On the heels of a 2007 legislation session marked by political hardball, name calling and an inability to approve a budget within the allotted 90 days, 73 percent of Montanans polled gave the Legislature a negative job rating -- despite the fact that they liked most of what had been accomplished.

That irony wasn't lost on the Burton K. Wheeler Center at MSU, which sponsored a two-day conference this week on how the legislative process might be improved.

Among the ideas discussed, two stood out: ending or extending term limits, and moving the session farther away from the election. Each suggestion has its problems.

It is patently true that term limits make for inexperienced lawmakers who often spin their wheels over needless battles or waste time on idealistic but impossible causes rather than hammering out reasonable compromises. However, despite the evidence, a majority of Montana voters have latched on to term limits as some sort of panacea, and they aren't likely to sit still for changes. After all, they voted for limits by a 2-1 margin in 1992, and in 2004 they handily defeated a proposal to extend them from eight to 12 years.

Delaying the session to keep it well away from election campaigns, which can be rancorous affairs that carry ill feelings into the Capitol a couple of months later, has problems of its own. Although both Senate President Mike Cooney, D-Helena, and House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, agreed that it might be better to wait until a year has passed before convening the Legislature, that of course would push it into an election year. Neither seemed to mind, but we're not sure legislating with one eye on an upcoming election would be conducive to making hard but necessary choices.

In any event, we tend to agree with a comment made Tuesday by House Minority Floor Leader Art Noonan, D-Butte: "I don't think you can legislate civility," he said. "I think people have to choose to be civil."