Ex-IDPH Chief Accepts $150,000 Fine, Admits To Unwitting Wrongdoing In Ethics Violation

CHICAGO — Former Illinois Department of Public Health Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike has accepted a $150,000 fine from a state ethics commission after admitting to violating the state's "revolving door" prohibition.

The settlement and fine from the Executive Ethics Commission stems from Ezike’s acceptance of a position as president and CEO of Sinai Chicago within a year of her March 2022 departure from state government, during which the hospital operator received substantial funding and oversight from her former agency.

The Illinois Ethics Act allows for a potential fines of up to triple the annual salary of the violator, and Ezike reportedly earns about a $1 million a year from the Chicago-based nonprofit health system. That means she was fined just 5 percent of the maximum fine.

Ezike was represented by Heather Wier Vaught, a former chief attorney for longtime Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and his political committees. Vaught provided a statement of mitigation on Ezike's behalf.

"Because (i) she did accept employment with Sinai; (ii) she was aware that Sinai received grants and had grant agreements with IDPH; and (iii) she is now aware that Sinai was the subject of licensing and regulatory decisions by IDPH, Dr. Ezike will admit to a violation of the revolving door h-list provision of the Ethics Act," Vaught said.

"However, Dr. Ezike did not knowingly or intentionally violate the revolving door provision," she argued. "She relied on the advice of trusted staff and the legal opinion of private counsel before officially accepting the position and executing a contract with Sinai."

According to Vaught, the lack of clear definitions in the law and inconsistencies in the advice Ezike received from state officials contributed to her missteps.

The former IDPH director reportedly sought thorough guidance from those she trusted, provided state ethics officials information about her employment prospects and made a significant effort to ensure compliance, including consulting with the Office of the Executive Inspector General.

Nevertheless, the commission held that the law’s plain language applied regardless of intent. The settlement stipulates that Ezike violated section 5-45(h) of the Ethics Act, which bars department heads from getting compensated by entities that had just been regulated by their agencies.

High-ranking state officials are expressly forbidden from accepting employment within one year from entities with contracts exceeding $25,000 or those subject to regulatory or licensing decisions involving their former agency.

According to the Illinois Executive Ethics Commission report, IDPH had awarded over $4.2 million in contracts to Sinai during Ezike’s tenure, which contributed to the finding of a violation.

These contracts were labeled as "grants," which were later determined to qualify as contracts under the Ethics Act's provisions

Ezike’s significant salary increase at Sinai — from $177,000 annually at IDPH to nearly $1 million— highlights the importance of revolving door provisions to prevent public officials from leveraging their positions for lucrative private-sector opportunities.

The ethics investigation, which began soon after her June 2022 appointment, limited Ezike's role as Sinai CEO, with Crain's Chicago Business reporting that she was advised not to sign or negotiate contracts with state agencies while the probe remained pending.

“We are confident in Dr. Ezike's exemplary leadership and remain focused on ensuring Chicago’s most vulnerable residents have the quality health care services they deserve," a Sinai spokesperson told Crain's.

Ezike and the Illinois attorney general came to a mutual agreement that the $150,000 fine was appropriate.

"Attorney General [Kwame Raoul] and Dr. Ezike believe this resolution promotes the important policy goals served by the Ethics Act and benefits the public interest," they stipulated in a motion to settle the case, "not only by ensuring Dr. Ezike has admitted to and accepted responsibility for her violation of the Ethics Act, but also by ensuring a penalty is imposed on her that is appropriate under the circumstances.”