Winter Comes Early in Freeport as City Hall Considers Fehr Graham’s ‘Snowflake Policy’

August 15, 2026 | Freeport, IL

Presented by Brian Keller

FOR THE PEOPLE | F4F NEWS

Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication

Joshua T. Atkinson

Chairman | Fighting4Freeport

Apparently, winter may be arriving early in Freeport.

On Monday, August 17, the Freeport City Council is scheduled to hear the first reading of Ordinance #2026-50, a proposed Public Works Employee-Citizen Communication Policy.

The ordinance would give Public Works employees explicit authority to hang up on taxpayers or end in-person interactions — including leaving a job site — when an employee determines that a citizen has become abusive, profane, threatening, or otherwise unprofessional.

The proposal was first presented to the City Council on July 20.

According to the ordinance, Freeport’s 51 Public Works employees have reported a “significant increase” in disrespectful, harassing, and, at times, threatening behavior from citizens.

Let’s establish something immediately.

Nobody working for the City of Freeport should be expected to tolerate threats, racial slurs, discrimination, or genuine harassment.

Period.

But that isn’t where this ordinance ends. And that’s where the questions begin.

What the Ordinance Would Actually Allow

Under Ordinance #2026-50, a Public Works employee could terminate a telephone call or an in-person interaction that becomes abusive, profane, threatening, or “otherwise unprofessional.”

For employees working in the field, the policy would allow them to end the interaction and, if necessary, leave the job site entirely.

The ordinance defines abusive behavior to include profanity, racial slurs or discriminatory language, yelling or screaming, speaking in an aggressively hostile or demeaning tone, explicit or implicit threats of harm, personal insults, and persistent harassing behavior.

But perhaps the most important language appears immediately afterward.

The ordinance says the decision is left to the “individual employee’s reasonable discretion.”

Read that again.

The person deciding whether your criticism has crossed the line may initially be the government employee you are criticizing.

That deserves scrutiny.

Angry Is Not the Same as Threatening

Public Works isn’t exactly in the business of interacting with residents when everything is going perfectly.

These are the people working on streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, water infrastructure, trees, construction projects, and other work that can directly affect someone’s home, business, lawn, driveway, or neighborhood.

Sometimes taxpayers are going to be angry.

Maybe city work damaged their property.

Maybe access to their home or business has been disrupted.

Maybe they believe something was done incorrectly.

Maybe they’ve called repeatedly and still haven’t received an answer.

They may argue. They may raise their voice. They may tell a city employee exactly what they think about the work being performed.

None of those things, by themselves, necessarily make someone dangerous.

There is a difference between an uncomfortable conversation and an unsafe one.

There is a difference between criticism and harassment. And there is absolutely a difference between an angry taxpayer and someone threatening a city employee.

Ordinance #2026-50 needs to preserve those distinctions.

Who Decides When You’ve Gone Too Far?

Initially?

The employee you’re complaining about.

If that employee decides a telephone conversation has crossed the line, the ordinance allows the employee to hang up and immediately notify a supervisor.

If it happens in the field, the employee can terminate the interaction, leave the job site, return to the Public Works facility, and await further instructions.

A supervisor would then complete an incident report documenting what happened.

That provides a paper trail. But a paper trail isn’t necessarily oversight. There are questions council members should answer before approving this policy.

What happens when the taxpayer disputes the employee’s version of events?

Does the citizen get an opportunity to provide their side for the incident report?

Will residents be informed that an incident report was filed?

Will those reports be available for public inspection?

Will repeated incidents involving the same employee trigger administrative review?

Is there a complaint or appeal process when a taxpayer believes an employee improperly terminated an interaction?

And most importantly:

Who ultimately decides whether the employee’s exercise of “reasonable discretion” was actually reasonable?

Those aren’t arguments against employee safety. They’re arguments for accountability on both sides.

Government Doesn’t Get to Choose Only Happy Customers

Government is different from a private business.

A business can tell an abusive customer to leave and never come back. Residents of Freeport cannot simply choose another Public Works Department. You cannot move your property taxes to a competing municipality because you don’t like the service. You cannot call another city to fix your street. And you cannot unsubscribe from local government when you’re dissatisfied with it.

That relationship creates responsibilities on both sides.

Residents should treat city employees with basic dignity. Employees deserve protection from genuine harassment and threats. But public employees should also understand something fundamental about public service:

The public isn’t always going to be happy with you.

Government employees will be questioned. They will be criticized. Sometimes that criticism will be uncomfortable. Sometimes it will be angry. That comes with serving the public.

Threatening a government employee is one thing.

Holding one accountable — even forcefully — is another.

If It Passes, Save It for City Hall

If Ordinance #2026-50 ultimately passes, perhaps frustrated taxpayers should change their approach.

Save it.

Don’t argue at the job site.

Don’t risk having your telephone call terminated because someone decides your tone has become too hostile or demeaning.

Take that frustration somewhere considerably more difficult to ignore.

Take it to City Hall.

Attend a Monday night City Council meeting. Use your three minutes of public comment. Tell acting Public Works Director and Fehr Graham employee Darin Stykel what happened.

Tell City Manager Rob Boyer. Tell the Freeport City Council. Tell Mayor Jodi Miller.

Put your complaint into the public record. Be respectful. Be factual.

Bring photographs. Bring documents. Bring dates, addresses, correspondence, and anything else that supports your complaint.

Then use your three minutes to make the people responsible for your government hear you.

Whatever rules City Hall ultimately adopts governing interactions with individual Public Works employees, public accountability does not end because criticism makes government uncomfortable.

And Then There’s the Irony

There is another aspect of Monday’s agenda item that deserves attention.

The ordinance is being presented by acting Public Works Director Darin Stykel, an employee of Fehr Graham.

For readers familiar with Fighting4Freeport’s previous coverage involving Stykel, that creates an unmistakable irony.

Fighting4Freeport has previously reported on allegations and incidents involving Stykel’s own conduct, including allegations of harassment, racially charged remarks involving children, and alleged harassment at an individual’s workplace involving representation as a hospital employee.

Those are serious matters.

Any assessment of them should be based on the underlying records and the specific facts documented in F4F’s previous reporting.

But as Stykel presents a policy intended to protect Public Works employees from inappropriate conduct by citizens, his own previously reported history makes another question particularly relevant:

What standard of conduct does the City of Freeport demand from the people it puts in positions of authority?

Because respect cannot be a one-way street.

If City Hall expects residents to control their conduct when dealing with government employees, taxpayers have every right to expect the same professionalism from the people representing their government.

Employee accountability and citizen accountability should not be competing ideas. The standard should apply in both directions.

Monday Night

Ordinance #2026-50 receives its first reading Monday, August 17, before the Freeport City Council.

The proposal says its purpose is to maintain a safe and respectful professional environment for Public Works employees while continuing the delivery of essential public services.

That’s a worthwhile goal.

Protect employees from threats.

Protect them from racial slurs.

Protect them from genuine harassment.

Protect them when they reasonably fear for their safety.

But City Council should also make certain that a policy created for employee safety can never quietly become a policy protecting government employees from criticism, disagreement, frustration, or accountability.

Those aren’t the same things.

And if this ordinance eventually passes and you believe Public Works has treated you unfairly?

Don’t give anyone an excuse to stop listening.

Take your photographs. Take your documentation. Take your complaint. And take your three minutes.

Straight to City Hall.

Put it on the record.

Make the City Manager hear it.

Make the City Council hear it.

Make the Mayor hear it.

Because government can protect its employees from abuse.

But government should never be protected from the people it serves.