Skokie Violates Open Meetings Act Again, This Time In Closed Session

SKOKIE, IL — The Skokie Village Board violated the Illinois Open Meetings Act during closed-door discussions earlier this year, just weeks after its village staff acknowledged that its Ethics Commission had failed to properly hold public meetings.

According to a determination from the Illinois Attorney General's Office, the village board improperly discussed topics during its Jan. 3 and Jan. 17 executive sessions that were not eligible for exemptions from the Open Meetings Act's transparency requirements.

The discussions concerned the process for appointment of Skokie's corporation counsel, the village's top attorney.

Illinois OMA law allows local governments to close open meetings to the public in nearly 40 specific circumstances, including collective bargaining negotiations and the "appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees," and buying, leasing or selling of publicly-owned real estate, among other things.

But when boards and councils close their doors to the public, they must make verbatim audio recordings, which can later be reviewed by state officials and courts in case of disputes about whether their executive sessions were appropriate.

Teresa Lim, the supervising attorney of the attorney general's public access bureau, said her office reviewed the audio of both meetings.

In her April 28 determination, Lim asked the village board to vote to release the audio of most of its Jan. 17 meeting — as well as the final several minutes of its Jan. 3 meeting. But because the office took longer than 60 days to issue its findings, Illinois law prevents the determination from being binding.

Lim said closed-session discussions for most of the earlier meeting stayed on topics appropriate for executive session: the compensation and employment of village employees and the status of union negotiations.

"The Board strayed, however, from a discussion of specific employees to general matters involving an appointment process during approximately the last four minutes of the session," Lim said.

"In contrast, this office's review of the verbatim recording of the closed session portion of the January 17, 2023, meeting determined that the Board mostly did not adhere to topics within the scope of [OMA's "specific employees" exemption] section 2(c)(1) throughout the session," the assistant attorney general continued.

"Approximately the first twenty minutes of the session pertained to the overall work and performance of the Corporation Counsel's Office — not the Corporation Counsel himself or individual members of his staff. That subject exceeded the scope of permissible topics under section 2(c)(1) because it concerned a category of employees rather than the job performance or salaries of specific staff members," Lim added.

---

"The remainder of the discussion did relate to [Corporation Counsel Mike] Lorge. Discrete portions of the discussion that directly involved his conduct and performance are within the scope of section 2(c)(1). Most of the discussion, however, did not focus on the merits of his performance, compensation, or other aspects of his employment," she said. "Instead, the discussion pertained more to the Corporation Counsel position and the process for appointing new counsel. Because those issues did not directly concern the job performance of Mr. Lorge, this office concludes that the Board's discussion fell outside the scope of the 2(c)(1) exception that the Board relied upon to close the January 17, 2023, meeting."

On behalf of the attorney general's office, Lim asked the village board to vote to publicly disclose the audio of its Jan. 3 meeting from 26 minutes and 40 seconds until the end, and to disclose its audio recording of all of its Jan. 17 executive session meeting "with the exception of discrete portions that directly concern Mr. Lorge's conduct and performance as Corporation Counsel."

As Skokie Patch has previously reported, the attorney general's office review was initiated in February by Edgar Pal — the same open government advocate whose November 2022 request for review prompted village staff to admit the mayor-appointed ethics commission had violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to hold public meetings.

Mayor George Van Dusen had asked the attorney general's office to dismiss Pal's complaint in a March 7 letter. In his correspondence with Lim, which Van Dusen redacted before it could be shared with Pal "because of the confidential nature of the conversations that we had," he said he did not believe any OMA violation occurred during the Jan. 3 meeting.

After two almost entirely redacted pages discussing what transpired on Jan. 17, Van Dusen said that "having had a chance to review the documents and listen to the verbatim recording of the closed session meeting from January 17, 2023, it is abundantly clear that Trustee [James] Johnson repeatedly and abusively engaged in violations of the Open Meetings Act."

---

Pal, in his response, pointed out that it was Johnson who had asked for a discussion of the appointment process for the village attorney's office to be held in public, while it was Van Dusen who "insisted" that it was a proper topic for closed-door discussion.

"Additionally, the Mayor’s attempt to scapegoat Trustee Johnson fails because public bodies as a whole are obligated to comply with OMA. Whether an individual trustee initiated a particular agenda item is irrelevant; the Board is collectively responsible for ensuring its compliance with OMA," Pal said.

"If the Board truly felt that the closed session discussion was improper, it could have simply voted to continue the discussion in open session," Pal said in his March 26 reply to Van Dusen. "Moreover, if the Mayor’s characterization is correct, and the OMA violation was committed only by Trustee Johnson and no one else, then the Board should have no problem with releasing portions of the closed session discussion to prove this point. Instead, the Board is choosing to withhold the closed session records in their entirety, protecting the very same statements by Trustee Johnson that the Mayor believed to be improper."

Last week, in response to Lim's letter, Johnson sought to schedule a vote on whether to abide by the attorney general's office's request for sometime within 60 days of Lim's letter.

"Well, she said it's not a binding decision," Van Dusen said.

"It's not a binding decision, it is still a very serious determination," Johnson said.

"Well, not exactly," Van Dusen replied. "But it is being taken under advisement. It was only very late on Friday that I got the letter. And it's very complicated, and it's not quite as simple as it sounds, and I'm looking into it."

Johnson requested the item be placed on the agenda for one of the village board's next three meetings.

"Do you want the whole thing released?" Trustee Ralph Klein asked him. "Do you want the whole meeting released? Or just parts of it? Come on."

"If we want to get into the determination, they mention two different meetings," Johnson said. "For the Jan. 3 meeting they actually, in the determination, they specified an exact time amount in the audio recording and just asked us to release a small four-minute section—"

"No, no, no, you don't get to cherry-pick," Klein said.

"For the January 17 meeting," Johnson continued, "they said that we do not have to release the whole thing —"

"We will release the whole thing and let everybody determine then," Klein said. "Just think of that."

"Let me review it, OK?" Van Dusen said. "This conceivably can establish a very serious precedent. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not acquainted with the entire subject matter."

Near the close of the board's May 1 meeting, the mayor said he would take some time before making a recommendation to the village board and assured Johnson that it would eventually be on the agenda.

A week later, Van Dusen told Patch that outside attorneys would advise him as to when the question will be on the village board's agenda.

"I have read the decision, of course, and am confused by the PAC’s decision," Van Dusen said in an email.

"I plan to ask outside counsel to review and give the Village recommendation on what and how to disclose," he said. "This is the first time we’ve had such a decision and I want to be sure we’re disclosing what Ms. Lim is directing us."