There's at least a chance that former Democratic House Speaker Bill DeWeese and former Republican House Speaker John Perzel could meet up behind bars this week.

DeWeese on Monday began serving time for public corruption with processing and paperwork at Dauphin County Prison in Harrisburg. He might already be in (or on his way to) the nearby State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill where Perzel is being held for what's called "diagnostic evaluation and programming" before being sent off to his "home" institution.

Perzel reported April 24. Processing, according to state corrections officials, takes four to six weeks, so the two have a chance of bumping into each other. Both are sentenced to roughly two to five years in separate scams involving using tax dollars for political campaigns.

DeWeese, as he was entering prison, told a Harrisburg TV news crew the following:

“I just want to say three things. One, I’m going to behave myself and obviously conform to the protocols of the institution; two, I’m going to stay in tip-top physical condition; and third and finally, I’m going to make some new friends."

(I don't even want to think about that third thing.)

There's also a chance, each former leader could meet up with other colleagues later.

Former House Democratic Whip Mike Veon (convicted in two corruption cases) is in Laurel Highlands in southwestern Pennsylvania. Former Lycoming County GOP Rep. Brett Feese (who's also a former DA and headed the House Republican Campaign Committee) is in Waymart in the far northeastern section of the state.

There are 27 state correctional facilities (hey, we need a lot of room just for our pols), only two of which are for women (another argument for more women in public life).

So soon-to-be former state Sen. Jane Orie (a one-time member of GOP Senate leadership), who's awaiting sentencing, gets either Cambridge Springs in the far northwest or Muncy in the state's north central area.

Former Democratic Senate Leader Bob Mellow is also awaiting sentencing, but on federal charges. There's an outside chance he could end up with former Democratic Senate powerhouse Vince Fumo, who's serving his term in a federal prison in Ashland, Kentucky.

I'm sure these folks would just love to hang out together behind bars, you know, like they used to hang out together in front of bars.

Then again, I'm betting lots of taxpayers hope that their incarerated former public servants "make some new friends."

Each year around this time we see reports of gifts given to our elected officials and each year it furthers the impression that public service in PA too often is more about perks than it is about serving the public.

This is such an easy thing to fix: ban gifts.

The Inky reported Saturday that Gov. Corbett got about $800 worth of tickets to NFL playoff games and a Pittsburgh Penguins game; $10,141 to attend conferences and meetings, mostly paid for by the Republican Governors Association; and $1,405 for use of a private plane, paid for by the head of a group of cosmetology schools, to attend an event in Pittsburgh.

Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley got about $250 worth of Phillies tickets.

This stuff is common.

Philly Sen. Vince Hughes got a $4,000 trip to West Africa. Philly Rep. Dwight Evans got $2,000 worth of tickets for an Academy of Music event, and $4,324 for a South Africa trip.

Senate President Joe Scarnati got Super Bowl tickets in 2010 from a major energy company, which he said he'd pay back. And then-Gov. Rendell took $2,000 worth of hotel rooms in New York and Washington for appearances on national TV news shows. 

This is all legal, though 10 states ban gifts.

Pennsylvania should join the list.

Public perception of public service in this state is already tainted: by an ongoing line of elected officials led off to prison; by the pay, perks and pensions of the nation's largest full-time Legislature; by the wide-open, no-limits on campaign contributions, etc., etc.

The acceptance of gifts further separates elected officials from those they are elected to serve, the vast majority of whom will never have the opportunities for such gifts.

Whether it's a trip abroad or great seats at a professional sporting event, it conveys a sense of entitlement and creates at least the potential for conflicts of interests.

I'm not saying those named here, or on other gift lists, govern or vote differently because they accept gifts. I'm saying banning gifts is one small way to begin to restore some confidence in the simple notion that public service is a higher calling -- and about what one can give, rather than what one can get.

(A brief discussion twixt Baer & Baer's editor, a.k.a. BE)

JB: Yo, boss, the political pot is full these days; anything to your liking?

BE: Not really. Mostly stale, dried-out, over-cooked leftovers.

JB: Prez on gay marriage?

BE: Oh, yeah, real shocker. Fresh out of the no-duh oven. And served up with no political intent, I'm sure.

JB: Getting lots of attention.

BE: Yeah, so's the weather; but it, too, changes.

JB: Santorum's late-night Romney endorsement?

BE: Oh, right. Wanted it to be "the first thing" his backers saw in the morning. Who's he kidding? By morning, most email folders are crammed with overnight groupon ads and Orvis sales.

JB: John Edwards' trial?

BE: What? It's news that His Hairness had a tawdry affair, an out-of-wedlock baby and soaked a rich old lady to pay for a coverup? It tastes like a bad soap opera. Yuck. And yawn.

JB: Corbett standing his ground on state budget numbers even as Senate Republicans add more spending for education and human services?

BE: Predictable. He already signed stand-your-ground gun legislation. So that's a default reaction to everything. But eventually he'll just close his eyes and sign a budget bill with more spending than he proposed.

JB: But, listen, you gotta love the Allegheny County DA looking to get our favorite female felon from the west, convicted and soon-to-be-former state Sen. Jane Orie, to pay back $1 million-plus in tax dollars used for her defense.

BE: Well, sure, the aroma of the intent is enticing and I've always wondered how the Legislature gets away with using tax dollars and outside law firms to represent members under criminal investigation. But, realistically, is a local court going to overturn Senate rules? And if so, do we then go back and seek reimbursement from others -- Fumo, Veon, DeWeese, Perzel, etc. -- who got legal counsel paid for by taxpayers during investigations into their behavior?

JB: Well, yeah. That would be tasty.

BE: Come on. Now you're just stiring the pot.

At a time when so many public problems go unaddressed, when so much of government seems ineffectual, it's nice to stumble across something government's done that actually seems to work.

The state Supreme Court, for example, just released the latest data on medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania that shows action taken years ago continues to produce results.

Such lawsuits, once a staple of big-money payouts -- especially in Philadelphia where courts were clogged with cases and lawyers hit Vegas-level jackpots -- impact health costs and  force doctors to over-test and spend more time in depositions than in patient care.

The problem, a decade ago, was spinning wildly out of control.

That's when the state court did two things: required attorneys to get certificates of merit from medical professionals as proof a legitimate case existed and put an end to "venue shopping" to cut down on cases brought in Philly courts known for high awards.

The result? There is, as of 2011, a 44% decline in med-mal filings statewide since 2002, and a 65% decline in Philly.

In 2002, there were 2,904 filings statewide (almost half in Philly); in 2011, there were 1,528 statewide, 418 in Philly. Here's a county-by-county chart released by the court.

Chief Justice Ron Castille said, "What we’re seeing is essentially a leveling off in what had been a growing decline in numbers that is not surprising. Although the numbers are likely to show slight changes in the years ahead, the pattern suggests a solid footing for the systematic tracking and rule changes initiated and instituted a decade ago by the Supreme Court to address concern over medical malpractice litigation.”

As a veteran cynic and general critic of almost all that government does, I find it's nice to  once in a while see something that actually works.

If you're on a pension or wish you were, or if you put a chunk of every paycheck into a retirement plan, you probably shouldn't read this.

It could cause you a little tension.

It is just another example of how your isolated, greedy state legislature takes care of itself at the risk and ruination of others.

And it's a classic example of bad decisions coming home to roost.

Back in 2001, then-Gov. Ridge and lawmakers worked out a state pension boost givng legislators a 50 percent hike in benefits and other state and school retirees a 25 percent hike.

Guess who pays? Yep. Taxpayers are on the hook this year for more than $1 billion, an annual amount projected to grow to $4 billion by 2016 as more and more state employees and teachers retire.

Your current governor and legislature say this expense cannot be sustained, so they plan someday, some way to do something about it.

We all should live so long.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports the number of state and school retirees pulling $100,000-plus per year pension payments doubled in the last five years to 658 lucky oldsters.

And some of our former public servants get more than $300,000 per year.

(I said you probably shouldn't read this.)

Top takers include 55 former judges and court employees, 8 former lawmakers, 103 former Penn State professors and administrators and 300-plus former public school administrators.

The paper lists some top dogs.

Stephen J. Benkovic, retired PSU chem prof: $443,879 per year.

Irene Mitchell, retired East Stroudsburg University arts prof: $332,699 per year.

Gary C. Schultz, retired PSU veep awating trial related to Sandusky case: $330,699

(And not long ago, I offered the example of former Philly state Rep. Frank Oliver: $286,118.)

So, you know, next time around you might want to consider public service as a career choice.

Convicted state Sen. Jane Orie, a member of the Legislature since 1997, a past member of Senate leadership and a one-time potential candidate for state attorney general, plans to resign her Senate seat before her scheduled May 21 sentencing on 14 corruption counts.

To which all taxpayers shout, "ORIE-VEDERCI!"

She remains on the state payroll despite her conviction March 26 -- almost two years after she was charged with illegally using her office for political gain -- because lawmakers do not have to step down until the day they are sentenced.

This week, Orie's attorney, William Costopoulos, filed a motion in Allegheny County seeking a two-month delay in sentencing to allow time to better prepare pre-sentence arguments seeking leniency in the form or witnesses and testimonial letters.

The prosecution said it opposes the delay. A decision is forthcoming.

The good news is, the sooner she leaves, the sooner taxpayers can save some money. The bad news is she's already eaten up a ton of taxpayer dough.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports (and the story also ran in the Chicago Tribune) that Orie has collected $8,400 in pay since her March conviction; cost taxpayers more than $43,000 in jury and county overtime expenses amassed during two trials (the first ended in a mistrial), and Senate officials say $1.2 million in public money was spent on outside legal fees related to a long investigation of Orie because accused lawmakers are entitled to legislative resources until they are officially charged.

Still unresolved are the futures of two Orie sisters, state Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin and Melvin's former employee Janine Orie. The latter faces trial on the same kinds of corruption charges Jane was hit with; and it's been reported that Justice Joan is the target of an investigation related to those charges.

The sisters made a New York Times editorial March 16 as a national example of why state's should seriously think about appointing rather than electing statewide judges.

It's nice that we can offer up governing guidance to the country. Be nicer if it didn't cost us so much.

(A brief discussion twixt Baer & Baer's editor, a.k.a. BE)

BE: Hey, JB, see that Mitt and Rick are set to meet on Friday?

JB: Yep. Undisclosed location. No press. No photo-ops. No endorsement.

BE: So what does Rick want?

JB: Aides say he doesn't want money to help retire about $1 million in campaign debt.

BE: Well, Newt will ask for that.

JB: And, reportedly, he won't be asking for a prime-time speaking role at the Republican national convention.

BE: Well, ya gotta figure they'll give him that. Say around 3 a.m. Eastern time.

JB: So maybe what he just wants party platform input.

BE: Uh-oh.

JB: What?

BE: Could be wild. Could be life-begins-at-erection stuff. Could be military funding to protect the Catholic Church from Obama's "war on religion." Could be first-strike authority directed at Iran. Could be firing tenured faculty from liberal, snobbish universities. Could be...

JB: What is WRONG with you?

BE: You're right, you're right. It doesn't matter what he wants. The economy's getting better, voters, even Republican voters, don't like Mitt. It's hard to see anything making much of a difference at this point.

JB : Well, ya never know. Things can change. Economic turndowns happen. Foreign policy glitches occur.

BE: Hey, speaking of glitches, think Newt wants anything other than money?

JB: You kidding? Newt? Newt wants all he can get. Moon rocks? A janitor's job? Psychotherapy? Anything that can help him erase the national image he's created of being flat-out delusional.

BE: Mitt'll pay off Newt's debt if Newt promises not to endorse him.

JB: And, if he's smart, Mitt'll ask for Rick's help only in deep-South and Midwestern states.

BE: Maybe that's were their Friday meeting is!

JB: Could be.

Good ideas seldom go far in the Pennsylvania Legislature. Here's one that ought to.

State Rep. Tony Deluca, D-Allegheny County, on Tuesday officially proposed preventing state and local officeholders from running for another office while still holding the one they have.

Such is the case in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh due to local charter rules. If you want to run for something other than the office you hold, you have to resign the office you hold.

The same, says DeLuca, should apply everywhere.

There are at least three reasons why he's right: cost, politics and disenfranchisement.

In the current statewide race for auditor general, for example, both the Republican candidate, Rep. John Maher, R-Allegheny County, and the Democratic candidate, Rep. Gene DePasquale, D-York County, are running for both auditor general and their respective state House seats.

One of them will be elected to the statewide office in November, which means a special election will have to be called to replace him in the House. Such special elections cost taxpayers up to $200,000, according to state officials.

A needless expense at a time the state is fighting to cut government costs and enact government reforms.

Also, during the months between the time the "winner" leaves the House and whenever the special election is held, constituents of the "winner" have no representative. They are disenfranchised.

Then there's raw politics. In the case of a statewide officeholder running for higher office, why should taxpayers underwrite the clear political advantages such as salary, benefits and bully pulpit one statewide office provides even as its holder runs for a different office?

The best recent example whould be a sitting state attorney general running for governor -- you know who.

Because good ideas are seldom welcome in our legislature, I don't give this one much of a chance. After all, it makes sense, saves money, helps improve the political process, all in the interest of voters and taxpayers.

But unless and until legislative leaders start putting such interests ahead of their own, good ideas like DeLuca's remain forever doomed.

Grrrr.

Last week's Democratic primary winner for state attorney general, Kathleen Kane, already is taking fire from a national Republican group claiming she is "wrong for Pennslvania."

The group is the Virginia-based Republican State Leadership Committee, of which the Republican Attorneys General Association is a part.

It says it's the largest caucus of GOP state leaders in the nation, claims 100,000 donors and says it raised $30 million in the last election cycle to help elect Republican row-office candidates and state lawmakers.

Its hit on Kane, who beat fellow-Democrat Patrick Murphy in the April 24 primary, is that she has money and exaggerated her record as a prosecutor.

In a statement, the group said, "Fortunately in November Pennsylvania voters can choose the real deal: Dave freed (sic), a career prosecutor, not another politician.”

Two things: probably a good idea to capitalize the last name of a candidate you're backing (it's Dave Freed, Cumberland County DA); and "a prosecutor, not a politician" was Kane's slogan against Murphy and undoubtedly a key to her victory.

You can read the full GOP statement here.

I, too, questioned Kane's claim of prosecuting 3,000 cases as an assistant DA in Lackawanna County and drew the admission that the number relfects cases moved through the office during her dozen years there -- as opposed to cases she actually tried in court, which she later put at about 24.

Political campaigns exaggerate. It's just a fact of life. And she needs to clean that up for the fall campaign.

But calling her a "politician" after she won a race on a slogan that she's not a politician is a stretch. As is the assertion she tired to "buy her way" into office (she married into a family that owns a big-time trucking firm, Kane is Able).

Virtually every candidate tries to buy his or her way into office, either with campaign funds from wealthy donors, unions or big business or with personal money.

Outside interest groups are part of the electoral process at almost all levels these days. But their claims should be weighed the same as candidates' claims -- with a grain of salt.