State Sen. Mike Bennett and state Rep. Dwayne Taylor have introduced a bill requiring the state's expert policy analysts to do a study of having a full-time Legislature.

This raises several questions, not the least of which is, "Have state Sen. Mike Bennett and state Rep. Dwayne Taylor taken leave of their senses?" Their bill (SB 1732 and HB 863) is subject to amendment in the committee process and might be broadened to include a study of whether there's a constitutional way to stop those two guys from introducing any more bills.

ADVERTISEMENT

No, seriously, this is an idea that merits serious study. We're the fourth-largest state, soon to be the third-largest, and the issues our lawmakers deal with are too complex and expensive to cram into a 60-day session. That's especially true the way they do it, using the first five or six weeks on routine matters and committee hearings, then ramrodding the budget and all the mega-issues through in the chaotic final few days.

Bennett, R-Bradenton, and Taylor, D-Daytona Beach, filed a simple little bill that says, "The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness and cost efficiency of having a full-time Legislature versus a part-time Legislature. The study shall include all projected variables and costs that are associated with operating a full-time and a part-time Legislature." OPPAGA would report its findings to the House and Senate by Jan. 1.

Well, they went to the right place. OPPAGA has a reputation for smart, fair analysis of how state government works. It doesn't try to pass or defeat any initiative, but gives legislators reliable pros and cons of whatever ideas they come up with.

This one would take a constitutional amendment and, even if three-fifths of the House and Senate feel like becoming full-time legislators, it's hard to imagine that 60 percent of the voters will want that. Congress, for instance, is doing such a bang-up job of year-round legislating — not to mention states like New York and California.

But there are good policy reasons for the legislative branch of government to be a permanent fixture, just like the executive and judicial branches. Legislators are up here most of the time anyway, with interim committee meetings one week a month, starting around September, and for occasional special sessions.

There's much to be said for the citizen-lawmaker concept, the idea that the legislative branch is the one whose members go back home and hear from the people regularly. But no matter how much they try to look like they've kept the common touch, they're not like us. How many of us could raise a quarter-million dollars, take a few months off from our jobs to campaign, and then move to another town for at least two months every year?

The National Conference of State Legislatures counts six states with full-time lawmaking, though its definition of full time varies from state to state. So what? We shouldn't do something — or not do it — just because some other states do, or don't.

Full-time legislating would be good for Tallahassee. We'd probably get decent in-state air service if hundreds of lobbyists, legislators and other commuters were here more often. Local businesses would thrive, although hotel rooms would be harder to find for football weekends.

Right now, the pace of activity is picking up around the Capitol as Tallahassee shakes off the winter doldrums. You can feel the first stirrings of anticipation, the excitement and dread that come with the annual legislative session.

With a loyalty usually found in Chicago Cubs fans and Labrador retrievers, we're always happy to see the House and Senate. They won't formally convene until March 2, but pre-session committee work is well under way and there's not much difference downtown between today and four weeks from today.

It's almost as if we forget how glad we'll be to see them adjourn in May. I covered my first session in 1970, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone say, "I sure hate sine die."

As when they went from every-other-year sessions to annual meetings under the 1968 Constitution, full-time legislating would require a pay raise. Salaries went from $1,200 to $12,000 a year then, over the governor's veto. You couldn't expect today's legislators to work full time for a little under $30,000 a year.

That, alone, would be enough to defeat a constitutional amendment. But if we want our laws made by good people, we're going to have to pay them reasonably. Of course we'll get some smart ones and some who could hide their own Easter eggs, but we have a wide range of mental diversity now.

It would be good for state employment if legislators were here all year, feeling a part of state government — rather than being the overseers who come to criticize and go home to tell the folks how they've slain the bureaucracy.

Legislators would probably repeal the rule against fundraising during sessions, if sessions were nonstop. Term limits would have to be broadened, or abolished, since you couldn't expect lawyers or sharp business people to put careers on hold for eight years (unless they were being carried on the company payroll back home, which is something else you don't want).

But that's another reason the public probably wouldn't approve.

If the Bennett-Taylor bill passes, OPPAGA will do a thorough and reliable study of full-time legislative sessions. The analysts might want to recommend that lawmakers add a column to the ballot, if they put this thing to a referendum — so we can vote "Yes," "No" or "Hell No."