HARRISBURG -- There is a change in the calls for reform in the state General Assembly. They're coming from inside the Capitol.

Proposals that would force lobbyists to disclose their spending, reduce the number of legislators and require more openness in passing bills aren't new. What is new is the Jefferson Reform Initiative, a proposal put forth by an outspoken group of seven Republican House members.

To be sure, there's a long way to go before any such radical ideas are enacted by the tradition-bound Legislature.

But the GOP group carries clout because Republicans have controlled the House for the past decade. And it's significant that GOP back-benchers -- rank-and-file members -- are coming forward and risking the wrath of their powerful leaders.

A formidable obstacle likely will be House Speaker John Perzel, of Philadelphia, the most powerful of a group of stern, autocratic House leaders. Mr. Perzel has amassed influence during nearly 30 years in the chamber and presides over his 110-member Republican caucus by doling out money for local projects and re-election campaign funds to loyal members, meaning those who go along with his wishes.

The members of the group, named after the nation's third president, are GOP Reps. Curt Schroder and Carole Rubley, of Chester County, Scott Hutchinson, of Venango, Craig Dally, of Northampton, Katie True, of Lancaster, Stan Saylor, of York, and David Steil, of Bucks.

They say now is the time to try to enact change. They point to the ongoing public uproar over raises for the Legislature, administration officials and judges that were enacted under cloak of darkness in July. That furor led to repeal of the raises and spilled over into the November election, when voters took aim at Supreme Court justices seeking retention, the only incumbents running for statewide offices. Once Justice Russell Nigro was voted out, challengers started lining up against legislative incumbents up for re-election in 2006.

"The Legislature's image has suffered out there among the public because of the pay raise, the lack of a lobbyist disclosure law and other things," said Mr. Schroder. "We believe the way the General Assembly operates must be subject to strict scrutiny and reform. I can't predict that all or even some of what we seek will be enacted, but we are serious about it."

What the reformers have in mind amounts to a reversal of the concentration of power that's been going on with top House and Senate leaders over some 25 years.

Even though leaders owe their positions to a vote of the rank-and-file members at the start of each two-year session every other January, it's virtually unheard of for back-benchers to go public by insisting on such changes in legislative procedure.

Leaders are able to reinforce their power by controlling funds that contribute to members' re-election committees, by rewarding their rank-and-file supporters with choice committee chairmanships and by including in the budget "community development grants" so faithful members can fund local projects.

Mr. Schroder said he's had one "cordial" meeting with House leaders about the reforms. "There were no guarantees or commitments, but nothing was rejected," he said. "They listened."

Speaker Perzel didn't return phone calls, but Stephen Miskin, an aide to the No. 2 House leader, Majority Leader Sam Smith, said leaders "are always open to members' suggestions. Clearly, change occurs when the majority of the [Republican] caucus or the full House wants it to happen."

That was shown during the pay raise debate. For weeks, Mr. Perzel said he wouldn't bring a repeal bill to the floor for a vote unless there were 102 votes, or a majority of the House, in favor. Finally, in mid-November, after weeks of public pressure, members demanded a vote.

The seven legislators are now circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter asking other House members to join them in their desire for reform.

Legislators should "reverse the concentration of power in a few [leaders] and distribute it to the benefit of all members and the constituents we represent," the letter states.

Here are some of their proposals:

"Immediate passage" of a law requiring lobbyists to register with the state and disclose how much they spend trying to influence legislation.

Limiting a legislative committee chairman to three terms, or six years, in power.

Considering whether to hold a constitutional convention to recommend changes in the state constitution, something that hasn't happened since 1968.

Eliminating the three-week-long "lame duck" sessions held in even-numbered years, between the November election and the Nov. 30 adjournment.

Considering a reduction in the 203-member House and the 50-member Senate.

Amending the July 2004 slots law to prohibit elected officials from owning up to 1 percent of a casino or gambling company.

Limiting power of the House Rules Committee, which is controlled by Speaker Perzel, Majority Leader Smith, party whips and appropriations officials.

Currently, when a bill comes to the House from the Senate, it can be gutted in the Rules Committee and have its entire content changed, without the opportunity for rank-and-file members to amend it further or have public hearings held on it. It just can be voted up or down, without changes.

"That Rules Committee procedure is an abomination. It's an abuse of power," said Barry Kauffman, the head of Common Cause Pennsylvania.

He said many of the proposals from the new group, including the rule committee changes, are ideas his group has been advocating for years.

But Common Cause and other groups, such as the conservative think tank the Commonwealth Foundation, are outsiders, whereas the new group of seven are incumbent legislators.

Mr. Kauffman gives the band of seven some credit for taking a political risk by going public. "I believe these people are genuine and committed to a clean, effective governing process," Mr. Kauffman said.

Mr. Hutchinson said he has long wanted to scrap the three-week "lame duck" sessions that are held every other November. It's a time when leaders sometimes push controversial ideas, including pay raises, because lawmakers have just been re-elected and voters can't touch them for two more years.

"Much is done in the lame-duck sessions that is hidden from voter scrutiny," Mr. Hutchinson said. More than 30 states already forbid lame-duck sessions.

Whether any substantive changes in legislative procedure actually will happen isn't known yet. More House members will have to sign on, Mr. Hutchinson said, "but we thought we could get things started by putting our names on the line."

Harrisburg political activist Gene Stilp, who sued in July to stop the pay raises, said he's glad the reform group has sprung up, but said they should muster pressure from the public.

"I'm encouraged they're giving this a shot, but if they just operate inside this [Capitol] building, I'm not sure anything will happen," Mr. Stilp said. "There has to be more than just a 'Dear Colleague' letter. It has to be taken to the streets. They have to involve the public in order to win over intransigent leaders for reform or it will die on the vine."

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, doesn't think the proposed reforms go far enough. He'd like to prevent leaders from using the community development grants, colloquially called "walking around money," to reward faithful rank-and-file members for going along with leaders' wishes.

"A project should be based on merit, not favoritism," he said.

Others, such as Penn State University journalism professor Russ Eshelman, think the reforms should include limits on campaign funding.

Mr. Hutchinson said it's far too early to predict success for any of the reform ideas, but "the pay raise [furor] makes success more possible. More people see problems in the way we operate."

Mr. Kauffman added, "There hasn't been a better environment in the past quarter century for enacting these kind of reforms. Many legislators recognize the dry rot in the legislative process and the need to make changes.''

Tim Potts, of Carlisle, leader of a group called Democracy Rising Pa., which lobbied for repeal of the pay raise, said he thinks it was the defeat of Justice Nigro in the November election that really put fear into legislators. It showed that the public anger over the pay raise could have a practical political fallout, he said.

Mr. Hutchinson said the lobbyist regulation bill "is probably the first apple we can get a bite of," and would like to have something adopted by spring.

So far, however, Speaker Perzel says he doesn't see a need for such a bill.