, have the authority to make new law, even if it affects your constitutional rights?

Issue No. 3 —Lawsuit costs. The PSC was immediately sued over the Executive Pay Rule. The pending lawsuit challenges the PSC’s authority to make such one-size-fits-all rule that changes the balance between two competing constitutional mandates, in this instance the public right to know versus the individual right of privacy. Attorneys for the PSC say that based on existing Montana case law the Executive Pay Rule will probably not pass muster. Continued defense of this rule in the lawsuit, and the subsequent appeals, will cost tax and ratepayers a lot of money.

What is your opinion? Should the PSC continue to spend your money defending the Executive Pay Rule in court?

Regrettably, some people are always in re-election campaign mode. My predecessor, Ken Toole, who conceived and championed this toothless tiger rule for his 2010 PSC re-election campaign, has a reputation for costing taxpayers big money in court defending poor choices. As he does all too often, one of my colleagues on the commission adopts Toole’s position and argues fervently in favor of the rule and for fighting for it in the courts. I said it in 2010; This issue is classic political ruse. Gin up a do-nothing but emotional issue or rule aimed at a group we all dislike. It makes for good headlines, generates lots of fighting, but really does absolutely nothing to make your government better. It works especially well when a politician needs to distract you from their actual work or voting record.

What is your opinion? On April 23 (today), at 2 p.m., the Department of Public Service Regulation will hold a public hearing on the proposed repeal of the Executive Pay Rule. Public comment will be accepted thru April 26.

Tell us what you think. Contact your PSC commissioner at 444-6199 or at our website,

W. A. “Bill” Gallagher is chairman of the Montana Public Service Commission.

Copyright 2016 Helena Independent Record. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(3) Comments

  1. FlamingLiberal1
    Report Abuse
    FlamingLiberal1 - April 25, 2013 3:49 pm
    I think that until our utility rates are similar to those of neighboring states, executive salaries are absolutely our business.
  2. steeline
    Report Abuse
    steeline - April 23, 2013 4:32 pm
    Why not just set a salary range and pay on performance. Low rates higher pay checks. High rates lower pay checks. Makes sense to me.
  3. afmhelena
    Report Abuse
    afmhelena - April 23, 2013 10:19 am
    What!! More stuff the PSC can do for the utilities and NOT DO for the people of Montana!!!
    Like government, utility companies hide behind their power. Why shouldn't Montana's population know what where their way too high power and gas rates are being spent. Maybe the question should be, Why is the upper management of these utilities afraid to disclose the information? The repeal of this rule is just another demonstration of the the PSC puppet show.
    I think every PSC official should disclose their finances as well. After all, we elect them to
    set electric, natural gas along with other utilities, not let the utilities do whatever they want.
    Montana needs to take a very close look this circus.

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters. If you receive an error after submitting a comment, please contact us.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps:

    1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

    2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

    3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

    4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

    5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

    6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

    7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

    8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

    9. Don't write a novel. If your comment is longer than the article you're commenting on, you might want to cut it down a bit. Lengthy comments will likely be removed.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick