I was disappointed the statewide “Harrisburg Is Broken” tour of Mark Rozzi, Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, did not include a stop in northwest Pennsylvania, where I live. But I know he got an earful at the stops he did make — Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Wilkes-Barre, and State College.
The purpose of the tour was to “listen” to the people on how to best “fix” Harrisburg — particularly in regard to changing the rules by which the House of Representatives conducts its business and to give vent to frustration over the impasse which has prevented advancement of a state constitutional amendment to benefit survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
The tour was precipitated by the failure of the narrowly divided House to agree on a set of operating rules — the lack of which has kept the House from accomplishing anything whatsoever since it did manage to elect a Speaker on January 3.
Speaker Rozzi was accompanied on the tour by a six-member “working group” — three rank-and-file Democrat and three rank-and-file Republican legislators — who, ostensibly, are assisting him in developing a set of rules which will enable the House “to go forward.” The entire work group did not accompany the Speaker to each location, but all reportedly attended “via Zoom” or some such means. Local Representatives, of both parties, at least felt duty-bound to attend in person an event in their area.
Other than brief opening and closing remarks by the Speaker, the events were indeed listening sessions. The events provided no platform for legislators to speak themselves. The Speaker moderated only to the extent that he called the names of the persons who had applied to speak.
The public not only has ideas how to reform the legislative process, some of those ideas are gaining momentum. Among them:
That membership of standing committees should reflect the political composition of the House as a whole. People recognize the unfairness inherent in a structure with 15 majority members and only 10 minority members comprising a committee when the majority party of the 203-member House has only a few more members than the minority party — nowhere near a 3-to-2 ratio. If the House is very narrowly divided — as the present House is — a 13 to 12 split between the majority and minority is more in accord with how the voters of Pennsylvania have expressed themselves.
By the heretofore established practice, no bill emerges from committee without majority party support — however slim that majority is in the House as a whole. Bi-partisan bills, unless support is unanimous or nearly so, are few and far between. If the House is nearly equally divided and committees are too, bi-partisan legislation might become more the norm than the exception. People seem to want that.
By the established practice, committee chairpersons, appointed by the majority leader, have almost dictatorial control over what bills receive consideration in their fief — er, that is to say, committee. People are saying that it might be better for a committee membership to select from their own number their own chairman. Conceivably, in the same session, some committees might be chaired by a Republican, others by a Democrat. Conceivably, the emphasis might change from arbitrary decision-making to consensus-building.
By the established practice, it takes a written motion signed by a majority of committee members to force a chairperson’s hand to bring up a particular piece of legislation. That seldom, if ever, happens. But even if that rule should remain in place, a more evenly divided committee would increase the leverage of individual members, regardless of party affiliation, to cooperate with others to advance a particular bill. In other words, the rule might get used.
It was proposed that whenever a particular bill attracts a certain threshold of sponsorship, say one-third of the entire House, that bill should receive automatic consideration before the House as a whole — regardless whether the bill receives an affirmative recommendation out of committee.
It was proposed that no bill should be amended out of its original stated purpose. Taken a step further, it was proposed that no amended bill should be brought to the House floor to receive a vote without the concurrence in the amending by the original prime sponsor of the bill.
Maybe the most intriguing proposal of all was that each and every member of the House should be able to identify and submit one bill each session with the guarantee this bill will receive a vote on the House floor — regardless of committee action. Then we might better see what our representatives are made of and how they view the needs of their constituency.
Of course, however much the House might reform it rules, the hidebound rules of the Senate are already in place. With Republicans in firm control there, bi-partisan legislation from the House will go the Senate to die. “Dead on arrival,” as they say. Maybe. Probably. Almost certainly. Then again, in the face of genuine reform, the Senate will be forced to reveal its own “democratic” principles, or lack thereof. Voters may even remember.
People are understanding the significance of legislative rules to a degree unknown before, just as we are understanding the pernicious effects of gerrymandering to a degree unknown before. We have recently seen, nationally, Kevin McCarthy gyrating and bargaining on legislative rules as he grasped to become Speaker of the House in Congress. We may soon see, nationally, that whatever can go wrong with legislative rules will go wrong. It depends whether responsible legislators yet comprise a critical mass in Washington. Many observers are forecasting, for good or bad, Kevin McCarthy is not Speaker when the year is out.
Mark Rozzi may not be Speaker of the Pennsylvania House when this month is out. Rozzi, a Democrat, was elected to the position with Republican support. Many of the Republicans who supported him have since called for his resignation. He has recently said that he wants justice for survivors of childhood sexual abuse more than he wants the Speakership. It remains to be seen how determined he is to “fix” the House rules. Meanwhile, he is Aladdin who has let the genie of reform out of the bottle.
The House will reconvene at noon on February 21. Speaker Rozzi has said that its first order of business will be to vote on its rules. He has also said that, in cooperation with his six-member work group, he intends to make available to members beforehand a set of “good government” and “fair” rules — so the House will know what they are accepting or rejecting in that first order of business.
If the kind of rules Rozzi and his work group would seem soon to advocate take form, individual legislators will be confronted with an opportunity to rise above “rank-and-file” status beholden to party leadership. They will be confronted with more potential opportunities to legislate, and not merely cast votes. They will be confronted more potential opportunities to represent their district rather than just their party.
The people who went to the Speaker’s tour events will be watching. Maybe more people than that.