Did Freeport's City Manager Promise Something He Couldn't Yet Deliver?

July 15, 2026 | Freeport, IL

A Deep Dive Into Police Chief Jacquelyn Frausto's Employment Agreement and the Questions It Raises for City Council

Most employment contracts are signed after the terms have been negotiated and approved. That's why one sentence inside Freeport Police Chief Dr. Jacquelyn Frausto's employment agreement immediately caught our attention. Months before City Council was asked to establish a 401(a) retirement plan, the contract already stated that the City agreed to establish one. That sequence doesn't answer every question—but it certainly raises several.

When Fighting4Freeport first examined Resolution R-2026-87, our focus was on the City's proposal to establish a 401(a) retirement plan for Police Chief Dr. Jacquelyn Frausto. That investigation concluded that much of the public debate had drifted away from the central issue. Illinois law requires municipalities to provide an alternative qualifying retirement arrangement for police chiefs who cannot participate in a traditional police pension. The real question before City Council is not whether the Police Chief should receive retirement benefits, but how the City chooses to satisfy that legal obligation and what obligations taxpayers are ultimately being asked to fund.

While researching that article, however, another question emerged.

If City Council is only now being asked to establish the retirement plan through Resolution R-2026-87, why does Chief Frausto's employment agreement already state that the City agrees to establish one?

To answer that question, Fighting4Freeport obtained and reviewed the Police Chief's employment agreement in its entirety. Although only five pages long, the document contains several provisions that deserve public attention. Some reflect standard executive employment practices. Others raise legitimate questions about the sequence in which important decisions were made and when City Council became involved.

The Contract

Chief Frausto's employment agreement was executed on December 18, 2025, became effective on January 5, 2026, and was signed on behalf of the City of Freeport by City Manager Rob Boyer. The agreement establishes an annual salary of $120,000, participation in the City's health insurance program, paid vacation and sick leave, professional development opportunities, and other benefits typically associated with executive-level municipal employment.

The agreement also addresses one issue that generated considerable public discussion during the hiring process. Chief Frausto is required to establish residency within twelve (12) months of the effective date of her employment. That provision reflected concerns expressed by many residents who believed Freeport's Police Chief should ultimately become a member of the community she was hired to serve.

Standing alone, these provisions are not particularly unusual. Municipalities routinely negotiate employment agreements covering compensation, insurance, leave, professional development, and residency requirements when hiring executive department heads. Had the agreement ended there, it is unlikely it would have generated much public discussion.

The retirement section, however, tells a different story.

The Retirement Clause

Section 6 of the employment agreement contains a single sentence that immediately stood out during our review.

It states:

"Employer agrees to establish a 401(a) defined contribution plan..."

Those words matter because of what happened next.

When the agreement was signed in December 2025, the 401(a) retirement plan referenced in the contract had not yet been established. Months later, City Council is now being asked to adopt Resolution R-2026-87 creating that very plan.

That sequence naturally raises important governance questions.

If the employment agreement already reflected the City's agreement to establish the retirement benefit, what role was City Council expected to play when the resolution finally appeared on its agenda? Were alderpersons being asked to independently evaluate whether a 401(a) plan represented the best option available, or were they being asked to approve a benefit already reflected in an employment agreement?

Those are not accusations. They are reasonable questions arising directly from the timeline established by the documents.

The Timeline

The sequence of events is relatively straightforward.

On December 18, 2025, the City Manager signed an employment agreement stating that the City agreed to establish a 401(a) defined contribution plan. The agreement became effective on January 5, 2026. Months later, Resolution R-2026-87 was placed before City Council asking alderpersons to adopt that retirement plan.

Whether one ultimately supports or opposes the resolution, this timeline deserves careful consideration. City Council exists to debate policy, evaluate recommendations, and make decisions on behalf of the public. Whenever an employment agreement reflects a future commitment that still requires legislative action, taxpayers are justified in asking how that sequence came about and whether Council had an opportunity to weigh the available options before the commitment appeared in the contract.

Questions Taxpayers Should Be Asking

Several questions remain unanswered.

When was City Council first informed that the employment agreement included a commitment to establish a 401(a) retirement plan?

Did Council review or discuss that contractual language before the agreement became effective?

What alternative retirement arrangements, if any, were evaluated before the City selected a 401(a) plan?

If Council had preferred a different legally compliant retirement structure, how would that have affected the language already contained in the employment agreement?

These questions are not about personalities. They are about process. Good government depends upon transparency, and transparency requires more than simply presenting a resolution for a vote. It requires explaining how the City arrived at that point in the first place.

A Process That Invites Questions

Whether the employment agreement was drafted by the City Attorney, negotiated by the City Manager, or reviewed by both, one thing is clear: the sequence chosen has now become part of a very public controversy.

One of the fundamental responsibilities of municipal administration is anticipating issues before they become problems. Employment agreements involving department heads should be drafted in a manner that clearly reflects both the City's legal obligations and the role City Council plays in approving significant policy decisions. When those issues are not fully resolved before an agreement is executed, the result is often confusion, public distrust, and unnecessary controversy.

Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the sequence reflected in these documents. If so, City Hall should provide it. Transparency is rarely weakened by explanation. More often, it is strengthened by it.

Could the Contract Create Additional Risk for Taxpayers?

One question that has received very little public discussion is what would have happened had City Council rejected Resolution R-2026-87.

The employment agreement states that the City agrees to establish a 401(a) defined contribution plan. Months later, City Council is being asked to adopt the resolution necessary to establish that plan. Those documents naturally raise questions about the City's legal obligations if Council had decided to reject or substantially alter the proposal.

Fighting4Freeport is not suggesting such a lawsuit would necessarily occur, nor are we offering a legal opinion regarding the enforceability of the employment agreement. Those are questions for the courts if they were ever to arise.

However, good government seeks to avoid placing taxpayers in positions where unnecessary legal disputes become possible in the first place. Whenever an employment agreement reflects a future commitment that still requires legislative action, City Hall should carefully consider whether that sequence creates avoidable legal uncertainty.

Taxpayers deserve to know whether City officials evaluated that possibility before the agreement was executed.

F4F Chairman's Analysis | Joshua T. Atkinson

After reviewing this agreement, I came away with one overriding thought: this controversy was entirely avoidable.

Let me be clear about one thing before anyone misunderstands my position. Illinois law requires the City of Freeport to provide Chief Frausto with an alternative retirement arrangement. That isn't my opinion. It isn't the City's opinion. It is the law. We covered that extensively in our previous article, and I stand by every word of it.

My concern isn't that the Police Chief is receiving retirement benefits.

My concern is the process.

Government works best when everyone understands their role. Staff research the issue. The City Manager develops recommendations. City Council debates those recommendations in public. Then—and only then—Council decides.

That process builds public confidence because taxpayers know major decisions are being discussed before commitments are reflected in official agreements.

Here, the sequence appears to have unfolded in the opposite direction. The employment agreement states that the City agrees to establish a 401(a) defined contribution plan, and only months later is City Council being asked to adopt the resolution creating that plan. Whether or not the final outcome is the same, that sequence naturally invites questions from both alderpersons and taxpayers.

Could there be a reasonable explanation? Absolutely. If there is, City Hall should provide it.

Transparency isn't simply publishing documents after the fact. Transparency means explaining decisions before they become controversies.

That's where I believe City Hall fell short.

The public deserved a clear explanation from the beginning. Illinois law required an alternative retirement arrangement. The City had options. Those options, their costs, and the reasons for recommending a 401(a) plan should have been presented openly to City Council and the public before this issue reached the point of public outrage.

Leadership is measured by how well you prevent avoidable controversies—not simply how you respond after they begin.

If nothing else, this contract should serve as a reminder that process matters.

At the end of the day, this article isn't really about a 401(a) plan. It's about process. Today's controversy will eventually fade, but the standards City Hall follows when negotiating executive employment agreements will remain long after this vote is over. Taxpayers should expect a process that is transparent, deliberate, and easy to explain. If a government cannot clearly explain how it arrived at an important decision, then asking questions isn't obstruction—it's oversight.