Recently, the Bonusgate Grand Jury issued a report which has
received a great deal of media attention. This report had nothing to
do with the specific criminal charges against specific individuals
they investigated. This report was an extremely rare supplemental
grand pronouncement on the state of the our government, along with
numerous recommendations for restructuring the entire legislature.
Because I believe that the methodology, the conclusions and the
recommendations of the report are, in many respects, dead wrong, I
felt compelled to comment.


First, let me concede that bashing the legislature is
effortless. Like any profession, we have our bad apples and it is lazy
but easy to generalize their conduct to everyone. Further, because
virtually every citizen is unhappy with some of our policy decisions,
it's not difficult for a candidate for Governor or other office to
glean votes by pandering to those who think that only people who are
corrupt or stupid could make the decisions we make.

That said, it is important that the following be said: The
overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania's legislators, on both sides of
the aisle, are extremely smart, hard-working, completely honest people
who are doing their level best to make Pennsylvania a better place.
The notion that legislators are, (except for rare exceptions) corrupt
in any way is plain false. And thus any "reforms" based on this notion
are ill-grounded.

The Grand Jury spent months investigating the criminal conduct
of a few legislators. It is understandable that with this as their
focus, they became cynical. They didn't spend a great deal of time
talking to the 99% of law-makers not accused of a crime about what
they do. Why would they? But because the Grand Jury's methodology was
incomplete given their self-appointed role as the re-inventors of
state government, their factual findings were often inaccurate. And
given that, the recommendations based upon those findings were, for
the most part, ill-conceived.

An example of sloppy factual assertion appears on Page 6 of
the report, which says that the "overwhelming majority" of legislators
care more about serving themselves than serving their constituents.
There is no support offered for such a mind-reading claim and after 8
years as a legislator, I know it simply isn't true. They also say
being a PA legislator did not qualify as full-time work. Wrong again.
Most legislators spend 70-80 hours per week, every week at their jobs
and still struggle to keep up.

Inaccurate information leads to poor recommendations. Sure,
some of the technical suggestions, such as consolidating House
printing offices might have merit, but their broad policy suggestions
would do great harm to our state if implemented.


For example, a part-time legislature is a terrible idea. We
make decisions affecting tens of billions of dollars in complicated
policy areas such as transportation, health care, criminal justice and
economic development. In some matters, such as abortion, the death
penalty, and access to medical care our decisions literally have life
and death consequences. Do you really want people making these
decisions who just dropped by on their way to taking a deposition or
after their shift at Macy's? Shouldn't we demand our legislators
actually take the time to read about issues, go to hearings, meet with
advocates, tour facilities and do all of things that require a
full-time commitment?

In some cases the Grand Jury's recommendations don't even make
sense on their own terms. They bemoan the fact that House members have
to run for re-election every two years and suggest expanding their
terms to 4 years. But then, "to limit the damage they can do" they
suggest allowing a recall of legislators. Which means that House
members will be running not every 2 years, but every day as those who
didn't vote for the member in the first place constantly put recall
questions on the ballot.

Similarly, the Grand Jury recommends that legislators forfeit
pay if the budget is not passed on time. This is perhaps the most
nonsensical and plain awful idea of all. The Grand Jury says it wants
law-makers to think about their constituents and not themselves, and
then suggests a scheme that will force the exact opposite. If there is
a budget that is bad for my constituents, I should feel free to vote
"NO" on that budget without worrying that I won't be able to provide
for my family. We would literally be paying legislators if they vote
Yes on a bill and not paying them if they vote No. Usually this is
called bribery, which doesn't sound like the best reform idea.

Space precludes a comprehensive reply to the Grand Jury
report. But it is worth repeating that while legislature-bashing may
be good fun, it ceases to be harmless when it results in pernicious
policies. It may not be popular to stand up for the good people doing
important work in Harrisburg. But if more of us don't do it, our
institution and the people of our Commonwealth will suffer.