Recently, the Pennsylvania Bonusgate grand jury issued a report which has received a great deal of media attention. This report had nothing to do with the specific criminal charges against specific individuals it investigated. This report was an extremely rare supplemental grand pronouncement on the state of our government, along with numerous recommendations for restructuring the entire Legislature.

The methodology, conclusions and recommendations of the report are, in many respects, dead wrong.

First, let me concede that bashing the Legislature is effortless. Like any profession, we have our bad apples and it is lazy but easy to generalize their conduct to everyone. Further, because virtually every citizen is unhappy with some of our policy decisions, it's not difficult for a candidate for governor or other office to glean votes by pandering to those who think that only people who are corrupt or stupid could make the decisions we make.

That said, it is important that the following also be said: The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania's legislators, on both sides of the aisle, are extremely smart, hard-working, completely honest people who are doing their level best to make Pennsylvania a better place.

The notion that legislators are, (except for rare exceptions) corrupt in any way is plain false. And thus any "reforms" based on this notion are ill-grounded.

The grand jury spent months investigating the criminal conduct of a few legislators. It is understandable that with this as their focus, they became cynical. They didn't spend a great deal of time talking to the 99 percent of lawmakers not accused of a crime about what they do. Why would they?

But because the grand jury's methodology was incomplete given its self-appointed role as the re-inventor of state government, its members' factual findings were often inaccurate. And given that, the recommendations based upon those findings were, for the most part, ill-conceived.

An example of a sloppy factual assertion is that an "overwhelming majority" of legislators care more about serving themselves than serving their constituents.

There is no support offered for such a mind-reading claim and, after eight years as a legislator, I know it simply isn't true.

They also say being a Pennsylvania legislator should not qualify as full-time work. Wrong again. Most legislators spend 70 to 80 hours per week, every week, at their jobs and still struggle to keep up.

Inaccurate information leads to poor recommendations. Sure, some of the technical suggestions, such as consolidating House printing offices, might have merit, but their broad policy suggestions would do great harm to our state if implemented.

For example, a part-time Legislature is a terrible idea. We make decisions affecting tens of billions of dollars in complicated policy areas such as transportation, health care, criminal justice and economic development. In some matters, such as abortion, the death penalty and access to medical care, our decisions literally have life and death consequences.

Do you really want people making these decisions who just dropped by on their way to taking a deposition or after their shift at Macy's? Shouldn't we demand our legislators actually take the time to read about issues, go to hearings, meet with advocates, tour facilities and do all of things that require a full-time commitment?

In some cases the grand jury's recommendations don't even make sense on their own terms. They bemoan the fact that House members have to run for re-election every two years and suggest expanding their terms to four years. But then, "to limit the damage they can do" they suggest allowing a recall of legislators. Which means that House members would be running not every two years but every day as those who didn't vote for the member in the first place could constantly put recall questions on the ballot.

Similarly, the grand jury recommends that legislators forfeit pay if the state budget is not passed on time. This is perhaps the most nonsensical and plain awful idea of all.

The grand jury says it wants lawmakers to think about their constituents and not themselves, and then suggests a scheme that will force the exact opposite. If there is a budget that is bad for my constituents, I should feel free to vote "no" on that budget without worrying that I won't be able to provide for my family.

We would literally be paying legislators if they vote "yes" on a bill and not paying them if they vote "no." Usually this is called bribery, which doesn't sound like the best reform idea.

Space precludes a comprehensive reply to the grand jury report. But it is worth repeating that while Legislature-bashing may be good fun, it ceases to be harmless when it results in pernicious policies. It may not be popular to stand up for the good people doing important work in Harrisburg. But if more of us don't do it, our institution and the people of our commonwealth will suffer.

Cartoonist Rob Rogers does "Rob's Rough," an early look at his work and his creative process, exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.