| PACleanSweep Opinion |
|
|
by Russ Diamond December 31, 2007 |
|
|
 |
 |
Why the "Year of Reform" Wasn't
Last year at this time, Pennsylvanians were filled with
hope for big changes in state government coming to
pass in 2007. Who could blame them? After
replacing an astonishing 55 legislators, all signs
pointed to movement in the direction of reform. But the
great "Year of Reform" turned out to be mostly a bust.
Admittedly, there was some progress. Internal rules
changes were made in both chambers of the General
Assembly. The Senate performed the task rather
effortlessly while the House took a few months of
deliberation. Those rules can be suspended,
however, and as soon as it's expedient for members
to do so, they will be suspended.
An effort was made to craft a new open records law, a
process that is not yet complete. The House and
Senate versions differ, which means that those
differences must be hammered out, likely in a
conference committee. Pennsylvanians should play
very close attention, as a conference committee is
where good bills can be transformed into bad bills
(think: pay raise). Even without any shenanigans, the
proposed legislation is barely better than what we had
before in some areas and falls short of giving us the
most transparent government in the nation.
Nothing else has been accomplished on the reform
front, though. Newspaper editors, pundits, journalists
and citizens are asking: Why? The answer is quite
simple: There has been no movement on serious
structural reforms in Harrisburg because elected folks
don't want serious structural reforms. They like things
just the way they are.
We can't blame the freshman class entirely. Although
some of them appear to have been sucked into the
Incumbent Protection Plan and business-as-usual,
most of them are still wet behind the ears and
frustrated. And let's not forget that there are only 55 of
them, hardly a majority among 253 members.
We can't entirely blame leadership, either. Their job is
to do what the rest of the membership wants them to
do. If they don't follow the will of the membership, they
won't be in leadership for very long. If a majority of
members were actually pushing for reform, leadership
would certainly be obliging them.
In the legislature, most of the blame lies at the feet of
those who have been there for a few terms but are not
yet in positions of leadership. If they really wanted
reform, we'd have it already. They could have bridged
the gap between freshmen and the leadership to
point Pennsylvania in the right direction. But they
haven't.
The Governor dropped the ball as well. Although at
one time he touted a reform agenda, he's been silent
on the issue ever since. One would think that a
governor in his second term would understand that
creating a better system of government is a positive
legacy that could last for decades to come.
Some have claimed that 2008 will be a better year for
reform. Considering it's an election year for over 90
percent of the General Assembly, however, it's hard to
believe that systemic reform will be at the top of
anyone's agenda. Let's face it: For many legislators,
this is the best job they've ever had and they will focus
most of their energy on keeping it.
Perhaps, though, that is the key to obtaining actual
reform. If legislators consider getting re-elected their
primary objective, then the people of Pennsylvania
should make structural reform an election issue.
Whether our favorite reform is term limits, the size of
the legislature, part-time status for members,
redistricting or the holy grail of structural reform - a
constitutional convention - Pennsylvanians should
begin extracting promises now from candidates
seeking elective seats in 2008.
Additionally, those legislators who promised reform
as part of their electoral bid in 2006 should be asked
what they have done to make it happen. How many
reform bills did they introduce or co-sponsor? How
many meetings did they have with colleagues on
reform issues? How many phone calls did they make
on behalf of reform? What will they do for reform if
re-elected? Exactly which particular reforms do they
support?
It truly is a simple equation: When the people clamor
for reform via phone calls, letters, visits to their
legislators and electoral pressure, candidates who
wish to get elected will also support reform. Once
elected, continued pressure will make it happen.
Pennsylvania will only get structural reform when
Pennsylvanians demand it. It didn't happen in 2007
because the people didn't focus on specific changes
during the 2006 election cycle. Demanding specific
reforms in 2008 is the only way to move us
closer to actually getting those reforms.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce text from
this article with attribution to PACleanSweep.
Constitutional Footnote #1
Article II Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
mandates that the General Assembly "shall meet at
twelve o'clock noon on the first Tuesday of January
each year." In 2008, the first Tuesday falls on January
1st. How many legislators do you suppose will show
up? That may be our first indicator of which legislators
care about constitutional rule and systemic reform.
Constitutional Footnote #2
Two and one-half years after the pay raise, many
legislators are still collecting per diems just for
showing up for work, receiving extra pay for service on
committee, benefiting from lavish health care plans,
driving taxpayer-funded cars and building comfortable
pensions, despite Article II Section 8's specific
language allowing only "salary and mileage
for
regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law,
and no other compensation whatever, whether for
service upon committee or otherwise."
In addition, quite a few never returned the money
received through "unvouchered expenses," despite the
Supreme Court's finding of the practice as
unconstitutional. Go figure.
About PACleanSweep
PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to
reforming state government in Pennsylvania. For
more information, please visit
www.PACleanSweep.com.
|
 |
|