Skokie Board Review Finds Open Meetings Act Violation In Ethics Case

SKOKIE, IL — The Illinois Attorney General's office found that the Village of Skokie Board of Trustees violated the Open Meetings Act after discussing an ethics complaint in closed session and then failing to issue a written decision explaining its reasoning.

The review stemmed from a May 1, 2026, Request for Review filed by DuPage County government-transparency advocate Edgar Pal over the board's March 2, 2026, meeting.

Subscribe

According to the request, the board discussed an ethics complaint in closed session under section 2(c)(4) of the Open Meetings Act. That section allows a public body to meet behind closed doors to consider evidence or testimony presented to a quasi-adjudicative body, but only if it also prepares and makes available for public inspection a written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning.

In his filing, Pal argued that Skokie did not meet that requirement after the board later voted at its April 20, 2026, meeting to reject a recommendation from the Skokie Ethics Commission to impose a fine against former Trustee James Johnson.

"The Board failed to issue a 'written decision setting forth its determinative reasoning', despite having previously discussed the matter in closed session," Pal said. "Although the Ethics Commission issued its own decision, I contend that the Board was separately required to prepare a written decision as well."

The board told the Attorney General's office that the matter grew out of a complaint alleging Johnson violated the village's ethics ordinance. On Feb. 20, 2025, a Skokie resident filed a complaint against former Trustee James Johnson, claiming that they used their position on the Village Board to promote their campaign for Village Clerk last April.

The resident cited instances where Johnson left their post during board meetings to give public comments while they served as Trustee.

Johnson told Patch at the time that they never mentioned their campaign for Village Clerk in their comments. Each time they took the stand, they said the purpose was to urge the Board to acknowledge and rectify perceived corruption in Skokie's legal department.

In the past, Skokie's ethics commission had already dismissed complaints Johnson filed, in which they alleged there were conflicts of interest on the Village Board.

In February, the Skokie Ethics Commission found that Johnson violated the Village Code ordinance that states public office should not be used for personal gain, and recommended implementing a fine of $1 per instance, which the village denied.

In its response, the board maintained that its April 20 meeting minutes already documented why trustees rejected the recommendation.

"The Board expressly explained in the minutes that they supported Mr. Johnson because of his prior advocacy work, had questions about the Ethics 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 said. "The discussion by the Board of their reasoning was short because their reasons were simple and there was consensus on the decision."

The Attorney General's office disagreed, arguing the Skokie Village Board did not identify or indicate in the minutes that its description was intended to constitute the Board's written decision for purposes of complying with section 2(c)(4), and it wasn't apparent that the Board prepared the description with that intent.

To remedy the violation, the Attorney General's office requested that the Board prepare a written decision explaining its final vote rejecting the Ethics Commission's recommendation. According to the review, that written decision should include determinative reasoning for why some members voted against the recommendation and some voted for it.