Mayor Nelson’s Rebuttal of Public Comment Draws Open Meetings Law Complaint
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi, Publisher - Franklin Community News
The complaint was provided to the City of Franklin and copied to the Wisconsin Department of Justice Open Government Unit for independent review.
Watch the public comment and Mayor Nelson's "Rebuttal" from thee beginning of the meeting until the 22 minute mark. Just for Nelson's rebuttal watch from 17:30 until 22:00 minute mark
What Franklin’s Ordinance Says About Public Comment
Franklin Municipal Code § 19-2 requires that Common Council agendas include a Citizen Comment Period, during which members of the public may address the Council for a limited time.
However, the ordinance does not authorize discussion, rebuttal, or deliberation during this period.
In addition, the Franklin Common Council Rules of Procedure expressly state that:
-
Citizen comment is a period for the public to speak
-
Council members are directed not to comment or attempt to answer questions during public comment
-
The Mayor or presiding officer may only provide limited clarification or refer matters to staff for a future response
The rules do not authorize extended responses, rebuttal, or policy defense during public comment.
This local framework mirrors Wisconsin Department of Justice guidance, which warns that responding to public comment can create discussion on matters not noticed on the agenda, potentially violating the Open Meetings Law.
Public Comment Followed by Announced “Rebuttal”
Despite these limits, at the December 16 meeting — after public comment concluded — Mayor Nelson stated on the record:
“We’re gonna have a little bit of rebuttal. So, we’ll be discussing a few things.”
The complaint argues that this statement alone demonstrates intent to engage in discussion outside a properly noticed agenda item.
The mayor then proceeded to respond at length to comments raised by residents regarding proposed development and a potential Tax Incremental District (TID), defending city policy and disputing criticisms voiced during public comment.
Substantive and Personal Remarks From the Chair
The complaint characterizes these remarks as beyond neutral clarification and inconsistent with both state law and Franklin’s own rules governing public comment.
Developer Contact Information Provided From the Chair
The mayor stated that the developer had made himself accessible and encouraged residents to contact him directly, providing the phone number from the chair during the meeting.
This disclosure occurred in direct response to comments made by two residents who had raised concerns about communication, water issues, and the development process.
The complaint argues that providing a developer’s contact information from the chair during rebuttal further underscores that the mayor was responding substantively to public comment, rather than limiting remarks to neutral clarification or referral to staff.
According to the complaint, this action amounted to advancing discussion and advocacy related to a pending agenda item, outside a properly noticed discussion period, and reinforced the appearance that public comment was being used as a trigger for policy defense.
Police Officer Positioned Behind Public Speakers
The complaint also documents that a uniformed police officer stood inside the council chambers throughout public comment and the mayor’s rebuttal.
According to the complaint:
-
Approximately six residents were present
-
The officer stood about 15 feet behind the public comment podium
-
The officer remained stationary and did not interact with attendees
-
There was no disruption or conduct requiring police intervention
The complaint argues that this setting created an objectively intimidating environment, discouraging residents from participating in a forum intended for citizen input.
Residents further state that a uniformed officer has been stationed inside council chambers at every Common Council meeting since Mayor Nelson took office, regardless of attendance.
Context: Prior FCN Reporting
Concerns raised in the December 16 complaint echo issues previously reported by Franklin Community News.
-
February 2024: FCN reported allegations that a resident was targeted after criticizing city leadership
👉 https://www.fcnewswi.com/2024/02/franklin-resident-alleges-mayor-nelson.html
-
March 2024: FCN published a first-person letter describing alleged harassment linked to council interactions
👉 https://www.fcnewswi.com/2024/03/dear-john-nelson-your-harassment-of-me.html
-
April 2024: FCN reported on a February 22, 2024 meeting where public comment handling and mayoral conduct were central concerns
👉 https://www.fcnewswi.com/2024/04/on-february-22-2024-franklin-community.html
While those articles focused on individual experiences, the current complaint centers on process and legal compliance, not disagreement with any particular policy.
Alleged Violations
The complaint alleges violations of:
-
Wis. Stat. § 19.83(2) — discussion outside a properly noticed agenda item
-
Wisconsin DOJ Open Meetings Law guidance — using public comment as a trigger for rebuttal
-
Wis. Stat. § 19.81 — failure to maintain an open and accessible meeting environment
-
Franklin Municipal Code § 19-2 and Common Council Rules — exceeding the limited role permitted during public comment.
Providing substantive information and advocacy related to a pending development project during rebuttal, including the public dissemination of a developer’s contact information in response to public comment, further evidencing discussion outside a properly noticed agenda item.
This article will be updated if the City or DOJ responds
Analysis: Franklin’s Own Rules Say Public Comment Is for Listening — Not Responding
The controversy surrounding the December 16 Franklin Common Council meeting is not about tone, disagreement, or even civility.
It is about process — and about rules that already exist.
Under Wisconsin law and Franklin’s own ordinances, public comment is meant to be one-way. Residents speak. Officials listen.
Franklin Codified This Principle
Franklin Municipal Code § 19-2 requires a Citizen Comment Period, but it does not authorize discussion during it.
More importantly, the Franklin Common Council Rules of Procedure explicitly instruct council members not to comment or respond during public comment. The mayor or presiding officer may offer limited clarification or refer matters to staff, but nothing more.
This structure exists for a reason.
Responding substantively to public comment risks creating discussion on matters that were not noticed on the agenda, which can violate Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law.
For that reason, many boards across the state routinely say:
“The board will listen but will not respond.”
That restraint is not indifference — it is compliance.
Why Rebuttal Is the Problem
When a chair announces “rebuttal,” the meeting crosses a legal line.
Rebuttal implies argument, defense, and persuasion — all forms of discussion that must occur under properly noticed agenda items.
Once rebuttal begins, the public is no longer observing a listening period; it is witnessing deliberation without notice.
That is precisely what the Open Meetings Law and Franklin’s own rules are designed to prevent.
When the Chair Becomes a Conduit
One moment from the December 16 meeting illustrates how easily public comment can slide into impermissible discussion.
During the rebuttal, the mayor publicly provided the phone number of the project’s developer, encouraging residents to contact him directly and emphasizing the developer’s accessibility.
This was not a neutral procedural clarification. It was a substantive response to specific criticisms raised moments earlier by residents concerned about communication and environmental impacts.
When a chair uses the authority of the office to distribute developer contact information during a rebuttal, the meeting is no longer in a listening posture. It has become an extension of the development discussion — without notice, without structure, and without the safeguards the Open Meetings Law requires.
The issue is not whether the developer should be contacted. It is when and how that information is presented.
Public comment is not the time.
Intimidation Compounds the Issue
The presence of a uniformed police officer standing behind the public comment podium does not, by itself, violate the law.
But when combined with rebuttal and personal criticism from the chair, it changes the character of the forum.
Public comment cannot function as intended if residents reasonably fear being challenged, demeaned, or monitored for speaking critically.
The Larger Takeaway
This issue does not require new laws, new policies, or new interpretations.
The rules already exist — at the state level and in Franklin’s own code.
What is required is restraint.
Listening during public comment is not optional. It is the law.
This commentary reflects the views of Franklin Community News and is published as analysis alongside related reporting.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
Comments
Post a Comment