Has Freeport’s City Manager Lost Confidence in His New Police Chief?

A growing police presence at City Council meetings raises questions about Chief Frausto, taxpayer dollars—and who is really giving the orders.

FOR THE PEOPLE | BRIAN KELLER | F4F NEWS

July 24, 2026 | Freeport, IL

In 2025, the City of Freeport said goodbye to longtime Police Chief Chris Shenberger. By the end of the year, City Manager Rob Boyer had announced his replacement: Jacquelyn B. Frausto.

A new police chief was always going to bring changes to the Freeport Police Department. But one of the most visible changes isn't happening on Freeport's streets. It's happening inside City Hall.

Residents attending City Council meetings have watched an increased police presence become part of Monday nights. Where Shenberger routinely fulfilled his responsibilities at Council meetings without surrounding himself with additional officers, Freeport's new police chief has taken a noticeably different approach.

And the public has noticed.

For residents who regularly attend these meetings, the increased police presence is being viewed as exactly what it looks and feels like: an attempt to intimidate the public inside its own City Hall.

Whether intimidation is the intent is something City officials can and should answer. But there is another question that doesn't depend on anyone's interpretation: Why are Freeport taxpayers paying for it?

What Exactly Is a Sergeant-at-Arms?

Freeport's police chief isn't simply another department head required to attend City Council meetings. The chief has a specific responsibility.

Under Section 220.10(24) of Freeport's Codified Ordinances, the Chief of Police—or an officer designated by the chief—serves as the Sergeant-at-Arms for City Council and Committee of the Whole meetings.

The Sergeant-at-Arms is an old legislative institution. Historically, the position exists to help a deliberative body maintain security, order and decorum. It is not supposed to control political speech or protect government officials from criticism.

Freeport's ordinance makes the role particularly clear. The Sergeant-at-Arms is directed to carry out the orders and instructions of the Chair “for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum.”

That's important. The police chief doesn't run the City Council meeting. The police chief doesn't decide which criticism of City government is acceptable. The police chief doesn't determine when someone's political speech has crossed a line.

Under Freeport's rules, the Mayor—or Chairperson Pro Tem—is responsible for preserving order and decorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms carries out the Chair's instructions. The ordinance even establishes a process for removing someone from a meeting: a person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting twice at the same meeting, as determined by the Chair, shall be removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Freeport already has a system. It already has rules. It already has someone responsible for enforcing them.

So why does City Hall suddenly need more police?

Shenberger Didn't Need the Show of Force

Chris Shenberger served under these responsibilities too. Yet under Shenberger, it was rare to walk into an ordinary Monday night Council meeting and find additional Freeport police officers stationed there.

There were certainly nights when officers filled City Hall. Usually, those were good nights. An officer was receiving an award. Someone had earned a promotion. The department was celebrating an accomplishment. Officers came to support their colleagues, and members of the community came to congratulate them.

It wasn't a show of force. It was a show of community.

During Shenberger's tenure, he didn't use public City Council meetings to peacock before elected officials or the community. He didn't need to. His performance, demeanor and years of service to Freeport earned him respect.

Respect didn't need to be demanded. It had already been earned.

A Different Chief. A Very Different Atmosphere.

Now Freeport has Chief Frausto, and the atmosphere at City Hall has changed.

Additional uniformed officers have become a visible presence at Council meetings. For residents sitting in the audience—particularly those who regularly challenge their government—that changes the atmosphere of the room.

These aren't private administrative meetings. They are public meetings. Residents aren't guests of the City Manager or the Police Department. It's their City Hall.

People have every right to attend, observe, question, criticize and demand answers from their government while following the rules established for the meeting. Police absolutely have a responsibility to respond when someone becomes threatening or genuinely breaks the law.

But that isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about officers being positioned inside City Hall before anyone has done anything. The public sees intimidation. Period.

If City Hall believes the public has it wrong, then City Hall should explain what legitimate security concern requires the additional police presence.

“The City Council Shall Sit With Open Doors.”

Then came an even more troubling development. During a recent Council meeting, doors at City Hall were locked while the meeting was underway.

That deserves scrutiny for one particularly obvious reason. Freeport's own ordinance says: “The City Council shall sit with open doors.”

Those are Freeport's words. Not ours.

The details matter. Which doors were locked? Was another entrance available? Who made the decision? Why was it made? Was there a specific security concern? Those questions should be answered before anyone reaches a legal conclusion about what occurred.

But something has clearly changed when residents attending meetings of their elected representatives encounter an increased police presence and doors are being locked while the meeting is underway.

The public has every right to ask why. More importantly: Who gave the order?

Maybe Frausto Isn't the Real Story

At first glance, this appears to be a story about Freeport's new police chief.

Maybe it isn't.

Chief Frausto doesn't sit at the top of Freeport's administrative chain of command. City Manager Rob Boyer does.

Freeport's ordinance governing the Chief of Police makes that relationship clear. The City Manager selects and appoints the Chief of Police. The chief must “receive and obey all lawful orders of the City Manager.” The chief assigns departmental duties consistent with the lawful orders of the City Manager. The chief is also required to attend Council meetings.

So perhaps Freeport has been asking the wrong question.

Maybe the question isn't why Chief Frausto needs additional officers at Council meetings.

Maybe the question should be why Rob Boyer believes she does.

Has Boyer Lost Confidence in His Own Hire?

Boyer selected Frausto. That was his decision.

So if additional officers are now considered necessary for Frausto to fulfill a routine Sergeant-at-Arms responsibility that Shenberger handled without regularly requiring backup, that raises an unavoidable question about Boyer's confidence in his own appointment.

Has Rob Boyer lost confidence in his new police chief?

Does he believe Frausto cannot safely handle a City Council meeting without additional officers? Is Boyer already questioning the person he selected to lead the Freeport Police Department? Does he regret his decision?

Or is something else happening?

Because there is another possibility the public cannot ignore: Maybe this is exactly what Boyer wants.

Maybe the additional officers aren't there because Frausto lacks confidence. Maybe they're there because the administration wants them there. Maybe the visible police presence isn't about the chief’s inability. Maybe it's about the public seeing uniforms when they walk through the doors.

If that's the case, then the question becomes much more serious: Is City Manager Rob Boyer using the Freeport Police Department to create an atmosphere intended to intimidate residents who challenge the Miller administration?

We don't need to speculate about the answer. Boyer can simply tell the public who made the decision.

Mr. Boyer, Who Ordered It?

This shouldn't require another consultant, committee or carefully prepared City Hall statement.

The City Manager should answer some straightforward questions. Who decided additional police officers should regularly attend Council meetings? Who authorized those officers to be assigned? What specific security concern justified the change? How many officer-hours have been spent staffing Council meetings beyond the officer serving as Sergeant-at-Arms? How much has it cost taxpayers? Were any of those hours overtime?

And who ordered or authorized the locking of City Hall doors during the recent Council meeting? What documented incidents, threats or security concerns justified these decisions?

If Boyer didn't order the increased presence, he should say so. If Frausto made the decision herself, the public deserves to know that too.

But if Boyer directed or approved it, then he should own the decision and explain why.

Because Freeport's ordinance makes something else very clear: The Police Chief answers to the City Manager.

You Don't Have to Feel Intimidated to Care

Maybe additional police officers at City Council don't bother you. Maybe you don't find their presence intimidating. Maybe you believe having several officers standing around, on the clock, at every meeting is perfectly appropriate.

That's a personal judgment.

But there is another part of this conversation that should matter to everyone: We're paying for it.

Freeport doesn't have unlimited police resources, and it doesn't have unlimited taxpayer dollars. Every additional officer assigned to stand around inside City Hall represents police time being paid for by taxpayers. Those hours have a cost.

If additional officers aren't required by ordinance and aren't responding to a documented security need, taxpayers deserve to know why their limited resources are being used this way.

You don't have to agree that the increased presence is intimidating. You don't have to agree with residents criticizing City Hall. You don't even have to like the people asking the questions.

But every taxpayer should be able to agree on one thing: Government should be able to explain why it is spending your money.

If additional police officers are necessary at City Council meetings, show us why. If there is a legitimate threat, explain what can responsibly be disclosed. If there is a security assessment, explain it. If there is a legitimate reason, give it.

But if taxpayers are paying police officers to stand inside City Hall simply to create a show of force toward residents participating in their government, that's not public safety.

That's an expensive message being sent with the public's own money.

So Which Is It, Mr. Boyer?

Freeport has a new police chief. It also has a new mentality at City Hall.

Residents can see it. The additional officers are visible. The locked doors were visible. And the contrast with the previous police leadership is visible.

What isn't visible is the reason.

That leaves City Manager Rob Boyer with two very uncomfortable questions.

Has Boyer lost confidence in the police chief he selected?

Or is the increased police presence happening because this is exactly the atmosphere Boyer wants inside City Hall?

One raises questions about the City Manager's confidence in his own personnel decision. The other raises a much more troubling question about how this administration views the public it serves.

Either way, Freeport taxpayers deserve an answer.

Because City Hall belongs to them. The Council meetings belong to them. The Police Department works for them. And the money being spent belongs to them.

Public service should never require the public to be intimidated into remembering who's in charge.

The public is already in charge.