City Hall Delivers the Best—and Most Unexpected—Fireworks Show in Illinois

July 08, 2026 | Freeport, IL

A meeting that began with a prayer for unity ended with an alderwoman being escorted from the Council Chambers, members of the public removed, and City Hall adjourning without finishing its business.

If someone had walked into Monday night's Freeport City Council meeting late, they would have assumed they had missed something enormous.

Police officers were escorting elected officials from the Council Chambers. Members of the public were shouting from the gallery. The mayor repeatedly struck her gavel. The meeting recessed before ultimately ending without completing the City's business.

Ironically, the evening began with a message about unity.

A Prayer for Unity

Before any city business was discussed, the meeting opened with an invocation.

Whether government meetings should include religious messages—or whether political allies of elected officials should use taxpayer-funded meetings to promote their religious beliefs—is a debate that continues to divide the Freeport community. That larger discussion has been reported on in a previous article.

For this story, however, it is worth listening carefully to the opening prayer because it framed everything that followed.

She began by quoting Matthew 12:25:

"But Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, 'Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.'"

She then prayed:

"May you unite them in ways they never ever have been united before. For their unity will help keep Freeport standing strong and proud."

Later, she added:

"I pray that if anyone here tonight has never reached out to you, to your Son, and accepted Him, that they will tonight before sleep consumes them for the night."

The invocation concluded with a mention of Mayor Jodi Miller's Freeport Festivals Inc. Tutty Baker Fest.

Whether residents view those remarks as appropriate for an official City Council meeting is ultimately a question each taxpayer must answer for themselves.

Routine Business

After the invocation, the meeting followed its normal course.

Council approved the agenda and prior meeting minutes before recognizing Parkview Home's Centennial Day, honoring Fire Department employee Zachery Downs for five years of service, and recognizing members of both the Stephenson County Sheriff's Office and the Freeport Police Department.

Nothing about the meeting suggested what was about to unfold.

Public Comment

The first written public comment came from former Freeport Township Trustee Shane Orlow, who opposed opening a special 401(a) retirement plan for Police Chief Jacquelyn Frausto.

He questioned why the chief should receive additional retirement benefits from Freeport taxpayers after a relatively short tenure, noting that she already receives retirement benefits from prior service elsewhere.

Next, Fighting4Freeport Chairman Joshua T. Atkinson submitted written comments opposing Ordinance 2026-34, which would expand purchasing authority for the City Manager and city staff.

The comments referenced the recently released FY2025 audit, noting that multiple city funds exceeded Council-approved budgets and that the independent auditors again recommended stronger budget monitoring throughout the year.

The comments concluded:

"Until the City demonstrates a sustained commitment to fiscal discipline and respect for Council oversight, it would be irresponsible to grant broader purchasing powers with less oversight."

Steve Carroll then spoke against the proposed retirement benefit for Chief Frausto.

Among his remarks, he stated:

"She has displayed a thin skin, arrogance, and picking fights with elected officials and other governmental bodies."

He concluded:

"Mr. Boyer—your hire. Your problem. Please fix it."

Akia Sanders also opposed both the proposed retirement benefit and expanded purchasing authority, closing with a direct appeal:

"Please care about the constituents. Please do what you were elected to do."

Windy Pearson echoed concerns about the proposed retirement plan, telling Council:

"The lack of respect to this community has got to stop. The pouring out of dollars from our pockets has to stop."

With public comment complete, the meeting appeared ready to move into routine legislative business.

Instead, it became anything but routine.

The Consent Agenda

Mayor Miller introduced the consent agenda using language familiar to anyone who regularly watches City Council meetings.

She explained that the consent agenda consists of routine items unless a council member wishes to remove an item for separate discussion.

After a brief pause, she continued reading the agenda before asking for a motion to approve it.

Sixth Ward Alderman Greg Shadle made the motion.

Alderwoman-at-Large Joy Sellers seconded it.

At that point, Seventh Ward Alderman Larry Sanders said:

"No."

From there, confusion quickly developed over whether Sanders was attempting to object to the consent agenda or request removal of an item before the vote.

Mayor Miller proceeded toward a roll call vote.

Sanders then attempted to explain that he believed a conflict of interest existed.

Before he finished, discussion began among several council members regarding the proper procedure.

Fifth Ward Alderwoman Cecelia Stacy remarked:

"He tried to speak up."

Third Ward Alderwoman Rachel Simmons then addressed Sanders directly, explaining how she believed he should proceed in future meetings if he wished to remove an item from the consent agenda.

As Simmons spoke, Mayor Miller responded that nothing was being rushed.

The procedural disagreement quickly became personal.

Order Breaks Down

As Rachel Simmons explaining the procedure to Alderman Sanders, Mayor Miller interrupted.

"It's not being pushed."

Simmons remained focused on Sanders rather than the mayor.

"Ma'am, I did not ask you for a response. I am letting him know the order so that he understands next time. Please let me explain."

At that point, Mayor Miller lost all composure and control.

She interrupted Simmons again, telling her:

"Have that discussion off the council floor because you're wasting everybody's time."

Simmons attempted to explain that she was simply trying to help a fellow alderperson understand the process after his objection was ignored.

Before she could finish, Mayor Miller ruled her out of order.

The City Attorney then advised that if Simmons refused to yield the floor, the mayor had the authority to order her removal from the meeting.

The exchange escalated almost instantly.

Mayor Miller struck the gavel.

Rather than backing down, Simmons struck her own desk even harder and replied:

"Slam it again."

The atmosphere inside City Hall changed immediately.

Mayor Miller again declared Simmons out of order and directed Police Chief Jacquelyn Frausto, serving as Sergeant-at-Arms, to remove the Third Ward alderwoman from the Council Chambers.

Before leaving, Simmons defended why she had spoken.

"I'll take it. Because you should want him to have that understanding."

As Alderwoman-at-Large Joy Sellers attempted to join the discussion, Simmons turned toward her and said:

"Please hush."

Meanwhile, members of the audience began shouting from the gallery.

Mayor Miller repeatedly pointed her gavel toward residents while declaring:

"You are out of order..."

She warned members of the public that they too would be removed if the disruptions continued.

Then came what may ultimately become the defining quote of the evening.

As officers prepared to escort her from the chambers, Simmons looked toward the mayor and declared:

"You don't want clarity. You want control."

Within moments, Simmons had been escorted from the Council Chambers.

Akia Sanders, a local resident was also removed.

The Council recessed.

For a meeting that had begun less than an hour earlier with a prayer asking God to unite Freeport's leaders, City Hall had descended into one of the most contentious public meetings in recent memory.

A Brief Pause—Not the End

When the meeting resumed, tensions remained high.

A police officer was positioned near the council seating area as the meeting attempted to continue.

Alderman Sanders again attempted to raise what he described as a conflict-of-interest concern related to the consent agenda.

Discussion quickly stalled once more.

Following a private conversation between Mayor Miller and City Manager Ryan Boyer, the mayor proposed adjourning the meeting.

Council agreed.

After a two-week break between meetings, the July 6 meeting ended without completing the work before it.

Chairman’s Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson

Leadership Is Measured by How You Handle Disagreement

There are moments in government that reveal far more than a campaign ever could.

Monday night's City Council meeting was one of those moments.

Campaign speeches tell us what candidates promise to do. Council meetings show us what they actually do when faced with pressure, disagreement, and criticism. That is why this meeting matters. It wasn't simply another contentious evening at City Hall. It became a real-world test of leadership, temperament, and judgment, and it happened in full view of the taxpayers.

Reasonable people can disagree about parliamentary procedure. They can disagree about whether Alderman Larry Sanders objected at precisely the correct moment under Robert's Rules of Order. They can disagree about whether Rachel Simmons should have continued speaking after being ruled out of order.

What should concern every resident, however, is not the disagreement itself. It is what happened once that disagreement began.

The moment it became apparent that there was confusion over the consent agenda, City Hall had an opportunity to slow the meeting down, clarify the procedure, answer the question, and continue with the public's business. Instead, the procedural dispute became the meeting itself. The discussion shifted away from ordinances and policy and toward who controlled the floor. From that point forward, every decision seemed to raise the temperature inside the Council Chambers rather than lower it.

In my opinion, one sentence marked the turning point.

"Have that discussion off the council floor because you're wasting everybody's time."

Once those words were spoken, the meeting changed. What began as an effort to understand procedure quickly became a confrontation. Moments later the gavel came down, an elected alderwoman was ruled out of order, the City Attorney advised that she could be removed, members of the public began shouting, police officers became part of the meeting, and eventually City Hall recessed before adjourning without completing the job they were sent there to do - the people's business.

For me, that is the real story.

Not that tempers flared. Not that voices were raised. Those things happen in government.

The story is that government itself stopped functioning.

Taxpayers waited two weeks for their elected officials to return to City Hall and conduct the public's business. Instead, much of the evening was consumed by a procedural dispute that many residents will undoubtedly believe could have been resolved with patience, communication, and stronger leadership.

The irony of the evening should not be lost on anyone.

The meeting opened with a prayer reminding those present that "every kingdom divided against itself... will not stand," followed by a prayer asking God to unite Freeport's leaders. Less than an hour later, City Hall had become a picture of division. Not because people disagreed, but because disagreement was never successfully managed.

Government does not lose credibility because elected officials ask questions. Government loses credibility when citizens leave believing those questions were treated as problems rather than opportunities. Transparency requires questions. Accountability requires questions. Public confidence is strengthened—not weakened—when leaders demonstrate they are willing to answer them.

Over the past several months, Fighting4Freeport has heard from residents across this community who are increasingly frustrated with the direction of City Hall. Some have expressed disappointment in decisions they once supported. Others have simply said they expect better from their local government. Whatever their political views, one theme continues to emerge: people want leadership that can navigate disagreement without bringing government to a standstill.

Monday night's meeting did not create those concerns. It magnified them.

Every resident should watch the meeting from beginning to end and reach their own conclusions. Ask yourself one simple question: when confusion entered the room, did City Hall respond by creating greater understanding, or did it deepen the conflict?

Your answer to that question may ultimately shape how you view not only Monday night's meeting, but the direction of Freeport's leadership.

City Hall belongs to the people. Every meeting should leave residents with confidence that their government can debate difficult issues, respect differing viewpoints, and still accomplish the work they were elected to do.

On Monday night, that didn't happen.

For the sake of Freeport, let's hope our leaders and especially our mayor learn from it.