Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives get an ‘F’ for effort.

Perhaps it was the afterglow of having produced an on-time and complete state budget for the first time in three years. But last Monday the chamber adjourned for the summer, leaving unfinished important work on various pieces of legislation that deserved to be voted upon.

Here’s a list of some of the bills state representatives left on the table when they fled Harrisburg on Monday:

A constitutional amendment that would reduce the size of the House from 203 to 151 members;

A constitutional amendment that would reform legislative redistricting;

Legislation that would require subjects of court-ordered final protection from abuse orders to surrender all guns in their possession withing 24 hours; and

An anti-hazing bill that would require colleges and universities to publish reports that detail organizations’ track record of hazing, and gives prosecutors more flexibility in bringing charges against individuals who participate in and fining institutions that turn a blind eye to hazing.

You don’t have to support any of these bills to agree that they are all important proposals on which Pennsylvanians deserve answers.

Don’t like the idea of people being forced to surrender their guns? That’s a legitimate position. And wouldn’t you like to know exactly how each state legislator — men and women who are paid handsomely for their time — feels about the bill?

What about hazing? Is this kids just being kids, or has drinking and risky behavior on college campuses spiraled so far out of control that the state should revise its laws to punish such practices more robustly? You probably have an opinion. What about your state legislator?

Surely most of us have opinions about redistricting and the way in which Pennsylvania’s congressional voting districts were redrawn. What’s the best solution to this problem?

Whatever the answer is, enacting it will take a constitutional amendment — and that takes a long time to accomplish. When House members took to the exits Monday, they likely scuttled any chance of getting something done in time for the state’s legislative reapportionment in 2020. That effectively consigns Pennsylvanias to the same broken, politically corrupt system that produced unconstitutionally-gerrymandered voting maps in 2011.

At the end of the day, this is exactly why shrinking the size of the General Assembly — another measure which will require a constitutional amendment, and which was likely scuttled for good last Monday — is appealing to so many people.

House leaders excused the hasty exit by saying measures like the one that would have reduced the House’s size simply did not have the votes to pass. Perhaps, but why not bring the measure to the floor and force members to stand behind their convictions?

That’s not too much to ask from the nation’s largest and most-expensive lower chamber, on which Pennsylvanians spent millions of dollars each year.

That’s not money well-spent; Pennsylvanians aren’t getting a good return on their investments in elected officials.

Which is why shrinking the size of the state’s General Assembly will continue to be a very attractive option.