Size of legislature-plank-league

==TESTIMONY ON REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE LEGISLATURE==
Hearing before the House State Government Committee
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania
226 Forster Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-3220 717-234-1576
 For Information: Bonita Hoke, Executive Director
Good afternoon. I am Bonita Hoke, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on HB1936 to reduce the size of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
The League believes that democracy depends upon the informed and active participation of it citizens in government. We believe in a governmental system that is open, representative, accountable and responsive and one that facilitates citizen participation in government decision making.
In the early 1970s the League conducted a study of the structure and practices of the General Assembly which resulted in a number of recommendations for improvements to achieve the above mentioned goals. Our recommendations included changes in the rules of procedure, greater public access to the legislative process and a substantial reduction in size. This position was reviewed and confirmed in 1996. We believe that together these changes would ensure that all legislators have an equal opportunity to participate in the process by which laws are made and would make them more accountable to their constituents We are pleased that these issue are now getting the attention they deserve. We urge you to move forward with legislation to reduce the size of the House and Senate so that the required constitutional amendment can be placed before the voters in time to take effect for redistricting after the 2010 census. Because creating fewer seats will result in drastic district realignment, we strongly recommend a companion constitutional amendment to end partisan gerrymandering and legislative leadership control over this process by assigning the power of redistricting to an independent commission.
One argument in favor of reducing the size of the legislature is cost. Thanks to an article published by Issues PA (July 18, 2005), we have this information on how the cost of operating the Pennsylvania legislature compares with that of other states.
With 253 members, Pennsylvania is second only to New Hampshire in the size of its legislative body. However, New Hampshire is a true "citizen legislature" in that it meets a limited number of days a year with members receiving sole compensation of $200 per day while in session. When compared with its peer states, Pennsylvania ranks first in total amount of salaries paid to legislators - 22% higher than second-place New York.
Although each Pennsylvania legislator's per diem for expenses is comparable to 13 other states of similar population and geographic size, the cost is higher because the Pennsylvania legislature is in session and/or attending committee hearings more often
Further, the Pennsylvania legislature's defined-benefit pension plan, which plans have been phased out by most private industries because of their high cost, is particularly generous for legislators adding to the taxpayers' burden for years to come.
The 2005-2006 budget for the Pennsylvania Legislature totals $462,012,000. One contributing factor is the higher than normal staff-population and staff-to-legislator rations. Pennsylvania ranks third in this category, behind California and New York which have smaller legislator-to-population ratios than Pennsylvania. From 1979 to 2003, the Pennsylvania legislative staff increased 106%.
But the potential for cost savings alone should not drive the decision to downsize. In fact, there is no guarantee that fewer legislators would reduce costs substantially or at all. According to our sister League in Rhode Island, which state legislature downsized in 2002, costs have not gone down. The real question we need to ask is: Would a reduction in size result in making the legislature more effective? In our opinion the answer is "yes."
Reducing the legislature would reverse the present concentration of power that has been going on with the Senate and House leaders for 25 years. Legislative leaders reinforce their power by controlling funds, by contributing to members' re-election committees, rewarding their rank and file supporters with choice committee chairmanships-and conversely terminating these chairmanships when members vote for principle and against leader's bills.
To be at all effective individual legislators have to indulge in the internal politics of the House or Senate in order to reach a level (e.g. committee chairman, whip, etc.) where his or her voice may be heard.
The present size is too large for individual opinions to be considered and for meaningful floor debate.
A small legislature with revised rules would enable individual legislators to share power more equitably thereby reducing the leverage of political leaders and ensuring greater individual accountability to their constituents. 
As an example of the misuse of centralized power we cite the fact that the House Speaker has prevented lobbyist disclosure legislation which was reported out of this committee in June, from going to the floor of the House for a vote. Virtually every legislator interviewed by League members in our 30 chapters around the state said they supported this legislation. Where is the accountability if members cannot confirm their expressed support by their votes?
Even legislators themselves have been heard to complain about the cumbersome size of the legislature and the difficulties of "getting things done". In an effort to assess the extent of support in the General Assembly for reducing the size of the legislature the League surveyed the membership last year.
As of November 16th, 55 responses had been received. Of those 28 agreed that the Senate and House are too large, 12 disagreed, 8 were split (Senate OK; House too large) 7 undecided. We integrated these responses with the list of legislators who are listed as sponsors of one or more bills to reduce the legislature (HB 1936, HB 2016, HB 2039, HB 2028, HB 1971, SB 579 and SB 890) even if they had not responded to our questionnaire. With these legislators included the table has the positions of 19 Senators (16 in favor) and 85 House members (68 in favor, 4 split and 1 undecided). Party affiliations show that support is bipartisan. Supporters of record include three members of the Senate State Government Committee and four members of the House State Government Committee.
The results show that there is substantial bipartisan support for size reduction among rank and file members indicating extensive discontent with the current system.
The argument most often raised in opposition to reducing the size of the legislature is the difficulty of communicating with constituents if districts are larger and that the same or greater level of staff would be required to deliver needed services offsetting any cost savings. Communication by and between legislators and their constituents through the Internet should replace the need for a high level of legislative staff. With Internet access readily available in homes, office and public libraries, information directly from most state and federal agencies can be accessed by citizens more easily than ever before. The PA Legislature Web Site offers citizens direct access to information on the status of bills, legislative schedules and copies of bills. Even senior citizens are becoming more computer literate and can easily obtain information for which, in the past their local legislative office may have been their primary resource.
Action on this issue is long overdue. We look forward to with you further on this issue.
I thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the League of Women Voters. 
==Links==
* Size of legislature
* Planks on the size of legislative bodies from Mark Rauterkus
category: Planks_from_elsewhere category: democracy