Talk of major legislative reforms in Montana, spurred by the rancorous 2007 session, dominated the two-day Burton K. Wheeler Center conference in Helena last week.

Speakers made repeated calls for repealing term limits and switching to annual legislative sessions.

In the end, however, some relatively minor procedural changes might be more likely to be achieved.

One idea that wouldn't require a single change to the Montana Constitution or state law might ensure that the disaster that was the 2007 regular legislative session never repeats itself. That would be for legislators, and Gov. Brian Schweitzer, to follow the Golden Rule by treating others, regardless of their political party, as they would like to be treated.

One audience member, Don Loranger, of Bigfork, who lost a Republican Senate primary race in 2006, decried the "food fight'' he read about at the split 2007 Legislature and the unprecedented level of "rancor and nastiness and trickery.''

His sound advice to legislators was: "I would suggest you ramp up your style and grace.''

Former legislative leaders talked about how they could fight it out on the floor with the opposing party leaders by day, but later enjoy a drinks and a meal together at night. These friendships kept the doors open for the inevitable compromises needed to bring a session to close.

Some major ideas requiring constitutional amendments and public votes might be tough sells to an electorate that flunked the 2007 Legislature in a Lee Newspapers poll after the session. Oddly enough, however, voters strongly approved of some of the session's major actions.

A number of speakers suggested repealing Montana 1992 constitutional amendment that limits to eight years the time legislators (and statewide elected officials) can serve in that office. Legislators, however, can switch chambers and the term-limits clock starts anew. Some called for extending term limits for legislators to 12 or 16 years.

But chances are slim that Montana voters would junk term limits or even extend them, unless both major political parties and the wide spectrum of interest groups lined up solidly behind this effort and donated lots of money. Polls show the public seems to like term limits just fine.

By a two-thirds margin, Montana voters approved the term limits constitutional amendment in 1992. Twelve years later, 69 percent of the voters rejected a ballot measure to extend legislative term limits to 12 years.

In a unanimous 2002 decision, the Montana Supreme Court rejected an attempt by some ex-legislators to throw out term-limits.

Political scientist Craig Wilson of Montana State University-Billings predicted "an uphill battle'' to convince Montanans to toss out term limits.

As several speakers did point out, term limits have deprived the Legislature of experienced lawmakers and leaders. Some blamed the 2007 session on term limits, saying some relatively green legislators advanced to leadership without proper seasoning.

Alan Rosenthal, a Rutgers University political scientist and authority on state legislatures, encouraged Montana to take another run at repealing term limits through an initiative, even though it would be difficult.

"It would probably require the right alignment of the sun and the planets,'' he said.

Yet some speakers said term limits had opened the legislative halls to new people with new ideas.

"I come from Butte,'' Democratic Rep. Art Noonan said. "I never would have come to the Legislature without term limits.''

Others suggested replacing Montana's 90-day, every-other-year session with two 45-day annual sessions. Some favored switching to a Wyoming-type system, with a 30-day budget session one year and a 60-day meeting the next year for general legislation.

Montanans already have rejected annual sessions a couple of times. After watching the 2007 session at work, it's unlikely they would want to see that occur every year.

Under current law, the Legislature convenes in early January in odd-numbered years, just two months after the November election. The leaders of the respective chambers, Senate President Mike Cooney, D-Helena, and House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, agreed it might be better to move the legislative session to the even-numbered year 14 months after the election. Interim legislative committee work could help prepare new lawmakers for the session, they said.

However, scheduling the session during an election year seems like a recipe for disaster. Both major political parties would be sending out nasty-grams to voters, criticizing individual legislators' votes throughout the session. At the same time, lawmakers would be raising campaign funds from the very lobbyists whose bills are before the Legislature.

A better idea might be to keep legislative sessions in odd-numbered years, but delay the start to early February to give lawmakers another month between the election and the start of the session.

Another idea was encouraging legislators from opposing parties, particularly the leaders, to develop better working relationships with their counterparts in the opposite party, as past lawmakers did.

One of the most encouraging signs was that Cooney and Sales, after a contentious regular session and a May special session marked by little communication, finally have developed a decent working relationship, despite their political differences. Their meeting during the September special session produced the compromise that enabled the Legislature to get in and out of town in a single day and pay the state's firefighting bills.

This Sales-Cooney relationship could go a long way toward a much improved 2009 session if both of them are in leadership positions again.

State Bureau Chief Chuck Johnson: 443-4920 or

chuck.johnson@lee.net.