Freeport council stalls change to residency rules after heated debate

The Freeport City Council debated an ordinance that would amend city residency requirements for certain positions but did not adopt it after a divided vote.

Alderman James Monroe led objections to the ordinance during the second-reading debate, saying the proposal would reward past disregard for rules and make the city look like it treats employees differently than residents. “We have a city manager who, in my opinion, has allowed this type of activity to go on,” Monroe said, adding that the change appeared aimed at covering prior hires and not at improving recruitment.

City Manager Rob Boyer defended the proposal as a practical measure to allow promotions and retain qualified senior staff who live outside Freeport. “The reason why this residency doesn't work is because we cannot promote from within because people locate according to our resident, our policies,” Boyer said, adding that some hires were made with council knowledge.

Attorney Tony Zito read the ordinance text and penalty language for violations during the discussion. He summarized the code section that applies to police ranks and noted an exemption allowing some officers to maintain a previously established residency within a 20-mile radius: "The exemptions ... talk about ... an officer holding a rank ... prior to the effective date of this ordinance ... can maintain that residency as previously established." Zito also read the disciplinary penalty that applies to an officer violating the residency section: suspension without pay or discharge until compliance.

Councilmembers expressed divergent views. Alderman Sanders and Alderman Shadle questioned whether previous hires were made with appropriate notice to council and called for documentation; Shadle said he recalled being told the ordinance change would be considered later when earlier hires occurred. Alderman Parker and other supporters said the change was necessary to keep high-performing employees, including the police chief, in their roles.

When the council called roll on final adoption, the vote tally was 4 in favor and 3 opposed (Shadle — Aye; Sanders — No; Sellers — Aye; Clem — Aye; Monroe — No; Parker — Aye; Stacy — No). Because city code requires five affirmative votes to adopt an ordinance, Mayor-pro tem announced the measure failed.

The council also considered but defeated a motion to recess so clerks could retrieve past minutes related to prior appointments and the hire that prompted the discussion. Other attempts to delay the matter for more information likewise failed.

With the ordinance not adopted, the existing residency requirements remain in force until and unless the council brings a revised measure back and secures the necessary votes.