* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch didn’t sound all that enthused about passing any new ethics reforms during an interview last week.

In the wake of former House Speaker Michael Madigan’s conviction on 10 felony counts earlier this month, I asked Welch if he believed Madigan’s conviction called out for new reform laws.

“I didn’t get a chance to listen to what every juror who has spoken said, but they looked at the evidence in that case, and they weighed the evidence in that case. And I think I heard one juror say that he didn’t have anything negative to say about Springfield per se. But when they looked at the evidence in that case, they came to the verdict that they came to,” Welch said.

That doesn’t sound like he believes there’s a clarion call for change.

“Are there things that we can do better in Springfield?” Welch asked rhetorically. “Probably are some things that we can do better. I think we need to talk to our members and find out what they think. I think we need to talk to advocates and hear what advocates think.”

Welch said he was “proud” that nobody in his caucus had been accused of corruption since he took over. “We addressed ethics in my first year as speaker. There’s a number of things that we have done that I think really changed the environment and have helped us get to the point that we’re at today.”

Madigan said much the same thing about his caucus after Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed. It didn’t work out so well. Not saying Welch is a problem, but one never knows what individual caucus members are up to.

Gov. JB Pritzker was clearly angry at Welch during the January lame duck legislative session when the governor’s attempt to pass a bill to regulate intoxicating hemp blew up in his face and Welch refused to call the bill, claiming that the governor didn’t have 60 Democratic votes. Pritzker insisted at the time that he did have the votes and also demanded apologies from House Democrats who yelled insults at members of his administration during a private caucus meeting. Pritzker has since backed off. I asked Welch if things were patched up between them and how that happened.

“First of all, there was nothing to patch up,” Welch declared. “The governor was doing his job, I did my job. The governor and I talk all the time. We talked before lame duck. We’ve talked since lame duck. The governor is an important partner of mine. We’ve gotten big things done in the state of Illinois by working together. From time to time we may disagree on something, but know this, my position is always going to be based on what my caucus’s position is, and I make that clear with the governor or whoever I’m talking to.”

In other words, Welch is gonna stand with his caucus against any outsider, and people, including the governor, need to accept it.

Earlier this month, the House moved three resolutions to the floor that sharply criticized President Donald Trump. The Republicans eventually stormed off the floor in response. My associate Isabel Miller asked Welch if he might be bringing more such resolutions up for a vote.

“I don’t want to talk about our strategy for governing the chamber during the 104th,” Welch said. “But let me say this: I think that it is extremely important that we give our members space to vocalize what this administration’s actions are doing to the people of this state and to the people around this country. I think the President’s actions, his administration’s actions, are directly impacting the people we serve. And we’re going to see as we work to assemble a budget that the administration’s actions are directly impacting our ability to run a responsible state. And so we can’t tell you what Donald Trump’s going to do, but we’re also not going to sit silently while he unilaterally pushes policies that hurt the people that we represent. And if we have to go to the floor and shine a light on those things, we will, because this is not a time to be silent.”

Asked if the debates were effective, Welch said, “I think that they have been extremely effective. I think if you talk to our members and what they’re hearing from their constituents back home, particularly the members who actually spoke on the floor, they will tell you what they’re hearing from their constituents back home.”