Since the end of June, at least 60 state House members have officially signed on to a legislative-reform platform.

They've formed a task force and have pledged to work for greater openness and accountability in the legislative process.

I say better late than never.

Funny how reform was the last thing on the average lawmaker's mind last summer. Who can forget last summer? Legislators skedaddled after giving themselves a nice, fat, constitutionally dubious pay raise.

They were so sneaky. Some then acted like it would be beneath them to even acknowledge that voters had reason for being a tad upset.

"There is nothing to talk about," House Speaker John Perzel said when he finally faced reporters almost two months after the early morning vote.

When a few weeks later Perzel did have something to say, he suggested lawmakers deserved the raise because migrant dairy workers in Lancaster County make $55,000.

Oh, that Perzel. He's such a card.

Leaders absent

Perzel, by the way, is not among the 60 House members in the reform coalition. Nor is House Minority Leader William DeWeese.

Surprise, surprise.

Do you think that's because the proposed reforms would give rank-and-file lawmakers a bigger say in the legislative process?

Or is it because it doesn't really matter what reformers want? What matters is how much change, if any, Perzel and DeWeese will allow.

So, are reformers wasting their time? Maybe what they should really be doing is convincing colleagues to show Perzel and DeWeese the door.

One can always hope.

Well, I do have hope this talk of reform is more than just talk.

What gives me hope is the bipartisan makeup of the reform coalition. It consists of 32 Republicans and 28 Democrats. It's encouraging that so many people on both sides of the aisle want to work together for change.

What gives me pause, though, is the fact 20 of the 60 members voted for the now-repealed pay raise.

Are the tainted 20 really interested in shaking up the status quo, or will their presence water down reform? Are they jumping on the bandwagon just because being seen as a reformer these days is good for job security?

It's notable none of the coalition's proposed reforms would abolish so-called unvouchered expenses, the mechanism that allowed lawmakers to get around the constitutional prohibition on midterm raises and to start pocketing the raise immediately.

But, to be fair, it's notable that some of the reform proposals would prevent a repeat of the way the pay raise (and slots legislation) were passed. For one, all bills would have to spend at least three days on the legislative calendar before a vote. For another, middle-of-the-night votes would be history.

Reform priorities

Two House members from Lancaster County -- Katie True and Gordon Denlinger -- have signed on to the coalition.

Rep. David Hickernell supports many of the coalition's ideas but told me he hasn't joined because of concerns with a few of them.

Rep. Tom Creighton said he will consider joining if the coalition accepts some of his ideas. Rep. Scott Boyd told me he wasn't invited to join and hasn't pursued it.

Rep. Mike Sturla also isn't a coalition member, and I'll explore his reasons in tomorrow's column.

I asked each lawmaker what reform proposal is his or her priority.

True and Boyd would limit committee chairs to four terms. Creighton wants committees to vote on all bills. Hickernell favors lobbyist disclosure. Denlinger wants to prohibit the Appropriations and Rules committees from amending bills originating in other committees. Sturla would like the full House to elect committee chairs.

So, will substantive reform happen? Sixty votes is a good start. And in January a slew of rookie lawmakers elected on an anti-pay-raise platform will be sworn in. I think there's reason to be optimistic.

E-mail Jeff at jhawkes@lnpnews.com. blog comments powered by Disqus