But the decision didn't come without some quirky moments and some pointed exchanges about whether politics has been at play in the recent push to trim politician paychecks.

The California Citizens Compensation Commission chose this morning at a meeting here in Sacramento to leave those pay rates where they are, and rejected a proposal by one commissioner for an addition 5% cut on top of last year's decision to slash paychecks and benefits by 18%.

The only two comments from the audience were in opposition to any more cuts, with a notable appearance by Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, who won't be affected because he's termed out of office in a matter of months.

"There is no legitimate reason for additional cuts," he said, "and plenty of reasons for the commission to leave lawmakers' salaries alone."

O'Connell told the commissioners that when all of 2009's cuts are factored in -- salary, perks, benefits -- the cut for legislators has amounted to 26% compared to what they beforehand were eligible to receive. "No one else in the state [government] took that big of a hit," said O'Connell.

And the state schools chief, who before his current position served in the Legislature for 20 years, didn't mince words behind what he -- and others -- think is really behind the push to cut politician pay.

"Further cuts," he said, "would simply be punitive and would smack of retribution for the legislators daring to disagree with this governor, or any future governor, on legitimate matters of both policy and politics."

The backstory to O'Connell's comments, and those of an ex-legislator who also testified, are worth noting. The governor appoints all the members of the commission (created by 1990's Proposition 112), and last year Governor Schwarzenegger filled vacancies on the panel with newcomers who immediately pushed for the big pay cut. Earlier this year -- most notably during the contentious battle over the confirmation of Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado -- several legislators privately, and one publicly, charged that Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats agreed to a deal that gave ex-legislator Maldo (champion of 2009's Proposition 1F) the state's #2 job in exchange for the Guv leaning on his commission appointees to put away their salary knives. Since then, others have wondered whether the fracas over the 2009 pay cut revealed an until then hidden pressure point on the Legislature's Democratic majority.

One of the citizen commissioners, all of whom were appointed by Schwarzenegger, lashed out at any suggestion they're getting their marching orders from inside the state Capitol.

"I take a little bit offense to this being called a politicization of the facts," said commissioner Ruth Lopez Novodor. She and others said what they're simply doing is looking at the facts of how lawmakers are compensated -- not just salaries but other benefits, including the per diem payments made to members of the Legislature.

And so after voting to keep pay and bennies where they are (salaries of $95,291 for most legislators and more for others), things got... well... somewhat amusing.

Commission chair Charles Murray asked if there was any way the panel could reconvene to take a second look at politician pay and perks beyond June 30, the constitutional deadline for their annual actions. His rationale seemed based still pending review of data about things like cars provided to legislators and the rules regarding per diem payments. But he also mentioned a desire to know what the state's finances look like in the upcoming budget -- which the Legislature, also per the state constitution, was supposed to have ratified yesterday.

And Murray seemed perplexed that the commission shouldn't have the same latitude for tardiness as afforded the Legislature. "They've self extended the deadline for the budget," he said. "I'd like to ask... if we could self extend our deadline."

The commission's legal counsel said there was no such provision, but also no provision that would prevent them from doing so. In the end, though, Murray dropped the request... and the issue of politician pay was settled until 2011.

Prop 1F was the focus of this morning's final look at the May 19 special election on The California Report.

This proposal is the only one that seems like a sure bet next Tuesday, and with good reason: it prevents legislators and statewide elected officials from receiving salary increases in years when the state's projected to run in the red.

It's also one of those measures that voters are likely to interpret as more substantive than it really is.

For starters, it's going to come as a surprise to some Californians that the pols don't control their own salaries. Of course, those same folks are ones who've forgotten 1990's Proposition 112, which created a citizens commission that sets those pay levels.

The California Citizens Compensation Commission usually meets once a year, considers a variety of rather bland factors, and makes its decision. In the last 15 years, the commission has raised the salary of legislators seven times; only three of those pay hikes were in the last decade.

But those were three pretty bad years for the state budget -- 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The current annual pay for rank and file legislators is $116,028 -- the highest in the nation (#2: Michigan, at $79,650).

For constitutional officers, there were also three pay hikes in the last decade (though only in two of the same years as the Legislature). The governor is the top earner, at $212,179 (Arnold Schwarzenegger, though, accepts no salary).

What Prop 1F is effectively doing, then, is removing a power from the citizens commissioners that's only been used 30% of the time in recent history. That's not necessarily a bad thing to change... but it's a much more muted action than angry voters probably want.

In fact, what voters probably would love is to slash the pay of lawmakers. And here's where Prop 1F will do absolutely nada. While the citizens commission can cut politician pay, it can't cut the pay of sitting lawmakers... only the salary for those who take office in the next election.

For that, you can thank... wait for it... a different voter approved ballot measure, 1972's Proposition 6, which prohibits the reduction of salary during a pol's term in office.

The salary commission is scheduled to meet next week -- the day after the election -- to consider a 10% pay cut. But again, that will only apply to those elected in November 2010. Those in office now can't be forced to take a reduction, no matter how bad the state's finances may be.

(In fairness, it should be noted that eight senators and 15 assemblymembers have either declined the 2007 pay raise or cut their salary beyond the 2006 level, which was $113,098.)

The author of Prop 1F, Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), says it's only a first step in government reform.

"I believe [lawmakers] get paid fairly for what they do," he says. "But I don't think that we ought to be any different than anybody else."

You may remember that Prop 1F was one of Maldo's demands in February for being the decisive vote for the budget deficit deal. His original demand -- a measure to block legislators from being paid when they miss the annual budget deadline -- was deemed illegal by legal advisers.

Prop 1F will have an impact, though probably not at the level the angry electorate wants. And while the guillotine metaphor may be a bit extreme, a lot of folks involved in state politics believe that the voters are just itching for a way to punish politicians -- especially the Legislature.

This may scratch that itch for the time being. But if the state's fiscal woes, and political gridlock, continue, the modern-day version of the execution device could come rolling out. And the odds on favorite for the shape it would take: a part-time Legislature.

The intersection of populist anger, ballot measure directives, and unexpected legal intricacies could be found this morning at the scheduled meeting of the obscure commission that sets the salaries of elected officials.

When it was all over, those salaries remained just as they are... even as the state's finances keep crumbling down around them.

Today's meeting of the California Citizens Compensation Commission looked to be one where some sort of 'share the pain' action would finally come to pass. After all, state workers are being furloughed and losing pay. Vital state programs have been slashed to help resolve a $40 billion budget deficit. Why not the paychecks of 120 legislators and statewide elected officials?

And now for the problem... or in today's case, a double problem. First up: the citizens commission, created by voters through 1990's Proposition 112, can't reduce the paychecks of sitting lawmakers. That's because of a different ballot measure, 1972's Proposition 6.

So the best that the commissioners could have done today was to slash the pay of officials elected in November 2010.

Undeterred, the four commissioners dutifully debated the merits of a salary freeze versus a cut, and if a cut then by how much. After a reasonably interesting debate, the commission voted to slash paychecks by 10% effective for those elected in 2010.

The vote was 3-1. And then... surprise.

The legal counsel to the commission informed members that the rules state a majority of the commission must agree... not a majority of those present. And because there are three vacancies on the seven member board, all four sitting commmissioners would have to sign off on the decision.

Commmission chair Charles Murray later told reporters he had no idea of that threshold before the meeting. And one of the four commissioners --Bill Feyling -- wanted to cut paychecks by 5%, not 10%. Feyling, the executive director of a carpenters union, wouldn't budge on his position during debate with the others. He also declined to speak to reporters after the meeting.

And so salaries, for now, remain the same: $116,028 for rank and file legislators, $212,179 for the governor, somewhere in between for everyone else.

Chairman Murray told reporters he's received no word from Governor Schwarzenegger as to when the three vacancies might be filled. He also said he's a supporter of Proposition 1F, the May 19 ballot measure that would ostensibly ban any lawmaker raises during budget deficit years.

Speaking of Prop 1F, it's worth considering the commission's record. Over the last decade, the commission has raised the pay of rank and file legislators only three times: in 2005, 2006, and 2007. And yes, it should be pointed out that some of those years were pretty lean for the state budget.

"That was a mistake," said chairman Murray after today's hearing.

Murray, who owns an insurance company, is also pushing for more accurate data about all of the other benefits lawmakers receive, in hopes of making a more informed decision about salaries. As an example, he highlighted during the hearing that legislators get vehicles from the state and access to free gas for those vehicles.

For now, the salary issue is on ice. Barring a new commissioner being appointed who will agree to a 10% cut for future pols, or a change of heart of one sitting commissioner, California's Legislature will continue to be the best paid in America. And Prop 1F, even if it holds to its huge lead in the polls, won't have any impact on that part of the process.