The hundreds of state residents who expressed their opinions about the operation of the state House of Representatives via an e-mail poll deserve praise. Both the House and the Senate need to receive more of the kinds of views that were presented in the poll in question, which was launched by the Speaker's Commission on Legislative Reform.

As the commission learned, state residents have much to say — and most isn't complimentary.

According to information released to the Associated Press, the e-mails provided strong proof of the public's frustration over the way state government has been operating. Many of the e-mails were critical of lawmakers' perks, such as per-diem pay, generous pensions, state-paid automobiles and health care coverage.

Others were critical of lawmakers' contacts with lobbyists, the secretive nature of caucus meetings and lawmakers casting votes without actually being on the House floor.

Some e-mails called for a reduction in the size of the legislature.

A theme of many of the e-mails was that residents would be watching closely what transpires in the legislature in the months ahead. Indeed, that is a must, if reforms are going to happen.

The overriding message from the poll seems to be that things had better change, if lawmakers want to remain in their legislative positions.

That's exactly the right message.

Some state senators on an oversight committee already are criticizing a pilot program designed to determine whether closing state police stations to the public on nights and weekends will be detrimental to state residents' best interests.But there is nothing wrong with the state police periodically reviewing their operations. Times change; needs change.It can't be a surprise to anyone that the basis for the pilot program is to determine how much money might be saved.The ultimate goal of the program isn't to close any of the 81 state police stations but to determine whether the state police really need the amount of clerks that the state police agency currently employs.According to Col. Jeffrey B. Miller, state police commissioner, having someone at every station at all hours costs the state's taxpayers nearly $18 million annually.The pilot program, which was initiated in mid-December at the busy Skippack station in Montgomery County near Philadelphia, requires after-hours visitors to use a phone to speak with state police at a Philadelphia call center. The department installed 16 cameras for remote monitoring of the building.Butler's city officials are weighing a similar situation, trying to determine whether some desk sergeants can be returned to patrol duty by having calls to the police department answered by the county's 911 center, and having police headquarters open to the public only during normal business hours.Senators opposed to the state police pilot effort fear it might have negative effects on public safety. But that's what a pilot program is all about — to determine what will work and what won't.State lawmakers shouldn't make premature conclusions. They should reserve judgment until the pilot program has run its full course.

Many Pennsylvania residents might think state House Majority Leader William DeWeese deserves a cheer for ending the practice of providing catered lunches to Democratic members of the General Assembly's lower chamber at taxpayers' expense. But DeWeese deserves no such thing. For years he condoned a practice that allowed lawmakers to double-dip. It worked as follows:Lawmakers who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol are eligible for $148 a day for food and lodging in Harrisburg. On the one hand, lawmakers were receiving the stipend, but then they were not having to pay for these lunches, because the catered lunches were paid for by the taxpayers by way of caucus leadership accounts.But DeWeese isn't the only culprit; the same situation has existed for Republican lawmakers.There was no immediate indication of whether the GOP also would end its catered lunches after DeWeese made his announcement.DeWeese's spokesman, Tom Andrews, said the majority leader's decision was part of his efforts "to change the way things are being done in Harrisburg." But in the announcement, Andrews didn't admit that DeWeese is one of the reasons why such questionable spending of taxpayers' money had been permitted in the first place.For state residents to believe that DeWeese truly wants change, the Greene County Democrat will have to come forth with many more ideas for making the legislature more transparent and accountable.He hasn't even touched the surface yet.