If asked to diagnose the Pennsylvania General Assembly, would family therapists describe Ozzie and Harriet or The Addams Family?

Voters have witnessed environmental polluters. Hustler magazine has called Sen. Lisa Boscola "Lisa Rum and Boscola" and "Senator Sot" due to her recent DUI. Following his arrest for drunken driving, the courts assigned State Rep. Michael Gruitza to a first-offenders program. Maybe their per diem package is just too fat, providing too much money for partying? Remember former Senator Russ Delp and the babe-on-a-boat fiasco paid for with taxpayer funds?

Rep. Jess Stairs recently referred to $200,000 as a "nominal" cost to taxpayers for reforming the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association. Busloads of taxpayers would love to have a "nominal" windfall of $200,000 for their retirement accounts, which, we bet, will end up smaller than the retirement accounts of legislators.

Tom Druce followed his sad, fatal motor vehicle accident with a public apology that sounded hollow. His remarks surprised even his sentencing judge.

Worried about public safety, Rep. Rosita Youngblood devoted herself to the threat of too many snakes at county fairs and festivals. She feared that when people wear snakes in public, around their necks or arms, that the reptiles are in a precarious environment. With so many people milling around, and all that cotton candy, the slimy things could bite someone. Youngblood’s House colleagues passed the measure 150-39. You go girl! Want to hold public hearings on my neighbor who rips off labels from her couch pillows?

Slicker than snakes are the alleged deals made for money — with one hitch: the deals were never meant to be cemented. Talk about "take the money and run". Then, in a stunning display of denial, one elected official ran for re-election while still under his jail sentence.

Now doing federal time, former State Representative Tracy Seyfert was described as a practicing witch by an individual who reportedly gave prosecutors information resulting in her conviction. Seyfert saw Y2K disaster in her tea leaves and, fearing power blackouts, made off with a huge electrical generator. Not long ago a House member allegedly removed the battery from his wife’s car leading her to file a Protection from Abuse Order against him.

Then, in a move they thought no one would notice, hill squatters wondered if they could sneak through a pay raise after the upcoming General Election but before concluding this year’s legislative session. A swindle of that proportion requires a haughty, snorting cynicism toward voters. To govern is to decide how tax revenues are spent. A pay raise this year is not a good decision, even if they could sneak it by us.

Supporters of "post election" legislation refer to a successful children’s health program passed during a previous lame duck period as an example of what can be accomplished during this down time. Agreed, no argument. But in that example, the lame duck process was used to benefit kids, not the wallets of incumbent elected officials, most of whom will run this time with no real opposition. At least three-quarters of Pennsylvania’s House and Senate incumbents up for re-election this year had no challengers in last May’s Primary election. Their pay raise, if passed, would cap a year in which seven members of the General Assembly had trouble with the law. It’s as if they hear the bell, but can’t find the clapper of decency.

State Rep. James Lynch (what a great name for what he has suggested) has asked the House of Representatives to appoint a "select committee" to consider "term limits" for House leadership positions. Perhaps term limits for all legislators, and other elected officials, might solve that problem. Term limits "within" the House leadership structure just means that a few more folks are eligible to rotate through the soiled thrones.

At any rate, the Pennsylvania General Assembly is on a collision course they just can’t steer themselves out of. They’ve taken all the "fun" out of dysfunctional. MODE asked professionals in human behavior to pontificate their views of the situation.

One psychologist said, "Wow, that’s a great angle for a story." Then he chose not to participate, fearing repercussions down the road. Perhaps Rep. Lynch will swing from on his own rope of reform?

A consistent theme in family therapy or "organizational" analysis contends that we can only understand individuals, in this instance the General Assembly, in the context of the larger group. "You cannot understand individuals without also understanding the systems in which they operate," explains psychologist Richard Ievoli, Ph.D., of Carlisle’s Stevens Mental Health Center. He notes there are layers of "reciprocal interactions" and "one behavior influences another."

Does Ievoli’s explanation mean that when younger, newly elected legislators see elders bend rules they learn that, unless you get caught, it’s customary to cut corners? Ernie Preate, Pennsylvania’s first elected Attorney General, who did time in federal prison for accepting illegal campaign contributions, is a case in point. After all his trials and tribulations, he had to be reminded not to hit up prisoners for money, allegedly as much as $500 in some cases, to support his prison reform work. Or maybe Preate is a "nature not nurture" example of recklessness. By "nature" I simply mean that’s who he is—before, during, and after all the money, his exposure to others had nothing to do with how he concluded his political career and how he later chose to conduct himself.

For all we know, he thought it was fair to ask prisoners for money. After all, he works to improve their admittedly awful conditions, not to mention his sympathetic voice in the death penalty debate.

"The standard we look for in a healthy family or system is the ‘balance of fairness’," says Ievoli. He further explains by saying, "There must be a give and take. Parents and siblings sacrifice in order to achieve goals and rewards." Perhaps this is what legislators mean when they defend their lavish car leases and per diems. We’ve often heard them say, and it is true, that they work three days a week in Harrisburg when in session and then return for two to three or more days work in their home districts, often on weekends and at the expense of quality time with their families. The whole set up affects everyone involved. Would a part-time legislative body with fewer perks calm down the ethical conflicts echoing from House and Senate chambers? Would their families be happier? Less affected in negative ways?

"It is self-evident that the ways in which a system or organization is structured affects individuals within it," explains Mark Heinly, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice who deals with family therapy. From there, the analogies are both good and bad. "For example," Heinly explains, "one could argue that the General Assembly is organized the way it is because of many years of proven experience."

The down side is that the cumulative effect of all that ritual may have dulled the organization’s sense of perspective. Does that explain why an elected official would describe $200,000 as a "nominal" amount of money when the median household income in Pennsylvania is $38,938, making his "nominal" figure equal about five years worth of salary for most Pennsylvania families? Of course, the amount is "nominal" as part of the state’s $19.4 billion annual budget. But that’s the point. Does all this ritual exposure to such large sums of money dull the common senses? The other perplexing part is that Republicans control both the House and Senate. Presumably, they are more in the court of "family values" that on its sidelines. How does this attitude about money, or their whole saga of seven legislators churning through the court system this past year, comport with those expressed values? Like the kids to whom they preach conservative family values would say: "What’s up with that?"

Parents make rules, yet each generation swears it will not, under any circumstance, repeat certain aspects of their own child rearing. Is Rep. Lynch saying, in effect, with his plea for a change in House leadership rules, that he wants to be the "parent" too, excepting in different ways? Is the cabal currently in control of House leadership rules blinded by its own entrenched power? Maybe it’s much simpler: men with power never yield it. Why should they? Yugoslavia’s Milosevich recently pulled a weasel and hid (somewhere) and said "No" to leaving office — even after war-weary citizens voted him out. Does that explain why one elected official refused to heed his colleagues’ numerous pleadings not to seek re-election because he was in jail?

Maybe the answer lies within how a family therapist might explain a deteriorating situation. "Often the identified patient is a symptom of the real problem in the family system," Ievoli explains. By analogy, perhaps the organization of the House and Senate is the real culprit — if it were part-time, not full-time, would that help? Fewer legislative days would dry up a juicy list of perks that apparently pays for lots of foolishness. With term limits for, at least, leadership posts, centers of power would rotate more frequently; allowing elected officials from every sector of Pennsylvania’s robust body politic to hold the reigns.

Heinly offers an expanded perspective on the situation. "We live with a World Wrestling Federation mentality. By watching him, viewers keep Jerry Springer on the air." Professional coaches are accused of choking players; players bad mouth fans that are "different"; athletes go on trial for murder. And elected officials play rough, get caught. Some go to jail.

Meanwhile, the lowest voter turnout in recent years is projected for November 7, a fact which leads Heinly to observe that "nothing happens in isolation".