A Brookhaven legislator’s backdoor effort to revive deadlegislation Wednesday spurred intense debate in the MississippiHouse of Representatives before it was defeated by a singlevote.

District 92 Rep. Becky Currie, R-Brookhaven, attempted to amend abill dealing with the Public Employees Retirement System to end aretirement perk paid to state employees who live in state-providedhousing. Her own legislation, House Bill 330, died on a Housedeadline in early February, while a similar bill authored byDistrict 39 Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, D-Brookhaven, died on anotherHouse deadline earlier this week.

Currie has spent more than one year researching the perk forlegislation. She has come to believe it unfair to other stateemployees, unnecessary for those already well compensated andunwise for a crippled state budget.

“If we’re going to lay off the single mother who makes $30,000 peryear, when are we going to stop giving people who make a lot ofmoney these emolument checks – more money on top of a free house?”she said.

The emolument perk, called “maintenance,” compensates thoseemployees who live in state-provided housing upon their retirementbased on the value of living in the home. PERS estimates the 235employees reporting maintenance cost the state $272,000 annually,but admits that has many as 500 may be receiving the perk.

The perk was created in 1952 to help lure qualified employees towork in Mississippi and retain them by offsetting the requirementthey live onsite with retirement incentives.

“In 1952, we could not get a psychiatrist to come to the State ofMississippi, so we built a house at Whitfield,” Currie said. “Atone time I’m positive this was a good thing, but in 2010, it’s beenabused, and it is time for it to end.”

It won’t end this year.

Currie’s Amendment No. 2 to Senate Bill 3083 was defeated by a voteof 59 for and 60 against, but not before it generated an hour-longdebate that split partisan lines.

“I just have to feel like, if nothing else, there are people nowwho know about this,” she said. “We had many, many representativewho didn’t know anything about it before.”

Currie ultimately held SB 3083 on a motion to reconsider, hopinglawmakers would have a chance to look deeper into emoluments.Whether adjustments to the perk come about this year or not, she’shoping the groundwork has been laid for future action.

That notion gained traction when Republicans and Democrats alikespoke in favor of the amendment Wednesday.

District 16 Rep. Stephen Holland, D-Plantersville, told the House”it’s time get serious” about evaluating the 60-year-old emolumentsystem.

“I’m going to vote against you, Becky, but you’re right,” hesaid.

District 113 Rep. Henry Zuber, R-Ocean Springs, supported theamendment as a means to save money in the place of laying offemployees.

“Would it not be better public policy if we made those cuts thereinstead of laying off teachers?” he asked

District 91 Rep. Bob Evans, D-Monticello, took the podium andexplained away several misconceptions about the amendment beforevoting in favor of it. Several lawmakers confused the issue andargued Currie’s amendment would do away with state-providedhousing.

“Your retirement benefits are going to be somewhat less, but you’restill going to have the house, have the car, have the electricitypaid,” Evans said. “If we do this, we’re saving not only the statesome money on retirement benefits somewhere down the road, we’realso saving the amount now of the state PERS match toward theretirement if the emolument is included.”

Those that spoke against the amendment prevailed.

District 66 Rep. Cecil Brown, D-Jackson, said terminatingemoluments would breach employees’ contracts and may force thestate to make up for the retirement perk with more directcompensation.

“You’re not going to stop this, I’m not sure you should stop this,”he said. “It’s not an abuse of the system. It’s been out theresince 1952.”

District 87 Rep. Johnny String, D-Montrose, argued eliminating theperk would be unfair to those employees required to live on campusat jails, mental institutions and other facilities.

“They have to live there. For $272,000, let’s just let them livethere,” he said.

District 49 Rep. Willie Bailey, D-Greenville, didn’t think endingemoluments was the best way to save taxpayers’ money. He respondedangrily from the podium when a Republican suggestedotherwise.

“I wanted to sell the governor’s airplane, but you all wouldn’tsell it!” he said.