Shannon Grove, a first-term Republican assemblywoman from Bakersfield, and initiative promoter Ted Costa are pushing an initiative for the November ballot that would make the Legislature a part-time body. Among its provisions, part-time lawmakers would be paid $6,000 a month for three monthlong sessions. Last week, we asked readers these questions:

Do you support or oppose a proposed part-time Legislature? Would it increase or decrease the influence of special interests? Would limiting the Legislature to three months improve or lower the quality of governance in California?

Here are some responses:

Less time to do damage

Perhaps if legislators were there for a shorter period of time, they would spend more time doing what we elected them to do.

Now they are more interested in partisan bickering that harms the state and delays the annual budget; wasting time and money on pre-three-day holiday weekend sessions to ensure they get their per diem; wasting time and money writing frivolous bills and proclamations; wasting taxpayer money on their ridiculous and punitive office shuffles; and spending millions of taxpayer dollars on their secret "office budgets."

Legislators work for us, not for themselves. It's time they learned that and did their jobs. They did not get that message from the institution of term limits. Maybe they would as a part-time Legislature.

– Chris Cummings, Sacramento

Return to citizen-legislators

I support a part-time Legislature because look at what lawmakers have done to this state being full time. We would only be half as upside-down if they were part time. It would decrease the influence of special interest groups because there would be fewer sessions.

The Legislature wastes time and spends our money 24/7, as it is now. Cutting them down to part-time wouldn't allow for wasted time.

Wasn't this how it was first formed? Come to the capital, do the job we pay you for and then go home to your day job.

Having it part time would open it up to more people who have that interest. It would be a great place for the hordes of retirees coming our way to put into place what would benefit the state the best.

– Bill Moore, El Dorado Hills

This isn't the solution

Returning to a part-time Legislature will not solve the problem.

In 1955, the California Legislature was in session for only 120 days, but still passed more than 2,000 bills that included many changes to the Vehicle Code. Such "productivity" today would produce almost 5,500 updates to the 2011 Vehicle Code.

The fundamental problem is not how much time they work, but how they spend their time.

I believe the ability to govern and the influence of lobbyists or special interests is determined by the character and integrity of the people we hire as legislators – regardless of the hours they are on the job.

– Dennis Clear, Sacramento

An alternative fix

Double the size of each district, and thus eliminate half of the representatives.

The present system was created when transportation restricted free movement, but today each legislator can easily reach his or her constituents and could serve many more of them. This would achieve a fine savings in the salaries of politicians and their bloated staffs.

Financially, that would approximate going to part-time, and the grateful politicians who remain may be encouraged to do the people's work more effectively and stay out of our personal lives. Make them appreciate their full-time jobs, so that they won't allow big businesses, special interests and their lobbyists to rule the state through the initiative process.

– Donald M. Polzin, Orland

Less sway for special interests

I absolutely support going back to a part-time Legislature. Far too many bills attempt to micromanage every aspect of our lives. A part-time Legislature would be forced to focus on the most important issues.

It would decrease the influence of special interests. A shortened legislative session will make it much harder for special interests to influence legislators to their point of view. Currently legislators spend most of their time in Sacramento – close to those special interests. A part-time Legislature would spend more time in their districts with their constituents.

We have forgotten that the quality of our government is not in proportion to the quantity of that government.

We introduced a full-time Legislature in the 1960s and have steadily increased the role of government in our lives. Legislators are out of touch with their constituents and far too beholden to the special interests.

– David L. Fear Sr., Citrus Heights

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

HOW TO SUBMIT

Online form (preferred): www.sacbee.com/sendletter

Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852

150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.

• Read more articles by