Residents urge Vermillion to revise on-call residency rule as lineman faces disciplinary action

Family members, union representatives and other residents told the Vermillion City Council on Monday that the city’s current on-call residency rule is too strict and urged officials to revise it before taking employment action against lineman Brandon Steenick.

Jordan Defenbaugh, representing AFSCME Local 1052 and Council 65, said Steenick has long stayed at his sister’s house while on-call and “Extending the on call response time to something reasonable like 30 minutes would maintain public safety while respecting the personal lives of the people who serve Vermillion.” Defenbaugh told the council that the arrangement has allowed Steenick to respond “quickly and reliably” and asked officials to align the rule with neighboring communities’ standards.

Why it matters: Public commenters said the rule, which staff indicated is measured in a short time window and enforced strictly, could cost the city an experienced lineman and undermine morale. Speakers framed the request as a public-safety–neutral change that would preserve rapid response while recognizing modern realities, including employees who live outside city limits or travel for work.

In testimony, Brandon’s relatives and supporters described multiple long-term arrangements that placed him close enough to respond when needed. Ron Jupiter, who identified himself as a contract auditor and Brandon’s brother-in-law, suggested measuring by mileage rather than a fixed distance or an extremely tight time window: “I think a mileage approximation is a lot better metric. Additionally to that, policy is supposed to be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.”

Resident Brian Summerveld said Steenick’s alleged infraction was a “2 minute violation of an on call response window,” and argued the city had previously accepted the employee’s residential arrangement. Christina Steenick, Brandon’s wife, described his decade of service as a lineman and a veteran and urged councilors to consider his performance record: “Brandon is a good employee. Brandon is a good person.”

What the city said: Mayor (name not recorded on the record) acknowledged the comments but cautioned the council that the matter is legal in nature and not on the evening’s agenda. “Being it’s a legal matter, we can’t obviously discuss it here and it’s not on the agenda,” the mayor said. The mayor added the council was listening and would take the remarks under advisement.

Details and clarifications: Commenters said the employee has used his sister’s residence for roughly six years during on-call shifts and has not missed calls; that the city’s current metric is a short time window and referenced a 15-minute standard in testimony; and that supporters proposed a 30‑minute response window or a mileage-based rule. Speakers also said Steenick procured hotel rooms, at his own cost, when necessary during severe weather to ensure availability.

No formal action was taken. The council did not debate or vote on policy changes during the meeting; staff and elected officials said they would consider the public testimony outside the open session.

Community context: Speakers traveled from Vermillion and nearby towns, and several noted the effect on recruitment and retention of public-works employees. Commenters warned that strict enforcement of residency expectations could deter families and workers from locating or remaining in Vermillion.

Looking ahead: Council members and staff signaled they would review the policy and brought the public comments into the record; no ordinance, motion or timetable for a formal policy review was set during the meeting.