Inside the General Assembly, this constitutional requirement is known simply as "First Tuesday." So at the appointed hour on Jan. 3, several of us who work for better state government convened in the visitors' gallery of the House of Representatives to watch.

	Timothy Potts is co-founder of Democracy Rising PA.

If you had tuned your television to the Pennsylvania Cable Network, you would have seen House Speaker John Perzel, R-Philadelphia, bang the gavel and bring the House to order. He immediately recognized "the gentleman from Washington County, Mr. Daley" (Rep. Peter J. Daley II, D-Donora), who moved that the House adjourn the session day that stretched over the Christmas and New Year's break.

The speaker intoned that the motion had passed on a voice vote, and then convened First Tuesday as required by the constitution. The House recessed at 12:05 p.m. after recording 57 actions on 26 bills by voice vote.

That's what you were allowed to see because PCN can't control the cameras. What you didn't see was that Speaker Perzel was having visual and auditory hallucinations.

There was no Mr. Daley. In fact, not a single elected representative other than the speaker was in the chamber. So when the "ayes" out-polled the "nays," it was by the slimmest of margins -- that is, zero. And by this same margin, other business occurred by voice vote without a single voice voting. The constitutionally required session was a fabrication and fraud.

Our representatives (and senators) take an oath to "obey" the constitution. The constitution requires them to show up for work on exactly one day a year. Yet despite abundant work to do and an oath taken on a holy book to do it, only the speaker among 203 representatives was there.

Showing up for work is a small thing. Millions of Pennsylvanians do it every day or don't get paid. But that's not the life of a lawmaker. Lawmakers get paid whether they show up or not.

If lawmakers can't exhibit integrity in the small things, how much confidence can we have that they will exhibit integrity in the large things?

So 2006 has not begun very well in the General Assembly. But as 2005 proved, we citizens have the power and authority to end 2006 better than it began.

We can make 2006 the "Year of Integrity" in Pennsylvania politics by insisting that Pennsylvania have the highest standards of public integrity in America. Is that too much to ask?

We already see in this election year candidates talking about issues of integrity. Gov. Ed Rendell recently proposed (and at least one of his opponents opposed) reforming how candidates raise money for their campaigns. Others have talked about controlling lobbyists, opening public records to the public and preventing election fraud.

But it's all as honest as First Tuesday in the House if it doesn't provide Pennsylvania with the highest standards of public integrity in America. Only by embracing that standard should candidates earn our confidence. Only by achieving that standard should incumbents feel they deserve re-election. Is that too much to ask?

All of us -- media, candidates, citizens -- should put any proposal to the same test: "Does this proposal give Pennsylvania the highest standards of public integrity in America?" If not, those making the proposal should have more work to do if they want to earn our votes.

If 2006 is the Year of Integrity -- and especially if it is not -- it also must become the year in which we prepare for a citizens' constitutional convention no later than 2007.

People are eager to talk about their government and how to make it respond to today's realities. People want to debate and decide whether to:

• Cut the size of the Legislature or return to a part-time Legislature.
  
• Ban gifts from lobbyists.
  
• Put a guarantee of open government in the constitution.
  
• Consolidate local governments and school districts.
  
• Prohibit post-election lawmaking (as 39 other states have done).
  
• Change how legislative districts are drawn.
  
• Limit the terms of legislators or legislative leaders.
  
• Authorize citizen initiative, referendum and recall.
  
• Alter how salaries are determined for public officials.
  
• Allow for the appointment, rather than election, of judges.
  
• Limit how much money legislative candidates can raise from outside their districts.
  

And many other ideas and issues.

This should be the year when we plan for a constitutional convention whose agenda builds from the bottom up, not the top down. A convention where all ideas for improving how we enact, enforce and interpret the laws receive a fair hearing, and no idea is rejected merely because it threatens the political status quo. A convention where all citizens, not just the politically connected, have the same opportunity to be chosen by their fellow citizens to serve.

2006 has not begun with integrity, but it can end as The Year of Integrity. In this election year, let's put the question to all incumbents and their challengers: Is that too much to ask?