Orland Park’s Civility Pledge Meets Its First Test

ORLAND PARK, IL — On May 27, the Village Board of Orland Park considered a Civility Resolution—a proposal pledging elected officials to lead with gratitude, humility, and mutual respect. But before the vote, a separate agenda item cast doubt on whether those values were already being practiced.

A trustee’s private request for clarification—explicitly not intended for public debate—was repurposed by another trustee into an attack on the prior administration, without a full, unbiased review of the record.

A Private Message, A Public Controversy

The issue began when Trustee Bill Healy emailed the Village Manager to ask whether Mayor James Dodge should have disclosed a past professional relationship with Milliman Advanced Analytics, a firm connected to a vendor under insurance contract consideration.

“I loathe the idea of discussing the relationship in an open meeting… I do not want a public display of animosity,” Healy wrote. “My gut tells me Jim has a legitimate excuse.”

He requested a written response—not a board discussion. Healy’s original message can be viewed here. And Healy wasn’t even present to clarify: he was away attending a family funeral.

Trustees Urged Delay. The Board Moved Ahead Anyway.

Some trustees moved to table the item until Healy could speak for himself. But the majority voted to proceed, despite his stated desire for discretion to learn the truth first so as to not accuse anyone, and his legitimate absence.

As part of the discussion, Trustee John Lawler submitted a four-page letter that dramatically expanded the scope of the inquiry. Though the letter was not read aloud, it became the foundation for the board’s extended conversation. Lawler’s full letter is available here. In the document, Lawler alleged:

• A $3.8 million overpayment in insurance spending
• Possible Open Meetings Act violations
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest involving former officials

Lawler named former Mayor Keith Pekau and former Trustees Joni Radaszewski and Brian Riordan, suggesting ethical lapses in past contract votes.

“I think we need to understand and be completely transparent about how this all came about,” Lawler said during the meeting.

Unsubstantiated claims are problematic during a campaign—but they’re far more serious when made from the floor as an elected official during an official meeting, especially without verifying the facts.

The Record Tells a Different Story

There was one glaring problem: Lawler didn’t verify the votes—or the facts behind them.

According to the official minutes from the July 19, 2021 board meeting—easily found on the Village’s Legistar system—both Pekau and Riordan abstained from the vote to award The Horton Group a contract for insurance brokerage and consulting services, citing business conflicts.

While Pekau had a prior business relationship with Horton, that relationship concluded in 2019. He did not maintain that relationship while serving as mayor, and his abstentions on votes related to Horton were a voluntary act of caution—not an attempt to hide impropriety. In fact, Pekau had consistently abstained from brokerage award votes since taking office in 2017.

Notably, back in 2018, former Trustee Carole Ruzich also abstained from a vote involving Horton. Yet her name is missing from Lawler’s letter, even as it singles out others who voted in favor based on legal guidance and the record at the time. Horton has been the Village’s insurance broker since 2003, long before Pekau’s tenure began.

Yet in his letter, Lawler implies that Pekau’s relationship with Horton persisted during his term—without offering any evidence.

Lawler’s accusations not only misrepresented the voting record—they rested on unverified assumptions. He even went so far as to suggest that a fourth trustee may have had a conflict of interest, offering no evidence to support the presumption that the entire vote was compromised.

Public Comment Turns Personal

Among those named in Lawler’s letter was former Trustee Joni Radaszewski, who happened to be attending the meeting as a resident—having seen Lawler’s letter in the agenda, something his fellow trustee missed.

“Last month you asked me to be here to help make quorum. This month, you’re questioning my integrity,” she said, visibly emotional.

Radaszewski stated that she had consulted Village Attorney Dennis Walsh, who confirmed that no conflict of interest existed. She had acted properly—and she said the public accusations were deeply hurtful.

“I served this community with pride. Please don’t take that away from me.”

Clarifying the Agenda Process

During the meeting, Trustee Leafblad expressed concern about how the issue had made it onto the agenda at all, stating:

“I didn’t even know this was going to be discussed tonight. I don’t remember it being mentioned in advance. That’s part of my concern—we seem to have no formal process for how things get added to the agenda. I think we need one.”

But that statement is inaccurate.

Per Section 1-5-7-14 of the Village Code, any individual trustee may request an “Agenda Initiative” be placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda by notifying the Village Manager before noon on the Friday preceding the meeting. However, staff time is not committed to the initiative unless three trustees vote to advance it during the meeting.

Moreover, the Committee of the Whole agenda is formally prepared by the Village Clerk in consultation with the Village Manager and the Village President—not by individual trustees. In this case, Trustee Healy did not submit an Agenda Initiative, nor did he ask for this topic to be placed on the agenda.

Three trustees are new to the board—but that makes it all the more important to understand how the process works and to thoroughly review the agenda before raising public accusations.

Despite that, it’s likely that Village Manager George Koczwara placed the item on the Committee of the Whole agenda based on receipt of the original email—though the message clearly requested a written response and not public discussion. Healy was absent due to a family funeral, and the issue could have easily waited until he returned to speak for himself.

What’s more, residents had already flagged this item when the agenda was published on Friday. If community members were able to recognize its significance over the weekend, it was mildly embarrassing that a sitting trustee appeared unprepared to discuss it by Monday. In a meeting centered on ethics, transparency, and civility, the surprise wasn’t a failure of process—it was a lapse in preparation.

And this wasn’t an isolated case—there has yet to be a meeting this term where trustees appear to have fully reviewed the materials they’re discussing.

Words vs. Deeds

Ironically, later that evening, the board reviewed the Civility Resolution—a formal pledge to engage in respectful, collaborative dialogue.

Among its promises:

• To avoid accusatory language
• To lead with empathy and humility
• To refrain from behavior that undermines the integrity of public service

By that measure, the earlier discussion fell short.

Healy’s inquiry was private, respectful, and rooted in a desire to avoid public confrontation. He sought clarification in writing and explicitly asked not to turn the matter into a spectacle. He was not present at the meeting due to a death in the family and had no role in placing the item on the agenda.

Lawler’s approach, in contrast, was public, accusatory, and speculative. He submitted a four-page letter calling for a broader investigation, citing relationships and conflicts without verifying facts. He implied ethical violations without providing evidence and did so while the trustee who raised the concern was absent. His letter was not read aloud but became the basis for a wide-ranging discussion.

The contrast laid bare the very dilemma the Civility Resolution was meant to address: whether public officials would engage disagreements with humility and facts—or with assumptions and confrontation.

A Missed Opportunity

The board had options:

• Wait for Healy’s return
• Verify facts before levying accusations
• Avoid public escalation—especially on the night civility was under discussion

Instead, it proceeded—without its most relevant voice, and without checking the record.

More Than a Policy Dispute

This wasn’t just about insurance brokerage or FOIA timelines. It was about how elected officials conduct themselves—and whether the values they promote are reflected in their actions.

Civility isn’t proven by signing a pledge. It’s demonstrated in action. And so far, it’s coming up short.