One of the benefits of an every-other-year Legislature is a chance to start fresh, and this year's group is one of the freshest ever.
Among the 63 in the Senate and Assembly, there are a dozen who have never served before (notwithstanding the impeachment hearings on Controller Kathy Augustine) and four who are either returning to the Legislature or have moved from the Assembly to the Senate.
With the 120-day clock ticking as of Monday, there is not a lot of time for orientation or a leisurely approach to issues. They must hit the ground running.
This is the agenda set by Nevada voters: Get your work done in Carson City in four months and get out.
Unfortunately, since the 120-day rule was imposed the Legislature has had more special sessions than regular sessions. Is there just too much work to get done in 120 days?
The experience so far from 2001 and 2003 tells us that, while there is a huge amount of information to cover for legislators, the 120-day rule is an important deadline to keep.
It has picked up the pace from the first day forward. The days of spending a couple of weeks getting comfortable (and working into the social circuit) are over.
More preparation is done ahead of opening day, and there is a sense throughout the session there is a goal to meet: June 6. It keeps them focused on the main tasks of government and allows little time for lesser priorities.
The 2003 session, extended twice by the brouhaha over taxes, was perhaps as good an example as any. Lawmakers should face the pressure of a voter-set deadline, and they should have to go on the record to extend sessions for limited and specific purposes.
There will be attempts again to extend the 120-day limit, or to set annual sessions. But there's no evidence yet that longer sessions would somehow translate into better government.
