When I first wrote about the issue of state legislature-reduction, I was heartened because the state House had approved a bill to reduce its number from 203 to 151.

But I also said I was skeptical. After all, asking House members to, in some cases, eliminate their own $87,171-a-year jobs plus great perks is asking a lot. Are they willing to put the public’s best interests before their own self-interest? That’s the $15 million question — the amount a House study says taxpayers would save if the size of the state House is reduced.

The original bill, which had been introduced by Rep. Jerry Knowles, R-Schuylkill-Carbon, was amended to also reduce the size of the state Senate from 50 to 38, but an attempt to strip out the Senate amendment was rejected by the Senate, whose leadership said they want the House to vote on the amended bill. Eliminating 12 senators from the 50-member body would save an additional $4 million to $7 million.

Time is running out on anything happening this legislative session, which ends on Saturday. The reduction measure requires a constitutional amendment. This means that both houses of the General Assembly must pass the identical legislation twice in consecutive terms, after which voters will decide whether to go along with the change.

There was optimism when the measure sailed through the General Assembly the first time around. Some even speculated that if the stars aligned correctly, we voters might have seen the constitutional question on this Nov. 6’s general election ballot.

Now, however, the measure is on life support, and if something doesn’t happen this week, the process will have to start from scratch starting after July 1.

Knowles is disappointed but undeterred. He said he is committed to seeing this effort through and giving the voters the final say on the matter, and we commend him for that, because this needs to happen.

There are pros and cons about the proposal. Dr. Chris Borick, professor of political science at Muhlenberg College, said it is more difficult for legislators in big legislative bodies to engage in productive discourse. “So sometimes when you reduce the size, it allows for a bit more compromise,” Borick said.

Mark O’Neill, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, said his group is concerned because a reduction would “erode opportunities for rural residents to have access to their elected officials.”

I would be thunderstruck if voters didn’t approve a smaller legislature. Let’s look at the facts: The Pennsylvania General Assembly is the largest full-time legislature in the United States and the second largest overall. Only New Hampshire’s is larger with 424 part-time members, who receive an annual salary of just $200.

Pennsylvania is the fifth-largest state in population (according to 2016 estimates). Compared with our 253 members, California’s legislature has just 120 legislators, even though California is three times more populous than Pennsylvania.

California’s legislators are paid more, but Pennsylvania’s are second on the salary scale. And legislative leaders make even more than the $87,181 made by rank-and-file members.

In addition to their salary, Pennsylvania legislators get $175 a day for expenses when they are called to Harrisburg or other official duties away from home. Long-serving legislators can get six-figure pensions, and every legislator is eligible for a pension after just 10 years of service. They get annual expense allowances to run their district offices and other perks, too, such as automatic cost-of-living increases.

Of course, there is opposition within the House itself. Aside from the practical matter of eliminating their own jobs, some House members are concerned that newer, enlarged districts would be too unwieldy and would not allow them to be as in touch with their constituents as often as they are now.

Under the plan, the average population of a House district would be about 85,000, compared to the present 63,000. Carbon County, whose population now is about as close to an ideal district as possible, would certainly be combined with parts of contiguous counties. Now, all of Carbon, except the borough of Summit Hill, is in Rep. Doyle Heffley’s 122nd district; Summit Hill is in Knowles’ 124th district, along with parts of Schuylkill and Berks counties.

We urge Knowles to hang tough in the face of this latest disappointment. His determination to thin out the bureaucracy gets two thumbs up.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com