Various bills that I plan to introduce soon have already garnered a bunch of statewide media attention. This week, I will focus on the first of them —a measure authorizing the state Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) to analyze the pros and cons of PA returning to a part-time legislature.
The LBFC report would include options on methods, processes, and timelines for how a part-time legislature could be structured if a constitutional amendment for switching back to part-time status would clear both the state House and Senate in successive sessions to get on the ballot — as unlikely as that seems right now — and ratified by voters (which would be very likely).
Before the PA Constitution adopted in 1968 authorized a full-time legislature, the PA General Assembly only met to handle the budget during even-numbered years, and to do other lawmaking in odd years. Between 1873 and 1959, the General Assembly met for just a three-month session every year. And the work of the Commonwealth got done!
PA is one of four states (along with CA, NY, and MI) to boast a full-time, well paid, professionally staffed legislature. Only six other states maintain a full-time legislature without high pay, while the vast majority operate on a part-time model.
For example, Maryland’s General Assembly remains in session no more than 90 consecutive days per year. The average lawmaker there earns $65,000.
Texas, a much larger state than PA, meets for 140 days every other year. Lawmakers there get paid $7,200 annually, plus a $221 per diem (for meals and lodging) when in session.
While many observers focus on how going part time would impact lawmaker salaries, a part-time approach may or may not cut pay. But becoming “part time” would clearly shrink the cost of benefits and other “non-constitutional” perks (the PA Constitution only authorizes that lawmakers receive “salary” and “mileage for showing up the first day of session week,” so everything else from pensions to health care are questionable); greatly reduce the opportunity for political corruption (it’s no coincidence that lobbying firms maintain their most significant presence in the few states with full-time legislatures); and force more productive legislative sessions.
Right now, the General Assembly may go on weeks-long recesses, and actual voting has run only about 50 or so session days annually in recent years. All legislative work could obviously be done in a truncated, condensed 90- to 120-consecutive-days annual session, possibly by following the 1873-1959 biennial approach of doing a two-year state budget one year and other legislation the next.
Of course, some legislative committees meet on non-voting days, and legislators spend the bulk of their time meeting with constituents or attending events back in their districts. But our legislative process is clearly inefficient. Commonwealth residents are becoming concerned about what they’re paying for.
One of arguments against a part-time legislature is that power becomes invested in full-time House staff. On the House staff argument, I’ve seen WAY too many examples of committee chairmen with 15 or more years of seniority basically allowing House staff to run everything and dictate policy to them.
So, whether a member is considered full or part-time won’t make a difference in that area. It will be up to the legislator to step up to the plate and show leadership.
(NOTE: This same argument holds for term limits, too, which I also support and have introduced a constitutional amendment on that subject.)
I know firsthand being a lawmaker is a difficult and demanding job. Would changing to part-time make the position harder? Possibly, or it might not have any effect at all if full-time legislative offices stayed in place.
The study would examine that.
Prior to 1968 PA found plenty of folks who were willing to take time off from their jobs for a few months and serve in the legislature. In fact, I believe a part-time legislature would attract more professionals and those with greater life experience, young folks with flexibility in their schedules, and fewer individuals aspiring to be “career politicians” where being a lawmaker ends up being most lucrative job they will ever have.
Even with all/most perks eliminated, we could have more candidates running for office.
Representative Perry Stambaugh
86th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Media Contact: Jennifer Fitch
717.260.6563
jfitch@pahousegop.com
Repperrystambaugh.com