HARRISBURG — Talk about impertinent upstarts. Talk about outlandish ideas.
A bunch of rank-and-file state lawmakers actually believe they should get to see bills - and have an opportunity to read them! - for longer than a few minutes before they have to vote on them.
They also want committee chairman to tell them a day ahead of time what bills might come up for a vote in their committees.
And these renegades, Republicans and Democrats alike, think everybody - even members of the party out of power - should get a chance to debate a bill on the House floor, but nobody should get to drone on for longer than three minutes.
Led by Rep. Kenneth E. Lee (R., Wyoming) and Rep. Robert L. Freeman (D., Northampton), these members have drafted six amendments to the operating procedures of the House, known as the House Rules, and plan to pursue the changes, even if it means an ugly floor fight with House leaders.
"What we are talking about here is nothing earth-shattering or illusionary," said Freeman. "By and large, it's to provide information for the rank and file. Oftentimes, we're asked to vote on legislation with only a few scarce minutes to study it."
Lee said: "We felt that instead of bellyaching, we ought to start talking about ways we could change things."
The most blatant example of a need for change, the lawmakers said, is the yearly spectacle of passing a state budget. Essentially, the process involves legislative leaders and the governor's budget people hunkering down behind
closed doors and putting together a $14 billion general fund spending plan.
Not only are rank-and-file members, who vote for the leadership, excluded
from the inner sanctum, in some years they are called upon to consider the budget - a phone-book-size bill - in less time than it takes to shower and shave.
"People say, 'You mean you vote on a budget in 20 minutes? How do you know what's in it?' " Lee said.
Under the group's proposed rule changes, compromise legislation drafted by a special House-Senate conference committee, such as the budget, would have to be on members' desks 24 hours before a scheduled vote.
Likewise, 24-hour notice would be required of the majority leader and committee chairmen to inform members of their plans to run particular bills. Also, amendments could no longer be declared out of order if submitted on the day before a bill is scheduled for consideration.
Another change would be that a bill returning to the House from the Senate, with amendments, would have to be on House members' desks for 30 minutes before a scheduled vote.
While legislative leaders have taken no public position on the proposed changes, the new rules would curtail their power somewhat, especially their penchant to cut deals on legislation at the last minute.
"Their argument is that this (proposed rules change) is fine, that it sounds real good, but that ultimately what people judge us by is what we do and not how we do it," said Lee.
"By doing this," he continued, voicing the leaders' objections, "you constrain our ability to get things done."
Lee counters that what the legislature does is affected by how it is done. As an example he cites the 1991-92 budget, which, when it was passed more than a month late, contained a clerical error that cost the state about $50 million in utility tax revenues.
Originally, the group listed 17 reforms, but eliminated all but six after conversations with leaders and evaluating their chances of winning enough votes to pass.
One change Lee wanted, for instance, was in the electronic voting board. Members are listed alphabetically, with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other.
The system lends itself to partisanship, Lee said. A Democrat doesn't want to have a red light (indicating a no vote) beside his name, when everyone else on his side of the board has a green light (for a yes).
"There's an incredible pressure to vote for the positions of your party," he said, adding that he favored making the boards strictly alphabetical.
But that item was dropped, as were those dealing with eliminating or cutting back on members' perks.
In a separate plan, Rep. Robert W. O'Donnell (D., Phila.) has proposed four changes dealing with perks, including a plan to end the practice of individual members leasing automobiles for up to $650 a month. O'Donnell said the House should create a fleet-leasing program to save money.
Diane McCormick, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Ivan Itkin (D., Allegheny) said the Lee-Freeman proposals and the O'Donnell plan would be discussed in the Democratic caucus Monday.
She said there was no timetable on when the changes would be considered on the House floor, although the House, which is currently operating under temporary rules, must pass a permanent set of rules for the 1993-94 session by Feb. 4.
How many members would actually publicly defy their leaders and vote for the changes is unclear, but Lee and Freeman said members have been ''sympathetic."
One thing is clear. Even if the group's proposals become rules, House leaders would still have a way to thwart the reforms.
House Rule 77 - unless it, too, was changed - allows temporary suspension of House Rules by a majority vote.
