The Common Council faces a timing and trust question as it considers renewing a taxpayer-funded communications contract during an active, impartial criminal investigation.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi, Franklin Community News

Fast Facts: MCPR Contract Renewal & Communications Governance

Agenda Item: Renewal of the City of Franklin’s professional services agreement with MCPR Marketing LLC (Mary Christine Bayerlein) for communications services
Meeting: Franklin Common Council (Tuesday agenda)
Contract Amount: Not to exceed $25,000 for 2026 (approximately $2,083 per month)
Scope: City communications, media relations, social media support, branding, and crisis communications planning
Selection Process: No documented competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process presented to Council
Current Context: A criminal allegation is under investigation asserting that City-funded communications services were used for political campaign work
Timing of Alleged Conduct: During an active Town of Waterford election and while Mayor John Nelson was under investigation by the City of Waterford relating to his employment as a Waterford Police Department lieutenant
Investigating Agency: West Allis Police Department, investigating at the request of the District Attorney’s Office to ensure impartiality
Key Policy Issue: Whether existing communications contracts include sufficient prohibitions on political advocacy, oversight, and auditability to protect taxpayer funds
Council Decision: Whether to renew the MCPR contract as written or condition approval on strengthened governance safeguards

Why this matters now: The Franklin Common Council is being asked to renew a $25,000 communications contract with MCPR Marketing LLC at a time when a criminal allegation is under active investigation asserting that City-funded communications services were used for political campaign activity. The investigation—being conducted by the West Allis Police Department at the request of the District Attorney’s Office to ensure impartiality—has not reached a conclusion. However, its existence raises a fundamental governance question for taxpayers and voters: whether the City should proceed with a contract renewal before that investigation is resolved, and whether additional safeguards should be required to protect public funds and public trust.

Independent Media Coverage Confirms Investigation

Independent, mainstream news outlets have confirmed the existence and scope of the investigation referenced in this article:

FOX6 Milwaukee reported that a newly unsealed search warrant shows the West Allis Police Department is investigating Franklin Mayor John Nelson for possible misconduct in public office related to alleged misuse of city resources. The report emphasized that no charges have been filed and that the investigation is ongoing.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel independently reported that the investigation is active, that the search warrant authorizes review of electronic records connected to city resources, and that the matter remains unresolved with no criminal charges filed.

MCPR Contract Renewal: Franklin Common Council Agenda (Jan. 20)

What’s on the Agenda

Tuesday’s Franklin Common Council agenda is a proposed renewal of the City’s professional services agreement with MCPR Marketing LLC (Mary Christine Bayerlein) for 2026 communications services, in an amount not to exceed $25,000. The contract would continue MCPR’s role as the City’s outside communications and marketing provider.

The item authorizes execution of a one‑year agreement and adoption of an attached 2026 Communications Plan, with billing capped at $2,083 per month.

The City’s Stated Rationale

According to the agenda materials, the Administration argues the contract is needed to:

“Strengthen and professionalize” City communications
Expand proactive community messaging
Coordinate internal employee communications
Manage media relations
Maintain brand consistency
Improve preparedness for emergency and crisis communications

A major emphasis of the 2026 plan is creation of a streamlined crisis communications ‘playbook’ intended to bridge the City’s existing Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) with police, fire, and departmental emergency plans.

Scope of Services

Under the proposed agreement, MCPR would provide:

External and internal communications support
Media relations (proactive and reactive)
Brand messaging and consistency tools
Social media strategy, protocols, and content creation
Development of key messaging and fact sheets
Crisis and emergency communications planning and templates

The agreement allows MCPR to use subcontractors with City approval and requires monthly reporting detailing hours and work performed.

Cost and Contract Structure

Total cap: $25,000 for 2026
Monthly cap: $2,083
Payment: Monthly invoicing with itemized reports
Changes: Any expansion of scope or cost requires written authorization
Termination: City may terminate at any time for convenience

The Finance Department is proposing a budget amendment to fund the contract, scheduled for a separate vote immediately after this item.

Staffing Comparison Highlighted by Administration

The agenda packet includes comparative information showing that Franklin currently has zero in‑house communications staff, while many peer municipalities employ one or more communications professionals, sometimes supplemented by outside firms.

This comparison is used to justify reliance on a contracted communications provider rather than creating an internal position.

Questions and Issues for Council and the Public

As Council considers renewing the MCPR contract, several policy and governance questions
arise:

Has the City evaluated the measurable outcomes of prior MCPR work?
Are communications goals better served by an outside consultant or an in‑house staff position?
How will crisis communications planning interact with existing police and fire command structures?
What oversight exists to ensure messaging neutrality and compliance with public records and transparency laws?
Is the $25,000 expenditure aligned with other budget priorities facing the City?

Policy Question for the Common Council

Should future communications contracts include explicit prohibitions on political advocacy and enhanced oversight requirements?

The proposed renewal of the MCPR contract presents the Common Council with a broader policy decision that extends beyond this single agreement: how the City defines, restricts, and monitors the use of taxpayer‑funded communications services.

Recent events and public reporting underscore why this question matters. Communications consultants occupy a sensitive space between administration, elected officials, and the public. Without clear contractual boundaries, that role can blur into areas that raise legal, ethical, and public‑trust concerns.

Key policy considerations for Council include:

Explicit prohibitions on political advocacy: Future contracts could clearly bar any use of City‑funded communications resources—direct or indirect—for political campaigns, electoral advocacy, or messaging that benefits or opposes any candidate or elected official.
Clear separation of roles: Contracts should distinguish between neutral municipal communications (public information, emergency notices, service updates) and private political expression by elected officials, which must remain entirely separate and privately funded.
Enhanced monitoring and reporting: Council may wish to require more detailed monthly reporting, including specific platforms used, content categories, and approval chains, to ensure work remains within lawful scope.
Pre‑publication approval and auditability: Establishing defined approval processes and retaining records of communications decisions can help ensure compliance with public records laws and reduce legal exposure.
Training and compliance assurances: Contractors and City staff involved in communications could be required to certify understanding of Wisconsin laws governing misuse of public funds, political activity, and public records retention.

Why Clear Boundaries Matter

At stake is more than messaging strategy. Taxpayer‑funded communications must remain:

Content‑neutral and non‑political
Focused on public information, not reputation management
Shielded from campaign or election‑related influence

When official communications and private political expression are not clearly separated, even the perception of misuse can undermine public confidence, expose the City to legal risk, and complicate governance during elections or periods of controversy.

As Council weighs renewal of the MCPR contract, it may also consider whether this vote should serve as a catalyst for codifying clearer, more enforceable standards for all future communications agreements—ensuring that public dollars are used solely for public purposes, with transparency and accountability commensurate with that responsibility.

Analysis of the MCPR 2026 Communications Plan

1. Overall Structure and Professionalism

The MCPR Communications Plan is written in broad, aspirational terms and reflects a marketing‑oriented framework rather than a governance‑ or policy‑driven communications strategy. The plan emphasizes branding, storytelling, and message consistency, but relies heavily on generalized goals rather than defined benchmarks, timelines, or performance indicators.

While the document is professionally formatted and aligned with common municipal marketing language, it reads more as a conceptual pitch than an operational roadmap.

2. Lack of Measurable Deliverables

A notable weakness of the plan is the absence of:

Quantifiable performance metrics
Defined deliverables tied to specific dates
Clear success indicators (KPIs)

For example, goals such as “raising awareness,” “informing and educating,” or “creating a cohesive brand” are not paired with:

Baseline measurements
Target outcomes
Evaluation methods

This makes it difficult for the Common Council or the public to objectively assess whether the $25,000 expenditure produces measurable value.

3. Emphasis on Image Management Over Public Accountability

Much of the plan focuses on:

Promoting “positive activities”
Highlighting growth, quality of life, and business development
Celebratory messaging

There is little discussion of:

How negative or controversial issues will be communicated
Ensuring neutrality and factual completeness
Distinguishing between public information and promotional messaging

This raises policy questions about whether the plan prioritizes reputation management over transparent public communication, particularly during contentious issues or crises.

4. Crisis Communications: Bridging vs. Authority

The crisis communications section is one of the more substantive components of the plan. MCPR proposes creating a streamlined “bridge” version of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan to allow faster execution during emergencies.

However, the plan does not clearly define:

Decision‑making authority during crises
Lines of command between elected officials, administration, police, and fire
Safeguards against politicization of emergency messaging

Without these clarifications, a centralized communications consultant could inadvertently blur operational command structures that are typically governed by statute, policy, or emergency management protocols.

5. Social Media Expansion and Governance Risks

The plan proposes creation and expansion of official City social media channels, including:

A centralized City Hall Facebook page
Standardized protocols for content creation and moderation
Image and video libraries

While this may improve consistency, the plan does not address:

Comment moderation standards
Public records retention obligations
First Amendment considerations for blocking or removing content
Oversight of messaging decisions involving elected officials

These omissions are significant given increasing litigation and public scrutiny surrounding municipal social media practices.

6. Comparative Staffing Data: Selective Framing

The inclusion of peer‑city staffing comparisons is intended to justify outsourcing communications services. However:

The data does not compare total cost per capita
It does not address hybrid models (in‑house staff + limited consultant use)
It does not explain why Franklin has historically chosen not to hire internal staff

As presented, the comparison supports the conclusion favored by the proposal but does not fully inform alternative policy options.

7. Governance and Oversight Considerations

The plan repeatedly references collaboration with elected officials but lacks:

Guardrails to prevent messaging from becoming politically selective
Clear separation between administrative communications and elected officials’ personal or political messaging
Transparency mechanisms for Council oversight

Given the City’s recent history of public controversy, these omissions are noteworthy.

8. Summary Assessment

Strengths:

Professional tone and structure
Recognition of the need for coordinated crisis communications
Alignment with common municipal branding practices

Weaknesses:

No measurable outcomes or performance standards
Heavy emphasis on promotional messaging
Insufficient attention to transparency, legal risk, and governance
Vague crisis communications authority

Key Policy Question for Council:

Is the MCPR Communications Plan primarily a marketing document, or does it adequately function as a public accountability and emergency communications framework worthy of continued public investment?

Search Warrant Context and Policy Implications

Why the Existence and Scope of a Search Warrant Matters

Separate from any ultimate legal outcome, the fact that a search warrant was sought and issued in connection with alleged misuse of City communications and public relations resources is itself relevant to the Council’s policy deliberations.

Search warrants are issued only upon a judicial finding of probable cause that evidence of a potential violation may exist. In this context, the warrant reportedly focused on:

Use of City‑funded communications or PR services
Social media activity and messaging
Whether public resources were used for purposes outside lawful municipal communication

This places the City’s communications structure—not merely individual conduct—within the scope of legal scrutiny.

Structural Risk, Not Individual Guilt

It is critical to distinguish policy risk from personal culpability. The warrant does not establish wrongdoing, nor does it presume guilt by any individual. What it does highlight is a structural vulnerability:

When communications contracts are broadly written, lightly monitored, and lack explicit prohibitions on political advocacy, they create conditions where:

Municipal messaging can be perceived as political
Oversight becomes reactive rather than preventive
The City is exposed to legal, reputational, and governance risk

These risks persist regardless of how any single investigation concludes.

Relevance to the MCPR Contract Renewal

As Council considers renewing the MCPR agreement and adopting the 2026 Communications Plan, the warrant context underscores why this vote is not routine.

The decision is an opportunity to:

Clarify the lawful scope of City‑funded communications
Codify clear boundaries between official information and political expression
Require documentation and auditability sufficient to withstand public and legal scrutiny

Absent these safeguards, the City risks repeating the same structural conditions that prompted investigative attention in the first place.

Clarified Allegation Under Investigation (Authoritative Framing)

For clarity and consistency, the following language supersedes any prior summaries of the allegation in this document:

The allegation under investigation is that MCPR Marketing LLC (Mary Christine) was paid with City of Franklin taxpayer funds while performing political campaign work for Mayor John Nelson’s personal mayoral campaign, including activity opposing former Town of Waterford Board Chair Terri Jendusa-Nicolai, during an active Town of Waterford election and while Nelson was under investigation by the City of Waterford relating to his employment as a Lieutenant with the Waterford Police Department. To ensure impartiality, the matter is being investigated by the West Allis Police Department at the request of the District Attorney’s Office.

This framing reflects the scope and timing described in the criminal police complaint and accurately characterizes the role of the investigating agency.

Council-Ready Question (For Record and Deliberation)

Given that a criminal allegation is under investigation asserting that City-funded communications services were used for personal campaign activity during an active election—and that the matter has been referred to an outside law-enforcement agency to ensure impartiality—should the Common Council condition any renewal of the MCPR communications contract on explicit prohibitions against campaign or political advocacy, enhanced invoice specificity, and independent oversight mechanisms to ensure taxpayer funds are used solely for lawful municipal purposes?

Contextual Reporting on Political Activity and Public Appearances (FCNewsWI)

In evaluating the MCPR contract and communications governance, it is relevant to consider contemporaneous local reporting documenting political activity, public appearances, and messaging practices involving the same officials and actors connected to the communications function. The following summaries are incorporated as context, not findings of fact or legal conclusions.

Political Appearances and Associations

Multiple Franklin Community News articles from late 2025 document public appearances and campaign‑related events in which Mayor John Nelson, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann, and Mary Christine (the City‑contracted MCPR communications consultant) appeared together in overtly political settings, including campaign kickoffs and endorsement events. While these articles address separate electoral contests, they illustrate circumstances in which a taxpayer‑funded communications professional appeared publicly alongside political actors during active campaigns.

These documented appearances contribute to public concern about whether sufficient boundaries existed between municipal communications roles and political campaign activity, particularly during election periods.

Mary Christine Center at a Kahn Fundraising/Kickoff Event with Nelson and Eichmann

Use of Messaging and Event Framing

April 2025 reporting described a Mayor‑called “Town Hall” event that some residents and observers characterized as politically framed rather than informational, raising questions about how official communications and event promotion were labeled and perceived by the public. This reporting highlights the reputational and governance risk when municipal messaging is perceived as advancing political narratives rather than neutral public information.

Broader Political Environment

Additional FCNewsWI reporting from November and December 2025 summarizes allegations contained in legal filings and election‑related controversies involving multiple local officials. While these articles are opinion‑oriented and based on allegations rather than adjudicated findings, they reflect a highly charged political environment in which communications practices were under heightened scrutiny.

Relevance to Communications Governance

Taken together, this reporting does not establish wrongdoing. However, it provides important contextual background for the Council’s deliberation by demonstrating:

How public perception can shift when communications professionals appear in political contexts
How event promotion and messaging can be viewed as campaign activity if not carefully bounded
Why communications contracts require clear prohibitions, reporting standards, and approval chains to protect both the City and its contractors

This context reinforces the policy question before Council: whether renewing the MCPR contract without explicit political‑activity firewalls adequately protects taxpayer resources and public trust during election periods.

Governance Question: Why Mary Christine?

With the full record now available, a central governance question emerges naturally from the Council’s oversight responsibility:

Why was Mary Christine selected—and repeatedly retained—as the City of Franklin’s communications consultant?

This question arises not from speculation, but from the documented structure of the engagement, the timing of events, and the scope of activity described in public records and reporting.

1. Selection Without a Competitive Process

The MCPR engagement does not appear to have been awarded through a formal, competitive Request for Proposals process involving multiple vendors. Instead, Council was asked to approve or renew the contract after selection, with limited visibility into alternative firms, comparative costs, or differing approaches to compliance and oversight.

This structure limited Council’s ability to evaluate whether MCPR was the most appropriate choice for a politically sensitive communications role.

2. Expansion Beyond Traditional Municipal Communications

Public reporting and documented social media activity show Mary Christine engaging in:

Political disputes unrelated to Franklin municipal operations
Campaign-adjacent events and public appearances
Narrative framing during active elections

Such activity goes beyond what is typically expected of a neutral municipal communications consultant and raises questions about scope discipline and supervision.

3. Timing During Heightened Sensitivity

The alleged conduct and documented activity occurred during:

An active municipal election
A period in which Mayor Nelson was under investigation related to his prior law-enforcement employment
Escalating public and legal scrutiny of City actions

These conditions demand heightened neutrality and clear guardrails, yet the communications contract provided broad discretion with limited explicit restrictions.

4. Role as a Political Insider

Publicly documented appearances and associations show Mary Christine in close proximity to political actors at campaign-related events. Whether intentional or not, this proximity risks blurring the line between an independent professional vendor and a political ally or surrogate.

5. Contract Structure Lacked Explicit Guardrails

The MCPR contract relied heavily on general scope language and invoice summaries, without:

Explicit prohibitions on political advocacy
Platform-specific reporting requirements
Defined approval chains for messaging
Clear treatment of campaign-adjacent activity as out of scope

As a result, even well-intentioned communications work could drift into prohibited territory without triggering clear compliance alarms.

Timing, Elections, and Prudence: Should the City Wait?

With a mayoral election scheduled for April, the timing of this contract decision takes on added significance.

At present, the City faces three overlapping realities:

An active investigation involving alleged misuse of City-funded communications services
A communications contractor whose work has been publicly associated with Mayor John Nelson, who is himself a candidate in the upcoming election
A discretionary Council decision to execute or renew a professional services contract that is not required for immediate public safety or core operations

Against that backdrop, a reasonable governance question arises: does proceeding with execution of this contract before the April election—or before the conclusion of the investigation—serve the City’s best interests?

From a risk-management and public-trust perspective, delaying execution could:

Reduce the appearance of political favoritism during an active campaign
Protect the City from claims that taxpayer-funded services are benefiting a sitting candidate
Allow Council to act with the benefit of additional information once investigative steps are completed
Reinforce confidence that communications decisions are insulated from electoral considerations

Conversely, executing the contract now—particularly with the same vendor—may create avoidable perception issues, regardless of intent, at a moment when neutrality and restraint are especially important.

This is not a question of presuming wrongdoing or predicting investigative outcomes. It is a question of prudence, timing, and public confidence. In election periods, municipalities often choose to pause discretionary actions to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

For Council, the choice is not binary. Options could include:

Deferring execution until after the April election
Conditioning renewal on the conclusion of the investigation
Approving only a short-term or interim arrangement
Selecting an alternative, neutral vendor on a temporary basis

Each option reflects a different balance between operational continuity and public trust—but all recognize that timing matters when voters are preparing to make decisions of their own.What This Does Not Conclude

This analysis does not establish criminal intent, wrongdoing, or predict the outcome of any investigation. Rather, it underscores why Council must examine whether the system of selection, supervision, and contracting adequately protected taxpayer-funded communications from political entanglement.

Council-Level Implication

The issue before Council is not merely whether to renew a vendor, but whether the City’s communications governance framework allowed avoidable risk to develop—and whether future contracts will correct that vulnerability going forward.

Call to Action

As the Common Council prepares to vote, Franklin voters and taxpayers have a role to play.

Residents may wish to:

Attend or watch the Common Council meeting and listen closely to how this item is discussed
Ask Council members whether renewing the MCPR contract should be delayed or conditioned until the investigation is resolved
Request clarity on what safeguards, if any, will be added to prevent taxpayer-funded communications from being used for political or campaign purposes
Seek transparency by reviewing the contract terms, invoices, and communications plan referenced in this article

Regardless of where one stands on the outcome of any investigation, the question before the City is immediate and concrete: whether public trust is best served by proceeding as usual, or by pausing to ensure that taxpayer-funded communications are governed by clear, enforceable, and politically neutral standards.

Council decisions are strongest when they are made in the open, with full information and public engagement. Franklin residents should expect nothing less.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

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.

Join Us at:

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

An Investigation: Why Is Franklin Renewing a $25,000 PR Contract Amid Allegations of Campaign-Use?