Hersh presented a supposedly thorough recruitment process, Nelson praised it, and Eichmann defended it. Yet the City's own records reveal no completed candidate scoring sheets, no written rankings, and an earlier employment offer that raises serious questions about the selection process. Even more troubling, a confidential source alleges Hersh opposed hiring another candidate because his proposed salary would exceed hers.
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News
October 18, 2026
FRANKLIN, Wis. — Did Franklin Mayor John Nelson, Director of Administration Kelly Hersh, and Common Council President Michelle Eichmann provide the Common Council and taxpayers with a complete and truthful account of the process used to select the City's new attorney?
Public records obtained by Franklin Community News raise serious questions about the recruitment process, the representations made to elected officials, and the absence of documentation that would ordinarily help substantiate the Administration's claims.
On July 7, 2026, Hersh appeared before the Common Council to recommend the appointment of Christina M. Lucchesi as Franklin's new City Attorney.
She described a nearly yearlong recruitment process involving structured interviews, standardized evaluation criteria, and a comprehensive assessment of candidates.
Mayor Nelson praised Hersh's report as thorough.
Eichmann defended the recruitment process and confirmed that she had personally participated in interviews with other candidates.
The Common Council subsequently voted unanimously to confirm Lucchesi.
State law requires release of the names of the finalists which are defined as the three highest ranked candidates.
But the City's own records tell a considerably more complicated story.
Documents obtained through public records requests establish that Franklin developed a detailed numerical scoring system for evaluating City Attorney candidates.
Yet Human Resources subsequently acknowledged that no completed scoring sheets were written, no written candidate rankings were created or maintained, and no separate evaluation summaries existed.
The records also reveal that Franklin previously extended a formal employment offer to another attorney at a higher starting salary than Lucchesi ultimately accepted.
Adding to these concerns, a confidential source with firsthand knowledge has informed FCN that Hersh personally expressed opposition to hiring that earlier candidate because his proposed salary would exceed her own compensation.
Taken together, these disclosures raise questions about whether the Common Council received a complete and accurate description of the hiring process before confirming one of Franklin's most important municipal appointments.
Hersh Presented an Extensive Recruitment Process to the Council
During the July 7 meeting, Hersh described the City's recruitment effort as nearly a year in the making.
The City Attorney position had been advertised beginning July 15, 2025.
Hersh told the Common Council:
"So this has been definitely something that has been well thought out and executed."
She then walked alderpersons through her Administrative Report and Recommendation, emphasizing recruitment integrity, executive recruitment principles, organizational fit, and professional competencies.
Particularly important was Appendix E, titled Professional Competencies Evaluated During Recruitment.
Hersh specifically directed the Council's attention to that section, suggesting it demonstrated why Lucchesi was the appropriate candidate.
She also identified Appendix G, the Recruitment Documentation Index.
During her presentation, Hersh referenced candidate screening materials, structured interview questions, interview evaluation forms, panel notes, and reference discussions.
These representations were made publicly, immediately before the Council voted on the appointment.
The documentation index included checkmarks beside interview evaluation forms and interview panel notes.
To an alderperson reviewing the report, those entries could reasonably suggest that documentation existed supporting the Administration's comparative assessment of candidates.
However, the City's subsequent records production raises questions about what those checkmarks actually represented.
The City's Scoring System: Detailed Instructions, But No Completed Scores
Among the records released to FCN was a structured interview guide containing a numerical evaluation system.
The instructions directed interviewers to use consistent questions, record observations, and assign competency scores on a scale of one to five.
The forms included spaces for candidate names, interviewers, dates, scores, supporting notes, and recommendations.
The system established specific advancement thresholds:
- ADVANCE: 30 points or higher.
- BORDERLINE: 24–29 points.
- PASS: Below 24 points or a disqualifying condition.
The interview guide also instructed participants to retain their notes in accordance with the City's records policy. This was not simply a list of suggested interview questions.
The City had developed an organized scoring system intended to support consistent candidate evaluations.
Yet when FCN requested the completed scoring sheets, interview notes, rankings, and recommendations, the City's Human Resources Department reported that no completed scoring sheets were written.
HR also reported that no written candidate rankings or separate evaluation summaries were created or maintained.
The City provided blank evaluation instruments rather than completed candidate assessments.
That discrepancy raises a fundamental question:
If Franklin developed a standardized numerical scoring system, why was there no completed scoring documentation for the candidates who were interviewed?
Why did the Administration present the recruitment as a structured process using standardized scoring criteria without clearly explaining that no numerical scoring sheets had been completed?
The concern is not merely that documents are missing. It is whether the Administration's presentation accurately reflected the evaluation process that actually occurred.
Hersh Told the Council Three Candidates Were Interviewed
During the July 7 meeting, Alderman Nabil Salous questioned Hersh about the number of applicants and candidates interviewed.
Hersh explained that responsibility for receiving applications had shifted among Human Resources personnel during the recruitment.
She also acknowledged that other administrative priorities had affected the process.
Nevertheless, she told the Council:
"We have actually met and interviewed quite in depth with three candidates."
That statement establishes that the Administration represented that three candidates had undergone extensive interviews.
But the City's subsequent disclosures do not include completed scoring sheets showing how those three candidates compared.
Nor do they include a written ranking identifying which candidate received the strongest evaluation.
How did Hersh and Nelson determine that Lucchesi was the best candidate?
Was the decision based on standardized competency scores?
Was it based on interviews and informal discussions?
Did elected officials who participated in interviews provide written assessments?
Or did the Administration rely primarily on subjective judgments that were never formally documented?
The available records do not establish which of these explanations is correct.
However, they do not provide the completed comparative evaluation documentation that would allow the public to independently examine the Administration's selection process.
Mayor Nelson Praised the Report—But What Did He Actually Review?
Mayor John Nelson was responsible for nominating the City Attorney.
He also participated in the recruitment process and supported Hersh's recommendation.
During the July 7 meeting, Nelson praised the Administrative Report.
He stated:
"You've covered everything."
Nelson further suggested that the report explained the reasoning behind the appointment. But the subsequent records disclosures raise questions about the basis for that endorsement.
Did Nelson review completed candidate evaluations?
Was he aware that no completed scoring sheets had been written?
Did he review a documented comparison of the three interviewed candidates?
And what role did he play in determining why an earlier employment offer to another attorney did not result in an appointment?
These questions are particularly relevant because Nelson approved the earlier employment offer disclosed in the City's records.
The Mayor therefore had direct involvement in more than one stage of the recruitment.
Nelson cannot reasonably treat the hiring process as solely an administrative matter when he was responsible for the nomination and approved an earlier offer to another candidate.
If the City's recruitment procedures were not followed as described, the Mayor should explain what he knew and what information he relied upon.
The public deserves to understand the basis for his decision.
Eichmann Defended the Process—And Acknowledged Participating in Other Interviews
Common Council President Michelle Eichmann also played a significant role in the July 7 discussion.
Eichmann addressed criticism of the appointment and emphasized that alderpersons had participated in an earlier special meeting with Lucchesi.
She then confirmed her participation in interviews with other candidates.
Eichmann stated:
"I did sit in other interviews with other candidates that we had in the past so I can testify that those did indeed happen."
Her statement is important.
Eichmann was not merely relying on Hersh's assurances that interviews had occurred.
She acknowledged firsthand participation in the recruitment process.
That involvement raises questions about how she evaluated the candidates.
Did Eichmann complete the City's standardized evaluation forms?
Did she assign numerical scores?
Did she maintain interview notes?
Did she provide written recommendations?
And did she review any documented comparison of candidates before supporting Lucchesi's appointment?
The City's records do not establish that Eichmann completed any such documentation.
Participation in interviews does not necessarily require numerical scoring. Nevertheless, Eichmann's public defense of the process makes it reasonable to ask whether the City's formal evaluation instruments were actually used during interviews she attended.
Confirming that interviews occurred is not the same as demonstrating that the candidates were evaluated consistently.
As Common Council President and an interview participant, Eichmann had an opportunity to seek clarification before the confirmation vote.
The transcript does not show her asking Hersh why completed candidate evaluations were not included in the materials presented to the Council.
Public Records Reveal an Earlier Employment Offer
Perhaps the most significant new disclosure involves another attorney who received a formal offer of employment.
The City's records contain an offer addressed to Attorney Drescher for the City Attorney position.
The offer provided:
Starting annual salary: $135,000.
Proposed salary following six months: $140,000, contingent on a satisfactory evaluation and Common Council approval.
The offer contemplated a mid- to late-January 2026 start date and anticipated scheduling the appointment for Council confirmation in December 2025 or January 2026.
The document was signed by Hersh and approved by Nelson.
Lucchesi subsequently accepted an offer providing a starting annual salary of $132,000.
That means the earlier offer provided a starting salary $3,000 higher than Lucchesi's, with the possibility of an increase to $140,000.
The records establish that Franklin extended a formal offer to another attorney months before Lucchesi's appointment.
What they do not establish is why that earlier appointment did not proceed.
Did Drescher reject the offer?
Did negotiations fail?
Was the offer withdrawn?
Did the Administration change its recommendation?
The answers matter because the earlier offer demonstrates that the recruitment process had progressed beyond preliminary interviews with another candidate.
Yet the circumstances surrounding that offer were not clearly explained during Hersh's July 7 presentation.
Confidential Source Alleges Hersh Opposed Hiring Drescher Because of His Salary
Franklin Community News has received information from a confidential source with firsthand knowledge alleging that Director of Administration Kelly Hersh expressed opposition to hiring Attorney Drescher because his proposed compensation would exceed her own salary.
According to the source, Hersh personally communicated that concern.
FCN is withholding the source's identity to protect confidentiality.
The allegation raises questions about whether considerations unrelated to the candidates' professional qualifications influenced the Administration's hiring recommendations.
The City's records independently establish that Drescher received an employment offer with a proposed starting salary of $135,000 and a possible increase to $140,000.
If Hersh opposed a candidate because his compensation would exceed hers, that would raise a serious question about whether personal considerations entered a decision that should have been guided by the City's interests.
The City Attorney is responsible for providing legal advice to the Mayor, Common Council, boards, commissions, and municipal departments.
Selecting an attorney for that position should involve evaluating professional experience, municipal legal knowledge, judgment, ethical standards, and the City's operational needs.
An administrator's personal compensation preferences should not determine whether a qualified candidate is hired.
The confidential source's allegation does not establish that Hersh caused Drescher's appointment to fall through.
But it raises a legitimate issue requiring scrutiny, particularly given the documented earlier offer and the absence of completed comparative evaluations.
Was Drescher's proposed salary a legitimate budgetary concern—or did Hersh's alleged concern about her own compensation influence her position on the appointment?
That question remains unanswered.
FCN Raised Concerns Before the Council Voted
The questions surrounding the recruitment were not first raised after Lucchesi's appointment.
On July 3, 2026, Franklin Community News sent correspondence to Nelson, Hersh, members of the Common Council, and other City officials requesting additional due diligence before confirmation.
The correspondence sought information about the number of applicants, the interview process, objective evaluation criteria, written scoring sheets, and comparative assessments.
FCN Raised the Documentation Questions Before the Vote
Four days before the Common Council confirmed Christina Lucchesi, Franklin Community News sent Mayor John Nelson, Director of Administration Kelly Hersh, and Council members a detailed memorandum asking whether candidates had been evaluated using consistent objective criteria and whether interview scoring sheets, evaluation summaries, or written recommendations had been prepared. Hersh's subsequent presentation described standardized evaluations and identified interview evaluation forms and panel notes in her recruitment documentation index. Yet the City's later records responses established that no completed scoring sheets were written and no written candidate rankings were created or maintained. The questions FCN raised before the appointment therefore remain central to assessing whether the Council received a sufficiently documented explanation of the hiring decision.
FCN specifically questioned whether the Council had sufficient documentation to evaluate the Administration's recommendation.
Those concerns were communicated four days before the July 7 confirmation vote.
Nevertheless, the Council proceeded.
Hersh presented her Administrative Report.
Nelson praised it.
Eichmann defended the interviews.
The appointment was approved unanimously.
The City's subsequent disclosures demonstrate that the concerns about the availability of completed evaluation documentation were warranted.
The Administration had an opportunity to clarify the process before the vote. The public record of the July 7 discussion does not show that clarification being provided.
The City's Response: No Completed Scoring Sheets, No Rankings, No Separate Evaluation Summary
Following the appointment, FCN continued seeking the underlying recruitment materials.
The City eventually provided applicant materials, interview guides, blank evaluation forms, employment correspondence, and other documents.
But the completed scoring sheets and written comparative evaluations were not produced.
Human Resources subsequently reported that no completed scoring sheets were written, no written candidate rankings were created or maintained, and no separate evaluation summary had been created or located.
The distinction is important.
The City did not merely decline to release completed scoring sheets. It reported that no completed scoring sheets had been written.
That statement should be considered alongside the earlier Administrative Report, which described structured interviews using standardized scoring criteria.
The two representations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Interviewers could have considered scoring criteria without completing written scores.
However, the City has not provided an explanation establishing that this is what occurred.
Nor has it reconciled the checkmarks identifying interview evaluation forms and panel notes in Hersh's Recruitment Documentation Index with HR's subsequent description of the records available.
The absence of that explanation leaves a significant gap between the recruitment process described to the Council and the documentation subsequently produced.
October 13: The City Declares the Records Request Closed
On October 13, 2026, City Clerk Shirley Roberts advised Franklin Community News:
"Mr. Busalacchi, pursuant to your request, I have given you everything that the department has for this request. This is closed on behalf of the City."
The City's position appears to be that the records production is complete.
However, closing a public records request does not resolve substantive questions about the hiring process.
It does not explain why the numerical evaluation system was developed without completed scoring sheets.
It does not identify what comparative assessments Nelson and Hersh reviewed.
It does not establish whether Eichmann completed any candidate evaluations.
And it does not explain why the earlier employment offer to Drescher did not result in an appointment.
There is no basis in the records reviewed to conclude that Roberts personally withheld documents.
The central questions concern the actions and representations of the officials responsible for the recruitment—not the Clerk's administrative handling of the records request.
Was the Recruitment Report an Accurate Account—or a Justification for the Final Decision?
The City's disclosures raise a broader concern about transparency in municipal hiring.
Hersh presented an extensive report describing the recruitment process.
The City developed detailed interview questions and numerical scoring instruments.
Three candidates were reportedly interviewed extensively.
An earlier candidate received a formal employment offer.
Yet the City has not produced completed scoring sheets, written rankings, or separate evaluation summaries showing how the interviewed candidates were compared.
The resulting concern is whether the Administration's elaborate recruitment report accurately described the procedures followed—or created an impression of objectivity that the available documentation cannot substantiate.
That is a question of public accountability.
It does not require assuming that Lucchesi was unqualified.
Nor does it require concluding that the City was obligated to hire Drescher.
The Mayor and Administration may have had legitimate reasons for their final recommendation.
But those reasons should be distinguishable from an unsupported claim that the recruitment was objectively documented.
A detailed report is not a substitute for evidence that the evaluation procedures it describes were actually implemented.
Nelson, Hersh and Eichmann Owe Residents an Explanation
Three officials played especially visible roles in the appointment.
Mayor John Nelson nominated Lucchesi, approved the earlier employment offer to Drescher, and publicly endorsed Hersh's recruitment report.
Director of Administration Kelly Hersh managed and presented the recruitment recommendation, identified evaluation documentation, and signed the earlier employment offer.
Common Council President Michelle Eichmann acknowledged participating in interviews with other candidates and publicly defended the recruitment process.
Their responsibilities were different, but each contributed to the public presentation supporting Lucchesi's confirmation.
The subsequent records disclosures leave important questions about that presentation.
Did the Administration accurately describe how candidates were evaluated?
Were standardized scoring procedures actually used?
What documentation supported the conclusion that Lucchesi was the preferred candidate?
Why did the earlier offer to Drescher not result in an appointment?
And did Hersh's alleged concern about her own salary influence her position on the earlier candidate?
These questions concern the integrity of the City's decision-making process—not merely the qualifications of the attorney ultimately appointed.
The available records do not establish that Nelson, Hersh, or Eichmann knowingly made false statements.
They do, however, support substantial criticism of the completeness and transparency of the account presented to the Common Council.
The Records Request Is Closed. The Accountability Questions Are Not.
Franklin residents were told that the appointment of their new City Attorney followed an extensive, carefully executed recruitment process.
They were presented with an Administrative Report describing structured interviews, professional competencies, and recruitment documentation.
They heard the Mayor praise that report.
They heard the Common Council President defend the interviews.
And they watched the Council unanimously approve the appointment.
What residents subsequently learned through public records requests is that the City had no completed scoring sheets, no written candidate rankings, and no separate evaluation summaries to produce.
They also learned that another attorney had previously received a formal employment offer at a higher starting salary.
And FCN has received a firsthand allegation that Hersh opposed hiring that earlier candidate because his proposed salary would exceed hers.
The allegation remains unverified, and the records do not establish why the earlier appointment failed to proceed.
Nevertheless, the documented discrepancies and unresolved recruitment history warrant scrutiny.
The fundamental issue is whether Franklin's Common Council received the information necessary to independently assess the Administration's recommendation—or was asked to rely primarily on assurances from the officials advocating for the appointment.
A unanimous confirmation vote does not answer that question.
Neither does a lengthy Administrative Report.
And neither does the City's decision to close the public records request.
Mayor Nelson, Director Hersh, and Common Council President Eichmann should explain the recruitment process they publicly supported, the evaluation procedures actually followed, and the circumstances surrounding the earlier employment offer.
Franklin Community News will continue examining those issues because transparency in government should not end when elected officials cast their votes.
The City's records request may be closed. The public's right to question how this appointment was made is not.
Editor's note: This report is based on City of Franklin records obtained through public records requests, the July 7, 2026 Common Council meeting transcript, and information attributed to a confidential source. The source's allegation concerning Director Hersh's compensation-related motivation has not been independently verified. FCN distinguishes that allegation from facts established by the City's documents.
