September 9, 2026 | Freeport, IL
Presented by Brian Keller
FOR THE PEOPLE | F4F NEWS
Investigative Reporting, Editing & Publication
Joshua T. Atkinson
Chairman | Fighting4Freeport
Mayor Jodi Miller repeatedly cited “council rules” while limiting public comment during Tuesday’s packed meeting. Freeport’s own ordinance tells a different story.
Freeport City Hall was packed Tuesday night as residents turned out over Mayor Jodi Miller’s controversial appointment of Renee Blazeski to the Freeport Public Library Board. The appointment was ultimately rejected by the City Council, but what happened before the vote may be just as important.
Mayor Miller, who has been in office for nearly a decade, stood before a packed council chamber and repeatedly invoked Freeport’s council rules as justification for limiting how many residents would be permitted to speak. There is just one problem: when Fighting4Freeport reviewed the ordinance Miller was citing, we found that the public wasn't told the whole rule.
In fact, a review of the ordinance alongside what happened during Tuesday night’s meeting shows multiple provisions governing public comment that Miller did not follow or enforce. That raises a serious question: After nearly a decade in office, does Mayor Miller still not know the rules governing her own City Council meetings—or does she simply choose which parts of those rules to enforce?
A Controversial Appointment Packs City Hall
Item 6 on the September 8 City Council agenda called for Miller to appoint Renee Blazeski to a vacant seat on the Freeport Public Library Board, effective immediately through May 31, 2028.
Under Freeport City Ordinance 1072.03, the Library Board consists of nine trustees appointed by the mayor “by and with the consent of Council.” In other words, the mayor can make the nomination, but the City Council gets to decide whether to accept it.
After residents learned of Miller’s proposed appointment last week, opposition spread quickly throughout the community. An online petition titled “Urge withdrawal of Blazeski’s library board appointment” circulated heavily across social media. By the time of this article’s publication, 475 people had signed it.
Petition organizers pointed to Blazeski’s previous appearances before the Freeport Public Library Board. According to Library Board records, Blazeski appeared June 10 and raised questions about the library’s meeting-room policy while also voicing concerns about its collection. She returned July 8 to follow up on concerns and a previous request regarding the collection.
Organizers interpreted those comments as raising concerns about the possibility of future attempts to restrict library materials. The petition also cited Illinois law governing book bans and public-library eligibility for state grants.
Illinois law requires libraries seeking eligibility for state grants to adopt the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, which provides that materials should not be removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval, or alternatively develop their own written statement prohibiting the practice of banning books or other materials.
To be clear, the Library Board records cited by the petition do not establish that Blazeski proposed banning a specific book. They document concerns and requests regarding the library’s collection. The broader conclusion about what those requests could ultimately mean was an argument made by opponents of her appointment. But those concerns were enough to mobilize hundreds of residents and pack City Hall Tuesday night.
Fighting4Freeport’s Actual Connection to the Petition
Before going any further, one fact needs to be made unmistakably clear because it became the subject of false statements made before the City Council Tuesday night.
Fighting4Freeport did not create the petition. Fighting4Freeport did not write the petition. Fighting4Freeport was not responsible for the petition.
Our involvement consisted of exactly two things.
Fighting4Freeport shared the petition on Facebook after it began circulating in the community. In the very post sharing it, we specifically informed our followers that the petition was not ours. Fighting4Freeport Chairman Joshua T. Atkinson also signed the petition as an individual.
That's it.
Fighting4Freeport did not author its language, did not organize the petition and did not present it as a Fighting4Freeport petition.
That distinction would become important inside City Hall.
“Per Council Rules”
When it came time for public comment, Mayor Miller addressed the crowded chamber.
“Per council rules there are a limit of six written per agenda item and six in person,” Miller told those gathered.
The mayor was correct that Freeport’s ordinance contains a six-person limit. What she didn't explain was what the ordinance says immediately after establishing that limit, and that omission matters.
Freeport City Ordinance 220.10(23) governs addresses by members of the public during council meetings. Regarding written correspondence, the ordinance states:
“With regards to any written correspondence addressed to the City Council which is received in advance of a public meeting, the Chair shall read the correspondence that was received and state the name of the sender.”
The ordinance then establishes the six-comment limitation before addressing what happens when more than six written comments are submitted:
“There shall be no more than six pieces of written correspondence read on any issue. If there are more than six pieces of written correspondence, then each side will be granted the same number of pieces of written correspondence to be read.”
Those are not guidelines created by Fighting4Freeport. They are Freeport’s own rules, and Tuesday night the first apparent departure from those rules happened almost immediately.
The Ordinance Says the Chair “Shall Read” the Correspondence
Mayor Miller did not read the written correspondence submitted to the City Council. Instead, she handed that responsibility to City Clerk Dovie Anderson.
That may sound like a minor procedural detail, but the language of the ordinance is specific about who is assigned that responsibility. It says “the Chair shall read the correspondence.” Mayor Miller was presiding as chair, yet the correspondence was read by Anderson.
Anderson’s handling of the correspondence also provided the public with an important piece of information. The clerk disclosed that the city had received nine written statements opposing Miller’s appointment and only three supporting it.
Because more than six statements had been submitted, Anderson read three from each side—three supporting and three opposing, for six total. In doing so, the written correspondence was divided equally between supporters and opponents, consistent with the ordinance’s requirement that when more than six pieces of correspondence are received, each side is granted the same number.
Then Mayor Miller took back control of public comment, and the handling of equal representation looked very different.
Six Speakers—But Not Three From Each Side
Miller informed the audience that multiple people had requested to speak on multiple agenda items, but again invoked the six-person limitation, telling the public that only six would be allowed “per our council rules.”
Once again, six is indeed the limit contained in Freeport’s ordinance. But once again, that isn't the entire rule.
Ordinance 220.10(23)(A) states:
“There shall be no more than six number of speakers to any issue. If there are more than six registered speakers, then each side will be granted the same number of speakers.”
The ordinance addresses precisely the situation confronting the mayor Tuesday night. When more than six people register, it doesn't simply establish a maximum and leave the distribution of those six speakers unaddressed. It specifically says each side will be granted the same number of speakers.
With a maximum of six speakers, and at least three people registered on each side, an equal distribution meant three supporting the appointment and three opposing it.
That isn't what happened.
Mayor Miller allowed four residents supporting her appointment of Blazeski to speak, while only two residents opposing the appointment were given the opportunity to speak. The result was four to two, not three to three.
That stands in particularly sharp contrast to what had happened just moments earlier. When the city received nine written comments opposing Miller’s appointment and three supporting it, Anderson read three from each side. The written correspondence was divided 3–3. When Miller controlled the in-person comments, the six speakers were divided 4–2.
It was the same meeting, the same appointment and the same ordinance containing provisions designed to provide equal representation when more than six people seek to participate. Yet the written and in-person comments produced two very different results.
The Fourth Supporter Takes the Podium
The fourth person Miller called to speak in support of her appointment was Margareth Katherine (Kathy) Hale-Robinson.
Hill-Robinson was entitled to support Blazeski. She was entitled to criticize those opposing the appointment. She was entitled to criticize Fighting4Freeport.
What she was not entitled to do without scrutiny was rewrite the facts about Fighting4Freeport’s involvement with the petition.
For approximately three minutes, Hill-Robinson repeatedly attributed the petition and statements contained within it to Fighting4Freeport.
“She never once said that the book should be banned or burned as Fighting4Freeport stated in a written petition,” Hill-Robinson told the mayor, council and packed chamber.
There is an immediate problem with that statement.
Fighting4Freeport never stated it in a petition because Fighting4Freeport never wrote the petition.
Hill-Robinson continued, referring to language in the petition and attributing it to Fighting4Freeport: “Fighting4Freeport stated in their petition that Renee's language is, and I quote…”
Again, it wasn't our petition.
She then referred to the petition's citation of Illinois law, telling the council, “They go on to quote an Illinois State law…”
Again, we didn't.
The petition did.
Hill-Robinson eventually told the council, “Well, Fighting4Freeport should have looked up the statute for libel,” before accusing Fighting4Freeport of being “deceptive to the public.”
There is a certain irony in publicly lecturing a news organization about libel while attributing statements to that organization that it did not make.
But there is something even more troubling about what happened Tuesday night.
She Quoted Our Post—But Left Out the Part That Said It Wasn't Our Petition
Hill-Robinson's statements weren't made without apparent knowledge of Fighting4Freeport's Facebook post.
She referenced the material Fighting4Freeport shared. Yet somehow, while attacking Fighting4Freeport over the petition, she failed to mention the critical disclosure at the beginning of our post: Fighting4Freeport explicitly told readers that the petition was not ours.
***This post is from one of your/our concerned neighbors. We have been contacted multiple times today about this and will do what we can to bring you more information.***
That wasn't hidden in fine print. We disclosed it when we shared the petition. Hill-Robinson nevertheless stood before the mayor, City Council and public and repeatedly called it Fighting4Freeport’s petition.
Those statements were false.
Put plainly, Kathy Hill-Robinson lied about Fighting4Freeport’s involvement with the petition.
The petition wasn't ours. We didn't write it. We didn't organize it. We shared it, explicitly told our audience it wasn't ours, and our chairman signed it.
Those are the facts.
And the Mayor Knew It Wasn't Our Petition
What happened next makes Miller's decision to allow those statements to continue even more difficult to explain.
Mayor Miller later addressed the controversy herself and acknowledged the petition, stating:
“I am also aware of which a petition with Change.org by an anonymous starter…”
That statement matters.
The mayor herself acknowledged that the Change.org petition had an anonymous starter.
Yet minutes earlier, while Hill-Robinson repeatedly characterized that same petition as belonging to Fighting4Freeport and accused this organization of deception based upon words it did not write, Miller allowed her to continue for her allotted time without correcting the false attribution.
Miller knew the petition was attributed to an anonymous starter.
She said so herself.
Nevertheless, she sat as chair while a speaker repeatedly told the council and public that it was Fighting4Freeport’s petition.
What Else Does Ordinance 220.10(23) Say?
That brings us back to the same ordinance Mayor Miller repeatedly invoked throughout public comment.
The beginning of Ordinance 220.10(23), governing “Address by Non-Members,” establishes the chair's authority and responsibility for maintaining order during public participation. Among other provisions, it states:
“Any person making personal, impertinent abusive, profane or slanderous remarks, or who shall become boisterous, shall be forthwith evicted from the chamber by the Chair. The Chair will preserve order and decorum…”
The significance here isn't for Fighting4Freeport to declare that Hill-Robinson legally committed the tort of slander. Whether any statement satisfies the legal elements necessary for a defamation claim is a separate legal question.
The significance is what Freeport’s own council ordinance requires of the chair.
Miller was willing to invoke that ordinance when it restricted how many residents could speak. She invoked it again when explaining why only six people would be heard.
But when a supporter of Miller's own appointment used her three minutes to repeatedly attribute statements to Fighting4Freeport that Fighting4Freeport did not make—and which Miller's own subsequent comments demonstrate she knew came from a petition with an anonymous starter—the mayor allowed it to continue.
Again, the question becomes unavoidable:
Which parts of the council rules count?
Which Parts of the Rules Count?
Tuesday night is about something much bigger than a Library Board appointment.
Mayor Miller has presided over Freeport City Council meetings for nearly a decade. This wasn't a newly elected mayor navigating her first contentious meeting. This was an experienced mayor standing before a packed chamber and specifically invoking council rules as the authority for restricting public participation.
Once an elected official invokes the rules to limit who can speak, the public has every right to examine those rules. So Fighting4Freeport did.
What we found is straightforward.
The ordinance says the Chair shall read written correspondence. Miller did not read it; City Clerk Dovie Anderson did.
The ordinance says that when more than six registered speakers seek to address an issue, each side will be granted the same number of speakers. Yet four residents supporting Miller’s appointment were permitted to speak while only two residents opposing it were heard.
The ordinance also makes the chair responsible for preserving order and decorum and specifically addresses personal, impertinent, abusive, profane or slanderous remarks. Yet Miller allowed a supporter of her appointment to spend her public-comment time repeatedly attributing statements to Fighting4Freeport that this organization did not make, despite Miller later acknowledging that the petition had an anonymous starter.
If City Hall has an explanation for how all of this complied with Ordinance 220.10(23), it should provide it.
But “per our council rules” cannot mean invoking the portions of an ordinance that give the chair authority while ignoring the portions that impose responsibilities on the chair.
Council Says No to Miller’s Appointment
Ultimately, Freeport’s ordinance worked exactly as intended in one important respect. Mayor Miller had the authority to nominate Blazeski, but she did not have the authority to install her unilaterally.
Ordinance 1072.03 requires Library Board appointments to be made by the mayor “by and with the consent of Council.” Tuesday night, Miller did not receive that consent.
The City Council rejected her appointment of Renee Blazeski to the Freeport Public Library Board.
The council vote resolved the immediate appointment, but it doesn't erase what happened beforehand. Recent events inside Freeport City Hall make the apparent failure to follow the council’s own rules particularly difficult to ignore.
One Set of Rules for Everyone?
This isn't ultimately about whether Renee Blazeski should or should not serve on the Library Board. Reasonable people can disagree about her appointment. It is about something much more fundamental: When residents enter City Hall, are the rules applied as they are actually written—and are the people sitting behind the dais held to the same standards they impose on everyone else?
That question carries particular weight in Freeport right now.
Just weeks ago, 3rd Ward Alderwoman Rachel Simmons was publicly censured following the July 6 City Council meeting. Among the conduct cited against Simmons was her alleged failure to follow the rules governing council proceedings, including speaking without being recognized by the chair.
The consequences didn't end with a public censure. In just a few weeks, Simmons has been ordered to appear at an official administrative hearing where she faces additional punishment, including the possibility of a fine, stemming from allegations that she violated Freeport's council rules.
Yes. Council rules.
The very rules Mayor Miller repeatedly invoked Tuesday night.
And Tuesday night provides more than one example of the mayor apparently failing to follow or enforce provisions contained within those same rules.
Ordinance 220.10(23) says “the Chair shall read the correspondence.” Mayor Miller didn't. She handed that responsibility to City Clerk Dovie Anderson.
Ordinance 220.10(23)(A) says that when more than six people register to speak on an issue, “each side will be granted the same number of speakers.” Instead of three speakers from each side, Miller allowed four supporters of her appointment to speak while only two opponents were heard.
The same ordinance places responsibility on the chair to preserve order and decorum while specifically addressing personal, impertinent, abusive, profane or slanderous remarks. Yet Miller allowed the fourth supporter of her appointment to spend her public-comment time falsely attributing an anonymously started petition to Fighting4Freeport and attacking this organization over statements it did not write.
And we know Miller understood that the petition was anonymously started because she said so herself later in the meeting.
Freeport now finds itself in an extraordinary position. An alderwoman has already been publicly censured and has been ordered to appear at an official hearing over allegations that she violated the rules of council. Meanwhile, the mayor stood in front of a packed City Hall, repeatedly invoked those same rules to control public participation, failed to personally read written correspondence as the ordinance directs, failed to provide equal numbers of speakers from each side, and allowed false accusations against Fighting4Freeport to continue despite later demonstrating that she knew the underlying petition was anonymously started.
If violating council rules is serious enough to publicly censure an alderwoman, order her to appear at an official hearing and potentially fine her, what happens when the person holding the gavel fails to follow them?
Will Mayor Miller be called before a hearing? Will someone introduce a resolution condemning her conduct? Will there be an investigation into whether she violated the ordinance? Or will Freeport discover that the consequences for violating council rules depend entirely upon who violates them?
Mayor Miller has presided over Freeport City Council meetings for nearly a decade. Residents should not have to wonder whether their mayor doesn't know the rules she is responsible for enforcing—or whether she believes she can selectively apply them.
City Hall has already established its position: the rules matter. Rachel Simmons is about to face a hearing because of them.
If those rules are important enough to punish an alderwoman for allegedly violating them, they must be important enough to hold the mayor to the same standard.
Anything less isn't accountability.
It's a double standard.