Elected lawmakers, including re-elected incumbents and Election Day winners who will not take office until January, have already thumbed their noses at voters who want significant change in the way Harrisburg does business.

In closed-door meetings, Demo-crats and Republicans retained ther respective party leaders, in what must be a blow to legislative reform. The changed makeup of the General Assembly acomplished by voters and a record number of retirements means little if the leadership continues the same practices of arrogance, entitlement, and resistance to calls for reform.

By selecting the same leaders who helped produce the controversial pay-raise vote of July 2005 and endorsed the use of unvouchered expenses to take the extra pay before the state constitution allows, Harrisburg lawmakers, both old and new, have effectively and collectively ignored the message of the 2006 elections — change.

Harrisburg activist Gene Stilp, who championed the effort to elect newcomers to office, said after the leadership vote, "The people of Pennsylvania lost today because the people who controlled the agenda of the past still control it for the future."

Top veteran lawmakers involved in producing the controversial pay hike of 2005, such as Philadelphia Republican John Perzel (who has served as House speaker) and Democrat H. Willliam DeWeese of Waynesburg (who is House minority leader) will retain their leadership positions and power.

Holding the selection for party leadership just a week after the general election seems mostly to serve the interests of incumbent leaders. And state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, was correct in suggesting that the leadership election be delayed so that the newly elected representatives could have gotten a chance to know the candidates for the positions.

While different party leadership would have provided the greatest hope for change and reform, there still is a chance that the high number of new representatives in the House and close victories for some incumbents will provide motivation for change — despite leadership's preference for the status quo.

The topics for reform should include issues highlighted in a recent newsletter from Democracy Rising PA, which notes that lame duck sessions in Harrisburg cost taxpayers about $30,000 a day for lawmakers' per diems — that is, payments on top of their salaries and free, catered meals.

Tim Potts, co-founder of Democracy Rising, highlighted the king of per diems — retiring Rep. Gaynor Cawley, D-Scranton, who claimed 210 per diems (for a year with only 80 actual session days) amounting to $27,666 in 2005. According to Potts, Cawley's per diems exceeded the salaries of lawmakers in 30 other states that year. It's worth noting that his per diem income of $27,666 was in addition to his salary of close to $70,000.

The per diems for Pennsylvania legislators are intended to reimburse lawmakers for their expenses while working in Harriburg, but no receipts for actual expenses are required. Sensible reform might require actual receipts for expense reimbursement, just as every private business requires.

Lawmakers, both new and returning, also should consider the fact that Pennsylvania is the only state where lawmakers have exempted themselves from the state's open records law. Another reform issue to address would be the fact that Pennsylvania is ranked by the Better Government Association as one of the three worst in the nation in terms of citizens' access to public records. This condition makes it harder for citizens to find out how government spends taxpayers' dollars and how laws are made.

Based on the public outcry over the stealthy, middle-of-the-night pay raise vote of 2005 and the use of bogus expense reports, it is clear that Pennsylvanians want a state government that is open and transparent in terms of allowing the public to observe and have input into the law-making process.

Widespread disgust over the most costly state legislature in the nation has demonstrated that citizens also are concerned with how state lawmakers spend taxpayers' dollars — including the $100 million slush fund controlled by party leadership.

The reform movement in Pennsylvania is not over. The 2006 election defeats of many incumbents was just another step, not the end.

Voters have made it clear that they will hold lawmakers accountable. And voters will be watching to see what the General Assembly now does and how it conducts business in the future.