As its members sliced spending for programs throughout state government over the past two years, the Legislature's own budget grew and is slated to rise again in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposal.

The state Senate and Assembly received a $7.5 million increase - amounting to a nearly 4 percent jump over last fiscal year - in the current budget signed by former Gov. Gray Davis.

Together, the chambers stand to see another increase of nearly $10 million in expenses in Schwarzenegger's budget proposal, which calls for billions in cuts to other areas of government. The Legislature is reviewing the governor's $99 billion plan and is supposed to send him a budget by mid-June.

Although the Legislature's budget increases represent a tiny portion of California's multibillion-dollar budget hole, some political watchdogs say that lawmakers should show the public they are shaving their own costs as they seek to cut government waste and spending.

"They are going to be slashing programs, and they really should be setting examples," said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

According to the governor's budget, the Senate received $84 million in fiscal 2002-03 for its 40 members, staff and general operations. This year, despite promises from both houses to trim spending, the Senate's budget totaled $87 million, and it would rise to $91 million if the Legislature accepts the governor's proposal.

In the Senate this year, lawmakers trimmed the amount spent on meals, for instance, but increased the amount slated for ceremonies and events.

And though the Senate cut from its furniture and equipment expense budget this year, it requested, and the governor agreed in his plan, to more than triple those expenses in the coming budget year, from $200,000 to $637,000.

"The main expense increases are like any other businesses in the state; they've been in the cost of benefits," said Senate Secretary Greg Schmidt. Schmidt said the Senate has reduced its 980-person payroll by about 80 positions, mostly by opting to leave posts vacant.

He also said the figure in the governor's budget could change before a final budget is enacted.

"When we do the presentation for the governor's budget, the figure that we put in there is a 'guesstimate' projection," Schmidt said. "It isn't a real figure. It's a placeholder for any given year."

The Assembly's budget, meanwhile, rose this year even after leaders drew criticism for boosting their own spending as California faced a record deficit. The 80-member Assembly spent roughly $114 million in 2002-03 and $118 million this year. It would receive a $5 million boost under Schwarzenegger's budget.

The largest increase for the Assembly is proposed for staff salaries and employee benefits. Legislators' salaries are set by a citizens commission, which has not boosted lawmaker pay since 1999.

The Legislature continues to advertise open positions while a statewide hiring freeze applies to other departments.

The Assembly this fiscal year has cut its own operations, according to Jon Waldie, the Assembly's chief administrative officer, but the numbers are not reflected in the budget because the cuts were made as agreements to pay other agencies' expenses with Assembly money.

"Our budget has gone up, but we took $8 million and we are plowing it back into general-fund programs," Waldie said.

For example, he said the Assembly agreed to take over some costs from the state parks department for providing Capitol tours.

Assemblyman Joe Nation, a San Rafael Democrat who chaired the Assembly Rules Committee last year, said the move helped the Assembly preserve its base budget amount for future years.

"That was essentially our way of trying to contribute to the general fund but not to disadvantage our budget in future years," Nation said.

Schwarzenegger's budget spokesman, H.D. Palmer, said the governor's budget reflects the amount requested by the Legislature. He said the Legislature based its request on Proposition 140, the term-limits measure approved by voters in 1990 that also limits the amount that the Legislature's budget can grow each year.

The Legislature and its Legislative Analyst's Office budgets were slashed by a third after the proposition passed, but the Legislature's budgets have risen since then. In 2001-02, during the height of the high-tech boom when state spending exploded across the board, legislative spending rose almost 10 percent.

This year, the amount suggested in the governor's budget for the Legislature is nearly twice the amount that the bodies spent 10 years ago.

Critics of the legislative spending hikes say the proposition sets a ceiling and does not prohibit lawmakers from reducing their budgets.

Legislators, however, said shrinking the budget would lower the base amount and limit the Legislature from making up the difference in future years.

"There's no way that the legislative budget would ever recover," Nation said.

A leading taxpayer advocate said that should not stop lawmakers from making more pronounced cuts, even to the Legislature's base spending.

"It's important from a public perception standpoint," said Jon Coupal, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "(Failing) to reduce their own spending sets them up for charges of hypocrisy from both liberals and conservatives."

John Ellwood, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, disagreed.

He said forcing lawmakers to comb through their spending to save a few million dollars distracts them from the larger problem of balancing the amount of money residents and policy-makers want to spend vs. the level of services they want the government to provide.

"It's not the solution to this problem," Ellwood said. "To the extent that they spend time and effort on this issue, it's time and effort that they don't spend on the real issue."