It was in October 2005 that state Sen. John Pippy, R-Allegheny, introduced a bill to reduce the size of the state legislature.

It was Tuesday — about 10 months later — that a public hearing was held on the proposal.

Lawmakers wouldn't have gotten in so much hot water with the voters last year if they had been so methodical prior to voting on an outrageous pay raise for themselves and other state officials. Instead, they acted in haste, in the middle of the night, with no prior notice of their intent, and without debate.

But regarding a smaller legislature, better late than never.

Although the idea of trimming the legislature's size raises some understandable concerns in some areas of the state, the benefits of a smaller, presumably more efficient legislature would outweigh those fears.

The question now is whether the General Assembly will move forward with the idea, based on the testimony collected at Tuesday's hearing, or whether the full Senate and House of Representatives will opt for their own collective self-interests and allow the proposal to die.

It was made clear during the hearing that there is much support across the commonwealth for a smaller state government.

State residents should become as involved in applying pressure for this change as they were in directing anger at lawmakers regarding last summer's sleazy pay action.

As the record shows, residents' involvement in the aftermath of that pay vote on July 7, 2005, did have an impact; lawmakers repealed the raises last fall.

The reduction in the size of the General Assembly called for in Pippy's measure is the kind of reduction that would be in the state's best interests. The Pippy legislation is aimed at reducing the number of senators to 30 from 50; the number of House members would decrease to 121 from 203.

It has been estimated that the reductions would cut the cost of state government by $77 million to $92 million and make the legislature more efficient.

Having fewer members also might scale back the partisanship that consistently bogs down the legislative process. "Efficiency" is a word not now associated with the General Assembly, which becomes bogged down on issues big and small.

It would be necessary to change the state constitution in order to reduce the legislature's size. Constitutional amendments are required to pass two consecutive sessions of the legislature and then be approved in a voter referendum.

Lawmakers' willingness to gamble on a vote that eventually could put some of them out of office is impossible to gauge. But if lawmakers really want to show that they have the state's best interests in mind, they will not block this issue from reaching the voters.

While minority voters in urban areas, as well as farmers in rural areas, might fear that reducing the number of lawmakers would reduce representation of their particular interests, those voters' concerns could be minimized by better attention to campaign issues and candidates' positions on those issues, and strong voter turnouts to achieve their preferred representation.

Limiting the number of days the legislature is permitted to be in session and compensation cuts tied to fewer legislative days also would work to the state's and taxpayers' benefit, but a scaling-back of the size of the legislature should be the first order of business.

Pippy should continue working hard to build support for his proposal — and for "yes" votes by the full membership of the House and Senate.

By acting favorably before the end of the year, the legislature would jump-start the process of making a streamlined legislature reality instead of just a distant dream.