A Logo Was Treated as a Threat. A Political Endorsement Was Not
Franklin’s Council moved swiftly against a corrected logo — while ignoring a public political endorsement by its top administrator.
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
At Tuesday night’s Common Council meeting (2-3-26), the City of Franklin voted to authorize cease-and-desist letters related to the alleged misuse of a logo similar to the City’s. The stated justification was the potential for “confusion” among residents — specifically, the concern that use of the logo could imply official City endorsement.
The record of the meeting, however, tells a far more complicated story.
A problem that no longer existed
As acknowledged on the record by the City’s own legal counsel, the logo at issue had already been changed after the agenda was released on Friday and before the Council met Tuesday night. In other words, the alleged concern had been resolved voluntarily before the meeting occurred.
There was no ongoing use to correct.
No evidence of harm.
Despite this, Mayor John Nelson insisted that a cease-and-desist letter still be issued, asserting — without evidence — that the outlet involved would “change it back in a heartbeat.” Both Nelson and Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann pressed legal counsel to consider litigation even after compliance had been acknowledged.
Punitive enforcement was pursued after corrective action had already been taken.
A motion that failed — and what followed
Only afterward did a broader motion emerge, sweeping in “any entity” using the logo without permission. That motion passed.
The effect was to dilute the focus of the original target while preserving the enforcement outcome.
The School District lawsuit: a relevant backdrop
After the vote, it was identified that one of the most frequent users of the City logo is the Franklin School District, which reportedly, according to Alderwomen Day during the motion, uses it more than 60,000 times per year in its weekly communications to families.
The significance of that fact is heightened by an ongoing legal dispute between the District and the City. The Franklin School District is currently suing the City of Franklin over conditions imposed after voters approved a $145 million referendum authorizing major school construction and renovation projects. The lawsuit alleges the City exceeded its authority by attaching conditions to permits that conflict with the referendum’s implementation.
Yet the Council voted on a sweeping enforcement action without acknowledging that one of the most prolific users of the logo is a governmental entity in active litigation with the City.
If resident confusion is the concern, the omission is striking.
Correcting the record
During the meeting, Alderwoman Eichmann asserted that Franklin Community News (FCN) had represented itself as Franklin’s “official” news source.
That claim is contradicted by the outlet’s actual tagline:
“Franklin’s "official" unofficial news source.”
The phrase explicitly disclaims official status. It does not reference the City of Franklin, City government, or municipal authority. It is a common journalistic convention — not a claim of endorsement.
Eichmann further suggested that FCN should be required to remove every instance of the City logo from all past articles and Facebook covers.
Such a demand would go far beyond correcting an alleged branding issue. It would require the retroactive alteration or erasure of years of published journalism — a step unsupported by any written City policy and inconsistent with established press freedoms.
What fair use actually allows — and why it matters
Under U.S. copyright law, the fair-use doctrine section 107, expressly permits the use of copyrighted material — including logos and trademarks — for purposes such as news reporting, commentary, criticism, and identification.
Fair use is at its strongest when the material is used:
-
to identify the subject of reporting,
-
to critique government actions or elected officials,
-
or to inform the public about matters of public concern.
In other words, fair use does not disappear because coverage is critical. Criticism of government lies at the core of the doctrine’s protection.
Applied here, FCN’s use of the City logo qualifies as fair use because it was used in journalism and commentary, did not imply endorsement, did not substitute for City services, and was voluntarily modified once concerns were raised.
Fair use also applies equally to the Franklin School District’s weekly newsletter. The District’s routine, non-commercial use of the logo to communicate with families does not require permission from the City of Franklin and does not imply City endorsement.
Importantly, fair use applies to both current and archival publications. There is no legal requirement to purge historical journalism or newsletters.
Blocking, moderation, and public access
During public comment, former Alderperson Kristen Wilhelm asserted that FCN blocks individuals on its Facebook page who disagree with its reporting.
That claim lacks context.
FCN does block some users — not for disagreement, but for conduct, including harassment, repetitive bad-faith behavior, or disruption of discussion. Moderation on a privately operated Facebook page is not censorship.
All FCN-authored articles remain freely available to the public at www.fcnewswi.com. Blocking on Facebook does not restrict public access to the reporting, nor does it suppress criticism.
Ironically, several of the same individuals criticizing FCN for moderation have themselves blocked FCN from commenting on their own pages — underscoring that content moderation is a routine feature of private platforms, not a free-speech violation.
The central comparison: endorsement versus enforcement
That statement — made publicly by the City’s top administrator — reasonably reads as political support.
Yet the City has taken no comparable action to address that endorsement.
The contrast is stark:
-
A logo that had already been changed triggered cease-and-desist enforcement and calls for litigation.
-
A public political endorsement by the City’s chief administrator has drawn no response.
If the City’s stated standard is that even the appearance of endorsement or confusion must be aggressively addressed, then applying that standard selectively undermines its credibility.
Residents are far more likely to be confused by whether senior City administration is politically neutral than by a logo used in journalism that no longer existed at the time of the vote.
Why this matters
When enforcement is driven by speculation rather than evidence, escalated despite voluntary compliance, and applied unevenly, the issue ceases to be about branding.
It becomes about the use of governmental authority — and whether that authority is exercised consistently, transparently, and in good faith.
Franklin residents deserve clarity not just in symbols, but in governance itself. They deserve policies before punishment, consistency before escalation, and restraint when compliance has already occurred.
Until then, claims of “confusion” will continue to ring hollow.
An Editorial: Franklin Is Policing Symbols While Ignoring Substance
Tuesday night’s Common Council action revealed a troubling imbalance in how the City of Franklin defines — and enforces — “confusion.”
The Council voted to authorize cease-and-desist letters over the use of a City logo, arguing that residents might mistakenly perceive endorsement or affiliation. This decision came despite the City’s own legal counsel acknowledging that the logo in question had already been changed before the meeting, eliminating any ongoing issue.
In short, enforcement proceeded even though compliance had already occurred.
That alone should give residents pause. But the deeper problem is not the logo. It is the City’s selective concern over appearances — and what it chooses to ignore.
A speculative harm met with aggressive action
No evidence of actual confusion was presented.
No written logo-use policy exists.
No approval process was articulated.
Yet City leadership pressed forward anyway, even urging litigation. A symbol that no longer existed was treated as an urgent threat.
This is not careful governance. It is reactionary enforcement.
A clearer endorsement, left unaddressed
At the same time, the City has taken no action in response to a far more concrete appearance of endorsement.
Kelly Hersh, the City’s Director of Administration, publicly praised Danielle Kinney during a contested Aldermanic District 6 race between Kinney and Craig, explicitly referencing Kinney’s candidacy and affirming that her commitment to serve “just feels right.”
That statement did not come from a private resident with no institutional authority. It came from the City’s top administrative official — someone whose role depends on political neutrality and the confidence of whoever wins the election.
If the City’s standard is that even the appearance of endorsement must be addressed, then this silence is impossible to reconcile.
A logo that had already been changed triggered enforcement.
A public political endorsement by the City’s chief administrator did not.
Confusion isn’t the issue — credibility is
Residents are far more likely to be confused by questions such as:
-
Is City administration politically neutral?
-
Are enforcement decisions applied evenly?
-
Do critics face scrutiny that insiders do not?
Those are not abstract concerns. They go to the heart of public trust.
The City cannot credibly claim to protect residents from symbolic confusion while tolerating conduct that creates real uncertainty about neutrality, authority, and fairness inside City Hall.
Selective enforcement erodes public trust
The danger of selective enforcement is not just unfairness — it is disbelief. When rules appear to tighten around critics and loosen around insiders, residents stop trusting the rules altogether.
The City of Franklin should not be in the business of policing optics while ignoring substance. Governance requires consistency, restraint, and humility — especially when First Amendment-protected activity and political neutrality are at stake.
A simple standard
If the City believes appearances matter, then they must matter everywhere.
If hypothetical confusion justifies enforcement, then clear endorsement demands accountability.
Until that standard is applied evenly, the Council’s actions will not reduce confusion — they will deepen it.
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.
đź•Ż️ 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.
đź’¬ 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.
đź’¬ 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.
© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment