It's silly to lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen most of the time. But on rare occasions, it can make sense.

Comparing the run-of-the-mill legislator to a horse thief is, admittedly, unfair – to the horse thief.

But the analogy is apt in this case because state Rep. Chapin Rose wants to do something to block lame-duck legislators from having a profound impact on public policy. After the recent hugely controversial lame-duck session of the Illinois General Assembly, Rose and four colleagues proposed a state constitutional amendment that would, absent an emergency, end lame-duck legislative sessions for good.

It's a great idea that, unfortunately, will go nowhere. This is a good government issue, but good government and Illinois are about as likely a pair of companions as Abbott and Hardy. Still, Rose, a Republican from Mahomet, deserves credit for raising the issue and proposing a solution to what is now and has been a problem in state government for decades.

Lame-duck legislative sessions are those that occur every two years after the November general election. Lame-ducks are those legislators of both parties who soon will be leaving office either because of retirement or defeat. Because they are short-timers no longer accountable to the voters and indifferent to the public wishes, they are perfect candidates to provide the votes necessary to pass legislation that might not pass without their support.

The January lame-duck session is Exhibit A for that proposition. Lame-duck legislators provided the necessary votes to pass a huge personal and corporate income tax increase, civil union legislation and the abolition of the death penalty. Those are legitimate issues, but hardly appropriate subjects for last-minute maneuvering in the final hours of a dying legislature.

Rose's solution is to swear members of the incoming General Assembly, the one elected in November, into office on "the first day of December (excluding Saturday and Sunday)" after the election. Unlike now, there would be no waiting until mid-January, leaving lame-ducks more than two months to carry out last-minute deals.

This ought not be a partisan issue because it's a bipartisan problem.

Majority Democrats defended their whirlwind of action in the recent lame-duck session on the grounds that Republicans engaged in similar behavior in the past when they held the majority. But that's not a defense – that's an indictment. It's unacceptable no matter who does it because it eliminates accountability from the democratic process, not for long but long enough to damage the public's faith in government.

The problem, of course, is that wily legislative leaders like to take advantage of that lack of accountability. So it's a sure thing that Rose's amendment is viewed with scorn by the likes of House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton. But it's a sensible solution to a serious problem.