Mar 21, 2007 2 min read

Your recent editorial (March 14, 2007) asked, “This is reform?” In response I ask, “This is responsible journalism?” I think not. You do your readers a great disservice by distorting the facts or just forgetting to report them. Clearly no amount of reform would satisfy you. I found your level of outrage a bit selective and far out of proportion. After all, these are Rules of the House, not laws or statutes or even regulations. They are often amended, often suspended. We vote on new roles every session.

I noticed that throughout this process people have used the words reform and change as if they have the same meaning. I am fearful that reform has become a catchall word to reflect change. “Reform” means to make better or improve. In our rush to change the House Rules, we should pause and think about whether all change is real reform or just change.

I believe some of these reforms will make a difference and allow individual members to cast informed and responsible votes. Overall, the proposal put forward by the Reform Commission slows down the legislative process to provide us more time to consider legislative changes. Something you fail to realize is that few of the proposals were universally accepted by the entire House.

After several weeks of testimony, discussion and debate, the Speaker’s Reform Commission reported its “proposals” to the full House for its consideration. There was no foregone conclusion about the end results. Forty-two proposals were offered by the Commission. Not all were unanimously received by the 179 House members not on the Commission; not even by all 24 of the Commission members. Dozens of amendments were offered. Some were accepted; some rejected. Debate on the proposals lasted for two entire session days. Some of it was quite lively.

It is too bad your editorial focused on the drama of the debate rather than the substance of it.

Dwight Evans, Member Chairman

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Harrisburg