Articles

(March 2008) There has been much talk recently about a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania. To some, a convention represents an opportunity to modernize state and local government; others have particular issues they want addressed; and still others find the prospect of a convention daunting or even a threat to current policies or programs. Each perspective has merit – and illustrates the need for careful planning, administration and facilitation of a constitutional convention.

Given the limited experience in Pennsylvania with constitutional conventions and the public’s historic inclination to forestall them, most examples of conventions are found in other states. Many state constitutions require a periodic convention or include methods to routinely examine and update sections or clauses of the text. Other states, including Pennsylvania, tend to approach changes to their constitution in ways other than a convention, including amendments, legislation, or regulatory reform.

The first consideration is who will call the constitutional convention? Should this call originate with the legislature, the executive branch, or by citizens who choose to bypass the legislature? All options are possible; yet each brings its own set of expectations and desired outcomes to a constitutional convention. Pennsylvania history teaches that all groups need to be active and supportive for a convention to happen. Yet, in the absence of legislation calling for a convention, citizens of Pennsylvania can bypass that process and call a convention on their own. The probability of this approach is very low, owing to the resources and funding required for a successful convention—resources that would accompany a legislative proclamation.

It is also imperative to consider changes in technology and communications that have taken place since the last convention in Pennsylvania. Going forward, is a convention a meeting of all delegates in a single location, or will virtual conventions be the norm in the 21st century? Can a virtual convention provide the visibility, openness, and transparency demanded by the general public? Would holding “mini-conventions” across the state before a final convention be more effect and efficient? These are but the opening questions that will shape the logistics of a constitutional convention.

Selecting a meeting site or establishing a virtual network of delegates will not diminish the need to prepare materials for the convention. A great deal of this preparation will be required before the first assembly of delegates. Some topics that need to be determined include the following: 

• Who, or what group, sets the agenda and rules of order? 
• Who conducts the research and prepares the information for the delegates?
• Who has responsibility for the administration and logistical details of the convention?
• What specific support staff must be provided (legal, word processing, public relations, etc.)? 
• How frequent and how long are convention meetings? 
• What final products are expected from the delegates and when does the convention begin and end?

One of the most important issues to resolve before a convention is how delegates are selected to ensure a representative gathering of the Commonwealth’s diverse interests. Here the possibilities are many, but a final selection of delegates will be complex at best, or controversial at worst.

Leaders and facilitators should also expect technology and communications to influence the proceedings of the convention. When and how the media will be engaged is but the first of many decisions. More important will be how to inform, and possibly engage, the public during the debates and actions of the delegates. This will entail more than merely keeping the public informed as the convention progresses. How issues are presented and how constitutional changes are determined will later affect if the public accepts or rejects the results of the convention.

Logistics go beyond planning and facilitating the actual convention. There are many important post convention activities to plan for the two primary audiences of convention outcomes: the public and the legislature. It will be necessary to prepare and package the convention’s findings, deliberations, and recommendations for public use. It may also be necessary to provide background information and potential implications of the new Constitution.

Involving the legislature exponentially increases the need for information and analysis. But procedural matters also come into play. Will the legislature have the opportunity to amend or clarify recommendations created by the convention? Should recommendations be legislated through the amendment process? Will votes on recommendations be taken at one time, or in sequences—perhaps over several years or legislative sessions?

Finally, it is required that the voters accept changes to the Constitution. How, when, and in what sequence are the convention recommendations placed on the ballot? If the general assembly amends recommendations, should the public have the opportunity to vote on both the convention version and the legislative version of a reform?

It should be expected that convention outcomes and recommendations will be viewed and communicated in many interpretations. Can the convention establish a single point of non-partisan, objective information that allows the public to access information without the screen of bias? When all the planning is completed, the convention concluded, and the recommendations known, it will be up to the voters to debate the issues and make a choice. Proper logistics will have paved the way for informed debate and choice.