Nelson Campaign Sign Near Director of Administration’s Home Sparks Enforcement Questions
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
The issue surfaced after Basil Ryan, a candidate challenging Mayor John Nelson, reported that the sign appeared to be located within the public right-of-way, where Franklin’s municipal code prohibits political signage.
What began as a complaint about a single campaign sign has since evolved into a larger debate about who enforces city ordinances when the official responsible for overseeing city administration is involved in the dispute.
Sign Dispute Follows Meeting on Stolen Campaign Signs and Placement Rules
The controversy surrounding the sign near the residence of the Director of Administration also comes immediately after a meeting held last week by Mayor John Nelson with mayoral candidates to discuss concerns about campaign sign theft and placement rules.
According to attendees, the meeting was called after multiple reports of campaign signs being stolen throughout the city, with candidates indicating that signs from the Logsdon campaign had been among those most frequently reported missing.
During the meeting, candidates discussed both the theft issue and the city’s regulations governing where campaign signs may be placed, including the prohibition on signs located within the public right-of-way.
The meeting was intended to encourage campaigns to respect placement rules and ensure that signs were located on private property rather than within the terrace or right-of-way areas.
Because the discussion focused specifically on campaign sign regulations and proper placement, some observers have noted that the current dispute involving the sign near the Director of Administration’s residence is occurring immediately after those rules were discussed with candidates by the mayor.
Critics say the timing reinforces the importance of consistent enforcement of the ordinance, particularly when the issue involves a campaign sign supporting the sitting mayor.
Context: A Debate Over Fairness and Consistency
The timing of the dispute has amplified concerns among some residents and candidates about fairness and consistency in the enforcement of campaign rules during the election season.
While candidates were being reminded at the meeting about the importance of proper sign placement and compliance with city ordinances, the complaint raised by mayoral candidate Basil Ryan suggests that those same rules may not be applied equally when a sign supporting the incumbent mayor is involved.
For many observers, the issue therefore goes beyond a single campaign sign.
It raises broader questions about whether campaign regulations are enforced consistently across all candidates, particularly at a time when concerns about stolen signs and campaign fairness were already being discussed by city leadership.
In municipal elections, where campaigns rely heavily on yard signs to communicate with voters, even the perception that rules are being applied unevenly can quickly become a matter of public trust in the neutrality of city government.
That is why critics argue the situation calls for clear and transparent enforcement of the city’s sign ordinance, regardless of which campaign benefits from the sign or where it is located.
Complaint Raised by Mayoral Candidate Basil Ryan
appeared to be placed within the terrace area between the sidewalk and the street, which is generally considered part of the public right-of-way.
Ryan contacted the Franklin City Clerk’s office to report the potential ordinance violation and request that the sign be removed.
However, the Clerk indicated that because the office reports administratively to the Director of Administration, the matter would need to be discussed with Kelly Hersh.
Ryan then spoke directly with Hersh about the sign.
According to Ryan:
-
Hersh initially stated the sign was legal, explaining that she and her husband maintain the strip of land where the sign is located.
-
After further discussion, Hersh indicated she would remove the sign.
When the sign remained in place, Ryan again contacted Hersh. During that conversation, Ryan said Hersh told him he should speak with her husband regarding the sign.
As of today, March 3, 2026 the sign is still in place.
The sign had not been removed as of the time of Ryan’s follow-up.
What the Franklin Ordinance Says
Under Franklin Municipal Code Chapter 210, the ordinance states:
“No signs shall be erected, installed or posted on and within any public right-of-way within the corporate limits of the City.”
Political signs are permitted on private property, provided they comply with other provisions of the code and are removed after the election period.
The ordinance therefore distinguishes between:
Allowed
-
Signs placed on private residential property
Prohibited
-
Signs placed within the public right-of-way, including the terrace between the sidewalk and the street
The question raised by Ryan is whether the sign near Hersh’s residence falls within that prohibited right-of-way area.
The “Terrace Myth”: Maintaining the Strip Does Not Make It Private Property
During Ryan’s conversation with Hersh, she reportedly argued the sign was legal because she and her husband maintain the strip of land where it is located.
However, maintaining that strip — commonly called the terrace — does not make it private property.
In most municipalities, including Franklin, the terrace is part of the public right-of-way. This area typically lies:
-
Between the sidewalk and the street, or
-
Between the property line and the roadway where no sidewalk exists.
Homeowners are often responsible for mowing grass or clearing snow, but the land itself remains public right-of-way or subject to a public easement.
Because of this:
-
Residents generally cannot place structures or signs there
-
Municipal codes often prohibit signage in these areas to maintain traffic visibility and public access
In short, the fact that a homeowner maintains the terrace does not change its legal status as public right-of-way.
Prior Controversy Over Sign Ordinance Enforcement
The dispute also intersects with a previous controversy involving the enforcement of Franklin’s sign ordinance.
In March 2024, reporting by Franklin Community News revealed that Director of Administration Kelly Hersh informed alderpersons that the city would no longer enforce the election sign ordinance, citing her interpretation of a federal court ruling.
The article reported that Hersh believed certain restrictions on political signage could conflict with constitutional free speech protections.
Critics argued at the time that:
-
City staff do not have the authority to suspend enforcement of an ordinance
-
Only the Common Council can amend or repeal city law
The issue raised a fundamental question:
If the ordinance remains on the books, must the city enforce it until it is formally changed?
Timeline: Hersh’s Political Role in the Nelson Administration
Questions about impartiality have also been raised because
2022 – Nelson Mayoral Campaign
Kelly Hersh served on John Nelson’s mayoral campaign committee during his campaign for mayor.
2023 – Appointment to Director of Administration
After taking office, Nelson appointed Hersh as Director of Administration, one of the most influential appointed positions in Franklin government.
The Director of Administration oversees key administrative functions and departments within City Hall, including offices responsible for handling complaints and city procedures.
March 2024 – Sign Enforcement Controversy
Hersh informed the Common Council that the city would no longer enforce the election sign ordinance, which critics said exceeded the authority of an administrative official.
Current Election Cycle
A “Re-Elect Nelson” campaign sign appears near Hersh’s residence, prompting a complaint from mayoral challenger Basil Ryan regarding its placement in the public right-of-way.
Background on Hersh’s Appointment
Debate over Hersh’s role in city government has also been fueled by reporting from Franklin Community News.
An investigative article titled:
examined the circumstances surrounding her appointment.
According to that report:
-
Thirteen candidates had already been vetted by the city’s recruitment consultant.
-
Emails indicated the mayor had informed at least one candidate that Hersh would be selected for the position before the hiring process concluded.
-
Critics argued the appointment blurred the line between political campaign allies and professional administrative leadership.
Selective Enforcement?
The current dispute has also raised questions about whether Franklin’s sign ordinance is being applied consistently.
Residents have asked whether other campaign signs placed within the public right-of-way have been removed or cited in recent election cycles.
Historically, municipalities enforce sign ordinances by:
-
issuing warnings
-
removing improperly placed signs
-
or requiring campaigns to relocate them to private property
However, when enforcement appears inconsistent — particularly during a contested election — it can create the perception that the rules depend on who is involved.
Critics argue that consistent enforcement is essential to maintaining public confidence in local government.
Who Enforces the Enforcer?
Ultimately, the controversy raises a broader structural question within city government.
The Director of Administration oversees many administrative functions of the city, including offices that process complaints and city procedures.
When a dispute arises involving that same official, residents have asked:
Who ensures the rules are followed?
Normally:
-
The Common Council writes ordinances
-
City staff enforce them
-
Courts resolve disputes
But when the official responsible for administrative oversight is also involved in the situation, critics say the issue becomes one of accountability and public trust.
For Ryan and others raising the issue, the controversy is not simply about a campaign sign.
It is about whether city administration should remain politically neutral during elections and whether municipal ordinances should be applied consistently — regardless of who is involved.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding a single campaign sign is about more than where a piece of cardboard sits in the grass. It is about whether the rules governing elections are applied fairly and consistently in Franklin. When residents begin to question whether the same standards apply to everyone — including those in positions of authority — public trust in government begins to erode. The solution is simple: enforce the rules transparently and equally, regardless of who is involved.
Editorial: When City Hall Picks Sides, Public Trust Suffers
Elections are supposed to be decided by voters — not by the appearance that City Hall itself is taking sides.
The current controversy involving a “Re-Elect Nelson” campaign sign placed near the residence of Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersh raises a larger issue than a single campaign sign.
It raises the question of whether the rules apply equally to everyone — including those who work at the highest levels of city government.
Franklin’s municipal code clearly states that signs cannot be placed within the public right-of-way. Political signs are allowed on private property, but the terrace between the sidewalk and the street is generally considered public right-of-way.
This rule exists for good reason. It ensures fairness, safety, and consistent enforcement during election cycles.
Yet when mayoral challenger Basil Ryan raised concerns that a campaign sign supporting incumbent Mayor John Nelson appeared to be placed within that prohibited area near Hersh’s home, the response from City Hall was troubling.
Instead of the complaint being handled through a neutral enforcement process, Ryan was reportedly told the City Clerk would need to consult with the Director of Administration — the same official connected to the property where the sign was located.
Ryan then contacted Hersh directly. According to Ryan, Hersh stated the sign was legal because she and her husband maintain the strip of land where it sits.
But mowing grass does not convert public right-of-way into private property.
Every homeowner in Franklin maintains the terrace in front of their home. That does not give them ownership of it.
If signs are prohibited in the right-of-way, they are prohibited — regardless of who placed them there.
The issue becomes even more concerning when viewed in light of a previous controversy.
In 2024, Hersh reportedly informed members of the Common Council that the city would no longer enforce the election sign ordinance, citing her interpretation of a federal court ruling.
But administrative officials do not have the authority to suspend city ordinances. That authority rests with the Common Council, which represents the voters of Franklin.
If an ordinance remains on the books, it should be enforced — not selectively ignored.
The controversy also raises legitimate concerns about political neutrality within city government.
Hersh served on Mayor John Nelson’s campaign committee in 2022 before later being appointed as Director of Administration, one of the most influential positions in Franklin city government.
That position oversees important administrative functions within City Hall.
Public employees have every right to their personal political views. But when senior administrative officials publicly support the elected officials they serve — especially during an active campaign — it can create the appearance that the machinery of government itself is aligned with a political campaign.
And perception matters in government.
This is precisely why leaders of organizations that operate closely with government — such as visitor and convention bureaus or chambers of commerce — are generally expected to avoid political fundraising events.
These organizations often work directly with public officials, depend on public funding, or represent the broader business community. When their executive directors attend partisan political fundraising events, it risks creating the perception that the organization — and the public resources connected to it — are being aligned with a specific political candidate.
The same principle applies inside City Hall.
When senior officials publicly support the political campaigns of the officials who appointed them, it undermines confidence that government decisions are being made impartially.
The issue here is not simply about a yard sign.
It is about whether the public can trust that government officials will administer the rules fairly and without political favoritism.
Basil Ryan was right to raise the concern.
In a healthy democracy, citizens — and candidates — should be able to question whether rules are being followed without being dismissed or redirected.
If the sign is located in the public right-of-way, it should be moved. That is what would be expected of any resident.
And if the ordinance itself needs to be changed, that decision belongs to the Common Council in an open public process, not through administrative interpretation.
Franklin deserves leadership that demonstrates fairness, transparency, and respect for the rule of law.
Especially during an election.
Because when City Hall appears to pick sides, public trust is the first thing that gets lost.
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.
💬 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