Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives should reject a rules change that would allow members to vote on bills while they're not actually in the House chamber.

A rules change that would permit absentee voting is expected to be considered by the House after lawmakers return for the start of the new two-year session on Monday.

The House Ethics Committee recommended the change last June after clearing Rep. William W. Rieger, a veteran Philadelphia lawmaker, of breaking House rules. Rieger was recorded as voting seven times on Feb. 3, even though he had left the Capitol and returned to his Philadelphia home.

The panel found that Rieger had filed a request for a legislative leave of absence for the day in question but that the request had not been relayed to the chief clerk of the House.

The Rieger case and any past "ghost voting" aside, the House should stick with current rules that require members to be present on the floor in order to vote, with no exceptions. The government watchdog group Common Cause of Pennsylvania is right that the proposed change "would weaken the integrity of the vote."

"It doesn't happen very often, but I've seen people reconsider how they vote after a compelling floor debate," said Barry Kauffman, Common Cause executive director. "That can't happen if they are not on the floor."

Even more basic is that elected lawmakers are being paid to represent their constituents in legislative sessions - when and where legislative business is being officially transacted. It would be unwise to tamper with such an expectation, if the legislative process is to avoid disruptions.

Opening the door to routine absenteeism would, over time, turn House floor business into a sham. Members would find more and more excuses for not being present on the floor.

Some lawmakers argue that the option would be for votes dealing with routine matters, but there could be no guarantee that the absenteeism would not spread to non-routine matters.

Meanwhile, there is an obligation tied to the per-diem pay lawmakers receive - that they do what they are being paid to do. If they choose to not be present, they should not receive that pay.

According to House Speaker John M. Perzel, the proposed change wouldn't free lawmakers from the obligation of being present for the master roll call taken at the beginning of each individual session. However, he said, anyone seeking to attend to other business inside the Capitol after that could be excused by requesting a special leave.

There have been troubling instances in the past when lawmakers have admitted voting on proposed legislation without being fully familiar with it, or not having read it, even though they attended legislative sessions. That lack-of-familiarity-and-understanding scenario portends to become more frequent if lawmakers are given the opportunity to be away from their seats as a matter of routine.

Constituents back home shouldn't be misled into believing that their representative is really engaged in legislative action when, in fact, that is not true.

- J.R.K.