Skokie violated Open Meetings Act, must explain decision on former trustee, according to state

The Illinois Attorney General’s Office determined the Skokie Village Board violated state law earlier this year when it failed to explain its decision not to fine a former trustee who reportedly committed ethics violations in 2024, a letter from the Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor says.

A split Village Board voted 5-2 in April to reject the Skokie Ethics Commission’s recommendation to fine James Johnson — a former trustee who was vocal about corruption allegedly taking place among village officials — $1 for each of three ethics violations.

While serving as village’s sole non-caucus-party trustee, Johnson, who uses they/them pronouns, stepped down from the dais multiple times in 2024 to call on the Village Board to revise what Johnson claimed was a practice of the mayor and trustees appointing political allies to “high paying positions” in Skokie’s legal department. 

Two members of Skokie’s Ethics Commission voted in February to rule that Johnson violated village code by using Skokie’s AV system during those meetings “to campaign for the Office of Village Clerk while being paid to serve as a Trustee,” a report from the commission states.

The ethics commission had by then dismissed four complaints Johnson filed with the body between 2021 and 2024 alleging there were conflicts of interest between village officials and the Skokie Caucus Party, and that a village official had essentially offered Johnson a bribe. 

Edgar Pal, who identifies himself as a government-transparency advocate based in DuPage County, submitted a Request for Review with the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Bureau in May that argued the Skokie Village Board earlier this spring violated the Open Meetings Act, a state law that aims to “ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly.”

Pal’s letter argued the Village Board violated the act because after trustees discussed the Ethics Commission’s recommendation to fine Johnson during a March closed session, they never provided a public explanation after its April 20 vote to reject the recommendation.

While Village attorneys said the minutes documenting the April 20 Village Board meeting explain why the trustees’ rejected the recommended fine, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office sided with Pal, a Sept. 11 letter from Deputy Public Access Bureau Chief Teresa Lim shows.

In response to the alleged violation, the Public Access Bureau requested the Skokie Village Board prepare a written decision explaining “some determinative reasoning for why some members voted against the recommendation and some voted for the recommendation,” according to the letter. 

Patrick Deignan, Skokie’s head of communications, acknowledged in an email that the village received the Public Access Bureau’s letter.

“The Village is reviewing the letter, and the Board will take all required action to resolve the matter at an upcoming meeting,” Deignan wrote.

Pal, who has previously filed complaints against the Village alleging Open Meetings Act violations, said the law gives the Village Board until Nov. 10 to comply with the Public Access Counselor’s nonbinding decision “otherwise the board risks a lawsuit in circuit court.”

“I’m happy with the ruling. I think it just shows how important it is for quasi-adjudicated bodies to make their decisions known and to disclose their reasonings for what they say,” Pal said. 

“As for the case itself, I wasn’t really motivated to help James or to go against James or anything like that, that’s not something that factored into my advocacy. I just care about compliance with the Open Meetings Act so that’s what motivated me to do this.”

The Village’s case

The Open Meetings Act states that public bodies may deliberate in closed session as a “quasi-adjudicative body” — i.e., when making determinations based on evidence or testimony — only if they prepare a written decision showing their reasoning afterwards. 

Village attorneys reportedly argued there “was no indication whether a majority of the Village Board supported one side over another” when it discussed the Skokie Ethics Commission’s recommendation during a March 2 closed session. 

During the subsequent April 20 public meeting, the Village Board reportedly then “reached a consensus” and their ruling was “memorialized in writing in the minutes of the April 20 meeting in a manner that sets forth the Village Board’s reasoning.”

“The Board expressly explained in the minutes that they supported Mr. Johnson because of his prior advocacy work, had questions about the Ethic Commission’s process, and had concerns about the Ethics Commission’s structure. These were the reasons for the Village Board’s decision and set forth in the minutes,” the village wrote to the Public Access Counselor. 

Village attorneys further asserted that the “discussion by the Board of their reasoning was short because their reasons were simple and there was consensus on the decision” and “that it did not have a more detailed explanation to provide,” the Public Access Counselor summarized.

The Public Access Counselor’s determination

Lim stated that the Village Board “did not identify or indicate” that the minutes of the April 20 meeting served as the written explanation for the board’s vote, “and it is not apparent to this office that the Board prepared the description with that intent.”

In reviewing the April 20 minutes, Lim highlighted how one trustee asked about the impact of rejecting the recommendation and another trustee indicated he would reject the recommendation but did not offer an explanation of his reasoning. 

“The other comments in the minutes which the Board characterized as its determinative reasoning — the trustee’s prior advocacy work, questions about the Ethic Commission’s process, and concerns about the Ethics Commission’s structure — were made by members of the public” and are not “attributable to members of the Board, and the minutes do not indicate that the Board adopted those comments as its determinative reasoning,” Lim wrote.

The minutes are also “too vague” to satisfy the Open Meeting Act’s requirement for a written explanation and, while the village attorneys argued it had no other reasoning to provide, a member of the public could not have reasonably determined their reasoning, Lim wrote. 

“The verbatim recording of the closed session does not reflect that the Board reached a tentative consensus concerning the Ethics Commission’s recommendation, but the Board did substantively discuss whether or not to adopt it. Such deliberations pertain to the Board’s determinative reasoning for rejecting the recommendation,” Lim explained. 

Village seeks new ethics commissioner, may expand commission

When the Skokie Ethics Commission voted on Feb. 11 to recommend fining Johnson, Commissioners Jonathan Minkus and Rabbi Leonard Matanky voted in favor of the fine, but Commissioner Habeeb Quadri was marked absent, the advisory board’s report shows.  

In April, Mayor Ann Tennes said Quadri was no longer a member of the commission. Deignan confirmed that Minkus and Matanky are the only two commissioners on the advisory board.

Skokie’s Sept. 15 “The Scoop” newsletter announced the village’s search for applicants for the Ethics Commission. A panel of community members reportedly will review the applications and provide Tennes seven to nine candidates.

Deignan confirmed that, in the coming months, the Village Board will also consider expanding the Ethics Commission from three members to five. 

If the board approves the expansion, Tennes will make recommendations for all five seats following the community panel’s review of applicants, Patrick said. 

Notably, after Michael Lorge retired from his 13 years as Skokie’s corporation counsel in May 2025, the Village Board voted unanimously in December 2025 to select a new law firm. 

The Village Board  board then voted in March to amend village code to change how its corporation counsel is appointed and to implement a “hybrid approach” that employs both in-house and outside attorneys.

The Record is a nonprofit, nonpartisan community newsroom that relies on reader support to fuel its independent local journalism.

Become a member of The Record to fund responsible news coverage for your community.

Already a member? You can make a tax-deductible donation at any time.