Residents accuse council members of retaliation; council moves to executive session on contract dispute

At the Freeport City Council meeting on March 17, several residents used the public-comment period to defend City Manager Lance Petty and to accuse some council members of pursuing retaliatory actions. The session later recessed to an executive session listing demand letters and Mr. Petty’s retention of personal legal counsel on the published agenda.

The council heard multiple speakers who urged against ending Mr. Petty’s contract. “Mr. Petty was the driving force in terminating Kelty’s contract and terminating Casey Roman’s employment with the city,” resident Sam Reyna said, attributing prior misappropriation to earlier administrators and calling Petty “the future of Freeport.” Reyna, who said he lives at 2002 North Avenue G, added Mr. Petty’s priorities were “to eliminate corruption and excessive spending.”

An anonymous letter read aloud at the meeting alleged retaliation and singled out Councilman Jeff Pena, referencing a Facebook post and stating that an employee feared for their job. The letter quoted the post’s wording as saying, “don’t give in to Mr. Petty. If you do, there will be a cleaning in house,” and asked the council to consider removing Councilman Pena for what the writer described as intimidation.

Councilman Feeney moved to take the matter into executive session early, citing pending litigation referenced in counsel’s correspondence; the motion failed for lack of a second. Later in the evening the council closed the regular meeting and opened an executive session whose agenda items included “demand letters to responsible parties for recovery of $345,000” and “discussion and take possible action regarding Lance Petty’s retention of personal legal counsel.” The meeting record does not disclose actions taken during the closed session.

Mayor and staff repeatedly reminded speakers of meeting rules and the council’s process for addressing personnel and legal matters. City attorney Jerry Olsen told the body that individuals may make public comments even if they decline to give their address, and legal counsel advised that the council refrain from deliberating on pending litigation in open session.

The statements in public comment and the anonymous letter reflect citizen concerns and accusations recorded on the meeting record; the council’s formal response and any personnel or legal outcomes were not disclosed in open session. The agenda showed the matters moved to executive session for further discussion.

The city listed the executive-session items on the published agenda and later recessed to that closed meeting; the council did not announce any formal personnel action in open session at the close of the meeting.