State lawmakers adjourned for the year in late November without voting themselves a pay raise, which had been widely rumored since the Nov. 2 elections.

Outrage from across the state over a possible pay hike might have had something to do with lawmakers passing up the opportunity to give themselves a substantial raise, which would have come on top of an already generous - and automatic - 5.3 percent cost-of-living increase (based on the perennially high Philadelphia rate rather than the state average, which would be 2 percent less). The other explanation is that lawmakers did not give Gov. Ed Rendell enough of his legislative wish list for him to support a pay hike for pols.

Regardless of the reason, it's a good thing it didn't happen. But there is little doubt it will come up again. And, in the meantime, voters should consider making some changes in Harrisburg.

One of the first changes to consider is one that 39 other states have already recognized as valuable - banning lame-duck sessions. These periods following the November election and before the end of the legislative session are notorious for mischief-making - including late-night pay hikes for lawmakers and passage of other controversial issues, with little or no public debate - because voters will not have the opportunity to express their displeasure for nearly two years.

In addition to ending lame-duck sessions, the state law that prohibits lawmakers voting themselves a pay hike should be re-examined.

By voting at the end of one legislative session to boost the pay for lawmakers in the next session, the technical requirements of the law are satisfied. But in practical terms, when more than 90 percent of lawmakers seeking re-election are returned to office, the distinction between lawmakers from one legislative session to the next is a charade.

A solution to that problem would be a requirement that any pay increases voted on by a lawmaker would not become effective until a different lawmaker takes over that seat. If lawmakers think that their jobs deserve higher pay or better benefits, they can vote to approve the pay hike - but those who voted for the pay hike will not receive it, only their successors will.

This approach is the only way to truly prohibit lawmakers from voting themselves a pay hike. It might have the additional benefit of discouraging lawmakers from viewing their public-service jobs in Harrisburg as a job for life, thus increasing lawmaker turnover - another ingredient in keeping the legislature more responsive to voters.

While more turnover in Harrisburg might be a good thing in terms of changing the jobs-for-life mentality, so might a reduction in the size of the legislature itself. Though it might seem impossible that lawmakers would ever support an elimination of some of their jobs, such a change is not impossible when presented to voters. In Rhode Island, voters in 1994 passed a referendum to reduce the size of the House and Senate by 25 percent when redistricting tied to the 2000 census was implemented.

Voters here would likely support some changes to the current structure of the legislature, either the number of lawmakers or their pay - or both. Pennsylvania's 253 lawmakers are currently the fourth-highest paid in the United States. It also is worth noting that Pennsylvania is one of only four states with full-time legislators.

It is not unreasonable for voters to ask why a part-time legislature, presumably with dramatically reduced pay and fringe benefits, cannot work in Pennsylvania when such an arrangement seems to keep 46 other states functioning at least as well as the Keystone State - if not better.

Finally, another change to consider might involve a financial penalty for lawmakers when they fail to produce a budget by the end of the fiscal year. In recent years, lawmakers in Harrisburg have dithered and dickered as the June 30 deadline for a state budget came and went. Then, during the second year of a legislative session, they seem content to wait until late November - after the election - when they cram months-worth of work into a few days and late-night sessions, knowing they won't have to face voters for at least two years.

Perhaps, to encourage timely budgets, a fine of $126 per day (the same amount as lawmakers' current per diem payment) would help lawmakers be more focused on getting the job done that they were elected to do.

Since issues affecting lawmakers' own pocketbooks always seem to be a top priority in Harrisburg, such a financial penalty for non-performance might encourage a better work ethic. It is not too much to expect.

Any or all of these changes would help move Pennsylvania forward toward having a more responsible and functional state government. Now is the time to begin building support for change.