ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

But borrowing from the idea, state Rep. Alexander Kolodin wants ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥'s future governors to have to face the Legislature the third Wednesday of every month to answer at least a few questions from lawmakers. And he presumes it would make for good TV.

The Scottsdale Republican said he does not necessarily foresee this becoming an opportunity for members of the party that does not control the governor's office to ask "gotcha'' questions. But he said even if it devolves into that, viewers will get a chance to see — and judge — whether the lawmaker who posed the question is being fair.

A governor actually might score points for giving a well-reasoned answer to a snarky inquiry, Kolodin said.

Anyway, he said, the way his House Bill 2051 is written, members of the governor's own party also would get a chance to pose questions. They would be free to ask softballs to make the state's chief executive look good, Kolodin said.

He said the real beneficiaries would be the voters who could get a close-up look at government, the issues, and the people making the decisions.

Kolodin acknowledged that what occurs in Parliament — and what could happen here — could be seen as just so much theater, designed more to make or score a point than to actually get meaningful information.

"That's an interesting way of characterizing it,'' Kolodin said, adding that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Consider, he said, the level of knowledge many ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns have of government.

Kolodin, a former junior high school teacher, said they are probably most informed about national issues "even though the level that most impacts their day-to-day lives is state and local.'' Having even a monthly televised Q and A between the governor and lawmakers from both parties could raise the level of public awareness of what's going on at the Capitol, he said.

"In the U.K., having question time — and there's research on this — increases levels of civic knowledge, civic engagement in the general public,'' he said. And, to put it in the context of being theater, "it's a compelling show.''

That compares with hearings ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ lawmakers hold on pending legislation, which are already available for live and delayed viewing on the internet.

"You've got to be a glutton for punishment to sit and watch one of our committee hearings,'' Kolodin said.

"So to have something where you have the executive branch and the legislative branch face to face, discussing the policy issues, debating the different perspectives, working through the issues there on TV, that's something I think would be really useful to fostering an informed citizenry which is healthy for the republic,'' he said.

The possibility that someone will use the opportunity to ask a question designed more to embarrass than to educate shouldn't be an issue, he said.

"By the time you get to be governor of the state of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ you're pretty used to dealing with questions in a political context,'' he said.

"It's not like the governor is some high school student standing up there going, 'What do I do here?'" Kolodin said. "She's the freakin' governor.''

And if it is a loaded question, "I suspect voters will appreciate and look with favor on a governor who'd give a good answer, especially one to a tough question."

"Voters are going to go, 'hey, you know, that question was really a gotcha question but she handled that with such grace,'" said Kolodin. "That would make voters potentially like the governor more.''

And not necessarily "she.'' He pointed out that the measure, if approved and signed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, would not take effect until the 2027 legislative session, when Hobbs may or may not still be governor.

The concept got no traction from Rep. Nancy Gutierrez of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, the new House assistant Democratic leader.

"Didn't we fight a revolutionary war to not have to do this sort of thing?'' she said. "I think we have more pressing issues to address than this one.''

The idea is not new. Jonathan Paton, who was a Republican state senator from ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, introduced a nearly identical proposal in 2010.

"It kind of guarantees that the public gets a chance to see their leaders in action, both legislative and executive branch, in an environment where there's an exchange of ideas,'' Paton said at the time. He said voters would "kind of get to judge their ability: how well prepared they are, how well-spoken they are,'' since he presumed all this would be televised.

But Paton couldn't sell the idea even to members of his own party. The bill died without getting a hearing.