After five months, you'd think that the warring parties at the Illinois Statehouse would have learned something about each other. Instead, last week's bitter and divisive House overtime session showed that they still fundamentally misunderstand one another.

What follows are some questions I'm hearing and my own responses.

• From Republicans: Why would the House Democrats propose such a weak workers' compensation reform plan last week when they knew Governor Bruce Rauner wants so much more?

The Democrats' plan didn't contain much real-world progress, and actually regressed in part. Unless you read between the lines. Workers' comp insurance is essentially a no-fault system designed to keep disputes out of the courts. Republicans have for years attempted to insert "causation" into the system to weed out employees whose injuries are mostly not the fault of employers.

But House Speaker Michael Madigan's bill used the term "causal" in relation to a certain kind of injury. This was a pretty good indication that after more than 30 years as speaker, Madigan is moving away from his complete opposition to causation standards.

The speaker appears willing to deal on this topic because he attached his language to a House bill that can now be amended by the Senate. If he'd used a Senate bill, it would've been "take it or leave it."

So build on the causation issue and ignore his other items that set the negotiations back. It's not rocket science.

Forget about the budget, forget about Governor Bruce Rauner's "Turnaround Agenda," forget about the almost unprecedented animosity during the spring legislative session between Democrats and Republicans.

The most talked-about issue under the Illinois Statehouse dome last week was a directive from one of the governor's top staffers to all state-agency directors.

The agency directors received an order from the Rauner administration Wednesday demanding that they and their staffs not meet or talk with any lobbyists unless the governor's Policy Office had first okayed the communications. The directors were also told to inform agency "stakeholders" that they didn't really need to hire lobbyists anyway.

When Davenport Community Schools Superintendent Art Tate announced in March that he planned to violate state law by spending more money per pupil than the state allowed, it highlighted the strangeness of Iowa's rarely questioned status quo: There's no mechanism for school districts to consistently exceed the base-funding level.

It's not quite as simple as saying that Davenport's school district can't spend more than $6,366 per student this year. But in the name of funding equality across Iowa, the state is unusually restrictive - meaning that even if citizens in a community would support higher taxes for educational operations, there's no way to make that happen.

At heart, Iowa's system takes the admirable goal of adequate education funding and turns it into a straitjacket.

I spent the better part of last Wednesday asking folks around the Statehouse if they had anything positive to tell me. I went looking for anything that might indicate a silver lining to this increasingly nasty spring legislative session.

Mostly, people just laughed at me.

Other than some individual personal developments, there just wasn't much positivity around. The governor's chief of staff, Mike Zolnierowicz, and his incomparable wife Barret were about to have a new baby. They're great people and that's wonderful news, but it also means that "Z" was not going to be able to work on solving the problems for a few days.

A gaming-expansion bill appeared to be progressing. But I'm told the governor is in no mood to sign it as long as his "Turnaround Agenda" is being ignored by the majority Democrats.

The Senate Democrats, meanwhile, were expected to move legislation to help Chicago out of its horrific fiscal mess, but there's still the problem with the governor's refusal to do anything for the Democrats until he gets what he wants.

So I came up with nothing.

Governor Bruce Rauner had several House Republicans over to the Executive Mansion last week to ask them to vote "present" when the House Democrats called their "right to work" bill the following day.

Right-to-work laws allow union members to not pay for any of their union's services, even though unions are required by federal law to serve all their members. The laws can cripple unions, which may help businesses but tends to drive down wages.

Why would the Democrats bring an anti-union bill to the House floor? Various reasons - one of them being that they are so opposed to the idea and the governor has pushed it so forcefully that they wanted to finally get the issue off the table by killing it dead. They also wanted to put the Republicans in a tight spot of choosing between the governor and their friends in organized labor.

For most of our history, lawyers have thought of themselves as the unofficial fourth "arm" of the government. This view is more understandable from lawyers' past role as "trial advocates" than from the present relationship between the bench and bar, which reduces the significance lawyers have in the administration of justice.

Under the law in effect in most colonies at the time our Constitution was written, lawyers were advocates who had the right to argue the merits of their clients' cases directly to a jury. Juries, not judges, had the right to decide most cases as they saw fit both with regard to the facts and the law. As the Supreme Court noted in 1943's Galloway V. United States: "In 1789, juries occupied the principal place in the administration of justice. They were frequently in both criminal and civil cases the arbiters not only of fact but of law."

The king's denial of the right to a trial by jury was one of the reasons justifying separation from England in the Declaration of Independence.

Many believed the right to a jury trial was not adequately guaranteed in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Anti-federalists urged rejection of the Constitution unless it was amended to include a Bill of Rights, which secured the right to trial by jury in both criminal and civil cases. Patrick Henry, a lawyer and well-known patriot at that time, argued: "Trial by jury is the best appendage of freedom. ... No appeal can now be made as to fact in common-law suits. The unanimous verdict of impartial men cannot be reversed." This result was not because the jury would always be right, but because the result came from impartial members of the community.

I recently obtained a document distributed by the governor's office detailing the membership list and meeting times and locations of the secret state legislative "working groups."

The governor's office has insisted that not only should legislators dummy up about what goes on at the groups' meetings - which are designed to forge compromises on the governor's "Turnaround Agenda" - but also that outsiders should not even know the membership of the groups or when and where they're getting together.

That's pretty ridiculous. Many moons ago, I began writing about private legislative caucus meetings. That didn't endear me to the powers that be, but I thought the meetings were too important to the Statehouse process to ignore. I still think that, although caucus meetings are somewhat less important these days.

So I exerted a bit of effort and eventually scored the governor's document.

The working group tasked with hammering out a potential tax hike is so secret that its very existence would not be confirmed by members I contacted. Legislators were reportedly warned by the governor's office that if any word leaked about the group, Governor Bruce Rauner would refuse to increase taxes.

Yep, he's a control freak.

Just a few words to express my enjoyment of Ms. McCarthy's recent article. I couldn't agree more with what was said. My only regret is being not sure what to do about it. While Ms. McCarthy has pushed in the past for people being more involved with the political process and learning more about what's going on, I can also see where time commitments for work and family severely limit many for participating as much as they would like or could like. The economy is not anywhere near as good as some would think. I feel we're financially suppressed on purpose to make it that much harder to watch over our interests in government. My only suggestion would be to stop watching political ads and the news and start looking for alternative parties and candidates. I know this is not always easy, but I believe the vote is the only real recourse citizens have to promote real change. And that will change when and if they go to an all-digital voting system. Hackers are getting into everywhere. It's all but impossible to keep them out. Our elections will be become completely meaningless.

I could go on and on, so don't get me started ... . Or maybe it should be that more people should get started.

Thanks again for being at least one honest source of information.

Terry Hansen

The new legislative "working groups" designed to hammer out compromises on Governor Bruce Rauner's "Turnaround Agenda" finally began meeting in secret last week. At least one of them got a bit heated.

A working group tasked with writing ethics legislation hit a brick wall right off the bat when it came time to discuss Rauner's term-limits constitutional amendment. Two Democrats on the committee reportedly said there was plenty of time to deal with the amendment next year, since it couldn't be placed on the ballot until November 2016.

Nope, said the administration representative, according to sources. The governor wants that amendment passed by the end of the spring legislative session. When he was met with stiff resistance, the administration official reportedly became agitated and more than implied that if the constitutional amendment isn't passed by May 31, the governor would not support any revenue increases to patch next fiscal year's massive $6-billion hole.

Mark Everson on April 9. Photo by Kevin Shafer (KRichardPhoto.com).

Chances are good you've never heard of Republican presidential candidate Mark Everson, and he doesn't (and likely never will) have the campaign cash to change that.

And if you are aware of him, your impression might not be particularly favorable. He ran the loathed Internal Revenue Service for four years under President George W. Bush. And his tenure as CEO of the American Red Cross lasted less than eight months, with Everson forced to resign because of an inappropriate romantic relationship with a subordinate.

It doesn't help that for a person running for president, Everson's electoral-political experience is "pretty thin" by his own admission.

But there are many reasons you should acquaint yourself with Everson and his agenda:

• He's doing his shoestring campaign in Iowa right, pledging to visit all 99 counties. He sat down April 9 for a 100-minute interview with me, reflecting a willingness to go wherever people will listen.

• He plans to spend between $250,000 and $300,000 of his own money on his candidacy, so even if he's not conventionally viable, he's quite literally invested in his campaign.

• The six points of emphasis for his campaign include immigration reform that would include a path to citizenship for law-abiding illegal immigrants already in the country - a hot-button example of Everson not pandering to the more conservative side of the GOP.

• Those six planks also include two elements that don't pander to any major constituency. He favors reinstating some form of the military draft, and he supports entitlement reform that would, for example, take Social Security benefits away from people who don't financially need them.

• Despite that, his platform has a populist streak, most notably a major reform of the tax code that would create a 12.9-percent national sales tax and exempt 150 million people from the income tax. (Filing-jointly couples with income less than $100,000 and singles making less than $50,000 would not pay any income tax.)

Pages