MAGA-MILLER Power Grab: Ordinance 2025-37 Silences Dissent

FREEPORT, IL – June 21, 2025

In a 5–3 vote that sparked outrage among many Freeport residents and drew heated comments from council members, the City Council approved Ordinance 2025-37 on Monday night. This sweeping amendment to Sections 220.10 and 220.11 of the Freeport Code of Ordinances drastically alters how meetings are conducted, how council members can speak, and who controls the city’s legislative agenda.

Supporters of the ordinance—including MAGA-Mayor Jodi Miller and her loyal majority—claim the changes will “increase efficiency and eliminate ambiguity.” But critics see the move as a calculated power grab meant to silence dissent and centralize authority within the Mayor’s office and her closest allies.

Key Changes in Ordinance 2025-37

1. Meeting Control and Cancellations

The Mayor, City Manager, or a majority of the City Council may now cancel regular or special meetings (Section 220.10(2))—a shift some worry could be used to avoid public scrutiny as the Mayor attempted to do just this for the April 14, 2025 meeting to prevent 5th Ward Alderwoman Cecelia Stacy from putting items on the agenda to be exposed and discussed in front of the public. Mayor Miller was then successful at canceling the May 12, 2025 meeting to prevent the outgoing 2nd Ward Alderman an opportunity to expose and discuss his findings to the public. 

2. Special Meetings

Previously, three alderpersons could call a special meeting. Now, it requires a majority of the Council (Section 220.10(5)), making it harder for minority blocs to initiate urgent discussions.

3. Quorum and Attendance Penalties

Quorum is now defined as a majority of the Council including the Mayor. This move further shows that the letter received by the Illinois Assistant Attorney General was in general correct as it pertains to Illinois state law but the Mayor and five members of the City Council did in fact break municipal law on May 19, 2025. More controversially, council members can be fined $100 per conviction if found to be willfully absent without a “reasonable reason”—as judged by the majority (Section 220.10(8)). Skipping meetings to protest policy or to deny quorum is explicitly deemed unacceptable.

4. Speaking Restrictions

Council members may now speak only twice on any item, for just 4 minutes each time, unless a majority votes to extend time. Previously, a unanimous vote was required to allow more than two turns (Section 220.10(15)).

5. Fines for Breaking Rules

Violating council rules can now lead to a $250 fine—more than double the previous penalty—if convicted (Section 220.10(25)).

6. Agenda Control

Perhaps the most controversial change: only the Mayor, City Manager, or a majority (5) of alderpersons can place an item on an agenda. Items can also be removed by the original requestor before the public agenda is posted (Section 220.10(29)). This significantly limits individual alderpersons' ability to bring public matters forward. Further, it now makes legal what Mayor Miller has been doing in the past—removing items to avoid hearing from the public. 

7. Council Requests of Staff Must Go Through City Manager

Council members may no longer directly request data or information from city staff. All such requests must go through the City Manager, who is allowed to delay responses based on workload or vacation (Section 220.10(30)). This is a drastic shift, leaving council members no other alternative but to ask all questions via a FOIA Request (Freedom of Information Act). This is now the only way to receive factual information from Freeport's city staff within 5 business days. 

8. Decorum and Removal

Anyone deemed “out of order” twice in a meeting—by the presiding officer (Mayor Miller)—can now be removed by the Police Chief or their designee (Section 220.10(24)), raising concerns over potential abuse during contentious public comment.

9. Committee Control

The same power structure and agenda rules now apply to all committee meetings, including Finance and Committee of the Whole. Additionally, the ordinance eliminates the Social Justice Committee altogether (Section 220.11(g)), a body established during the height of the 2020 racial justice movement.

Mayor's Justification Raises Eyebrows

Mayor Miller attempted to downplay the concerns, stating during Monday’s meeting that council members with questions could just call her privately and ask. This remark followed two consecutive meetings in which 7th Ward Alderman Larry Sanders publicly asked the Mayor, “Who put this item on the agenda?”—a question he and the public deserved answered. The Mayor flatly refused to answer both times.

Her response was widely viewed as dismissive and authoritarian by some in the chamber, with critics pointing out that such evasiveness contradicts the ordinance’s stated goal of improving transparency and clarity.

Public Reaction and Fallout

Residents in attendance voiced frustration over what many saw as a targeted effort to silence opposition—especially among alderpersons who have challenged Mayor Miller’s policies in recent months. Several attendees questioned the timing of the ordinance, as it follows a series of contentious council meetings marked by public dissent, particularly from Wards 3, 5, and 7.

“This ordinance isn’t about efficiency,” said one resident. “It’s about control. Plain and simple.”

Others fear that the new rules will discourage open dialogue and further politicize the Council’s ability to act independently.

What This Means for You

  • Your alderperson may not be able to speak freely on your behalf if the majority blocks additional time.

  • Agenda items can now be hidden or removed before the public sees them—no explanation required.

  • Requests for city information must go through layers of approval, delaying answers to urgent questions.

  • Public speakers and even elected officials can be removed from meetings for being “disruptive”—as judged by the Mayor.

Conclusion

While the ordinance’s passage may have been framed as a necessary update to aging procedural rules, many Freeport citizens and several alderpersons see it differently. By consolidating control over meeting schedules, agendas, and even council member speech, Ordinance 2025-37 has shifted the balance of power at City Hall in ways that may echo far beyond this week’s vote.

Whether this truly leads to a “Responsive, Efficient Government,” as the ordinance's recommendation claimed—or simply reinforces the growing political divide—remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: Freeport’s democratic process just became a little less accessible.

—Brought to you and Paid for by Fighting4Freeport