Council repeatedly tables planning commission appointment and removal amid procedural disputes

The Freeport City Council debated and ultimately tabled indefinitely multiple agenda items related to the city Planning Commission — an explanation of the removal of Joshua Atkinson and an explanation of the appointment of Dustin Wilkinson — while members disputed procedure and the timing for reconsideration.

When the council called item number 6 to discuss an explanation of Joshua Atkinson’s removal from the Planning Commission, Alderman Stacy said she placed the item on the agenda and asked for discussion. Alderman Schadl moved to "table this indefinitely"; the motion initially resulted in a 4-4 tie on the roll call. Mayor Jody Miller then cast the deciding vote, and the motion to table passed 5 to 4.

A separate item to place the appointment of Dustin Wilkinson on the floor (item number 7) followed a similar path. After a motion to discuss, Alderman Schadl again moved to table indefinitely. The roll call was tied 4 to 4; Mayor Miller cast the deciding vote and the motion to table passed 5 to 4.

Council members and staff also discussed the procedural rules for reconsideration. City Attorney Zito explained that a motion to reconsider must be made by a member who was on the prevailing side of the earlier vote. She reviewed the prior votes related to the earlier motion to rescind advice and consent for Wilkinson’s appointment and noted which council members had voted yes and no on that motion. On the record, Zito said the prevailing side on the prior motion was the fail (those who voted no), and therefore only a member who voted with that prevailing side could move to reconsider.

Members who opposed tabling said they wanted the substantive issues — including allegations raised earlier in public comment and questions about the appointee’s qualifications and municipal process — to be aired. Alderman Stacy said the items had appeared on the agenda before and that she wanted answers for constituents. Members who supported tabling said the topic had been discussed multiple times and favored shelving it.

The council also considered, but did not complete, a motion to rescind prior advice and consent on Wilkinson’s appointment. Attorney Zito clarified the rules and the timeline for when a rescind or reconsider motion could be properly made. On the record, staff noted the appointment and related votes had been before the council on multiple previous dates (April 7, April 14, and April 21), and that procedural rules tied to Robert’s Rules governed whether the item could be reconsidered at the current meeting.

The council’s action leaves the removal and appointment items without further action at this meeting; they were tabled indefinitely and will remain subject to the council’s future agenda-setting choices and the procedural rules Attorney Zito outlined.