Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann Named in Supplemental Request to Public-Integrity Investigation
FCN asks investigators to examine taxpayer-funded support for Eichmann’s official-facing Facebook page, identify who restricted public comments and determine whether the underlying records were preserved
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
West Allis Police are conducting the still-ongoing investigation at the request of an assistant district attorney assigned to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit. The investigation began after an ethics complaint alleged that Mayor John Nelson and Director of Administration Kelly Hersh used City-funded public-relations services provided by Mary Christine in connection with Nelson’s political interests. A subsequently unsealed search warrant sought records that a circuit court judge found may constitute evidence of misconduct in public office under Wis. Stat. § 946.12(2). No charges have been announced, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made.
FCN is asking that Michelle Eichmann’s (Alderwoman and Franklin Common Council President) Facebook page, its management and the disappearance of public comments be examined in connection with the ongoing investigation involving Franklin Mayor John Nelson, Director of Administration Kelly Hersh and City-contracted marketing and public-relations consultant Mary Christine.
The submission does not allege that investigators have determined Eichmann committed a crime. It asks investigators to establish:
Who controlled or had privileged access to Eichmann’s page;
Whether taxpayer-funded services were provided to it;
Whether Christine possessed or exercised administrator or other privileged access;
Who caused particular public comments to become unavailable;
Whether commenting was restricted or disabled;
Whether the unavailable comments and moderation records were preserved; and
Whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to suppress criticism or protect an elected official’s personal or political messaging.
The central question is whether a Facebook page presenting itself as an official constituent-information channel was operated exclusively by Eichmann or was supported by Franklin’s taxpayer-funded communications operation—and whether public criticism was subsequently restricted on that page.
Is Eichmann’s Facebook Page a Government Page?
Whether Eichmann’s page is legally considered a government page cannot be determined solely from its Facebook category or name.
It may not be formally owned by the City of Franklin. Nevertheless, the page has numerous characteristics of an official government-facing communications channel.
The page:
Is titled “Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann”;
Is classified by Facebook as a “Government Official” page;
Identifies Eichmann by her elected title;
Describes itself as an informational page for District 2 constituents;
Lists Franklin City Hall, 9229 West Loomis Road, as its address;
Uses Eichmann’s official
meichmann@franklinwi.govemail address;Publishes information about Franklin government business; and
Discusses matters on which Eichmann votes or otherwise acts as an alderwoman.
Eichmann also directed approximately 140 attendees at the September 2 Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc. luncheon to use her page and Nelson’s page to obtain official Franklin information.
Those facts do not necessarily make every post on the page an official government communication. They do, however, make it difficult to characterize the entire page as merely personal.
The distinction is particularly important when the post at issue concerns an official City licensing decision and Eichmann uses the page to discuss how she voted or may vote as an alderwoman.
Previously Visible Exchange Is Now Unavailable
One screenshot retained by FCN establishes that Jacqueline Lutz Nelson, Mayor Nelson’s former wife, previously posted the following comment on Eichmann’s Irish Cottage thread:
“Ok michelle, no license will watch how you vote. It’s already known.”
Eichmann responded through the Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann page:
“Ok Jackieeee, Considering how I voted the first time, so tell me how I am going to vote? Do you watch and listen to the meetings or just stare at your ex husband the whole time?”
That exchange subsequently became unavailable to the general public.
Other comments and replies also became unavailable. Some concerned whether Eichmann had hidden comments, whether she could moderate the page however she wished and whether taxpayer-funded resources had been used to support or administer the page.
FCN does not possess screenshots of every missing exchange and is not claiming that Eichmann personally removed all of them.
The available screenshots nevertheless establish that specific material previously appeared and that the post later displayed more comments than could be viewed publicly.
Comment Counter Supports Further Examination
In a subsequent screenshot, the Irish Cottage post displayed a total of 18 comments, while only approximately 14 comments and replies were publicly visible.
The continuing discrepancy is nevertheless significant.
If Jacqueline Nelson had permanently deleted her own parent comment, that comment and any replies dependent upon it would ordinarily be expected to disappear from the post’s total after Facebook recalculated the count.
Hiding operates differently. When a page administrator hides a comment, the material is not necessarily deleted from Facebook. It may remain visible to the original commenter, certain connected users and page administrators while becoming unavailable to most members of the public. Because the comment remains stored, it may continue to be included in the post’s displayed engagement or comment total.
The display of 18 comments while only approximately 14 could be viewed is therefore consistent with comments having been hidden, filtered, collapsed or otherwise restricted rather than permanently deleted.
It does not conclusively prove that Eichmann hid the comments. Facebook ranking and filtering, blocked-user relationships, collapsed replies, delayed counter updates and actions taken by the original commenters can also affect what an individual viewer sees.
Only Meta’s page-access, activity and moderation records can establish:
Whether each comment was hidden, deleted, filtered or restricted;
Whether a parent comment was removed by its original author;
Whether Facebook automatically restricted the material;
Which account performed each moderation action; and
When each action occurred.
That distinction is why FCN asked investigators to obtain the underlying records rather than draw a final conclusion from the visible counter alone.
City Officials Discussed Using Christine on Their Pages
The supplemental submission connects the new information to public statements made during the November 4, 2025 Franklin Common Council meeting.
During a discussion of Christine’s taxpayer-funded public-relations services, former Alderwoman Courtney Day raised concerns about the City relying on Nelson’s Facebook page to distribute official information.
Day described the arrangement as “simply using the mayor’s Facebook page” and warned that once social media is used for government communications, its content may become a public record.
Day also said she was unaware of any system being used to preserve or back up Nelson’s Facebook posts. She raised additional concerns about editing, ghostwriting and the possibility of a contractor inadvertently publishing under an elected official’s identity.
Christine explained why official information had been placed on Nelson’s page:
“That’s the reason why we went with the mayor’s page.”
Nelson told council members that Christine’s services were also available to them:
“Any of you at any point in time can communicate with Mary. If that wasn’t made clear earlier, it should have been. From the beginning, it should have been.”
During the same discussion, Eichmann called Christine “our PR person” and emphasized that the Common Council oversaw her work:
“At the end of the day, you’re working for us.”
Eichmann also stated:
“I want to run my own alder page. I work very hard on that and keeping residents, mainly my constituents in District 2, updated.”
Eichmann’s statement may support her position that she personally controls the page. It does not answer whether Christine or another City-paid person was ever granted administrator, editor, moderator, task or posting access.
That question should be answered through Meta’s page-access history—not through assumptions by either side.
Nelson Confirmed Access to Elected Officials’ Pages
The issue arose again during the November 11, 2025 Milwaukee County Intergovernmental Cooperation Council meeting.
Nelson explained that Franklin elected officials maintained their own Facebook pages because the City’s domain did not support them:
“Every one of us elected have our own Facebook page because Franklin’s domain doesn’t support it, so it’s our own page.”
He then described Franklin’s part-time public-relations contractor, whose annual compensation was not to exceed $25,000, as having:
“Access to those of us that have allowed her to post things, as well as make announcements on our normal City of Franklin page.”
That statement confirms that at least some Franklin elected officials provided Christine with access to their individually branded Facebook pages.
It does not identify every elected official who provided access. It also does not establish that Christine had access to Eichmann’s page or that Christine performed any of the moderation actions now at issue.
Those are among the questions FCN has asked investigators to determine.
Why the New Information Relates to the Existing Investigation
The broader investigation concerns the possible use of Franklin’s taxpayer-funded public-relations arrangement to benefit or protect particular elected officials rather than being confined to legitimate municipal communications.
FCN previously reported on that investigation in:
The new information may help establish the actual scope of Christine’s access and work.
If Christine had privileged access to Eichmann’s page, that would be relevant even if she did not create the Irish Cottage post or remove any comments. It would document another connection between a City-paid contractor and an elected official’s individually branded communications platform.
If Christine had no access and Eichmann acted entirely on her own, that would significantly change the analysis. It could still leave constitutional and public-records questions, but it would weaken any claim that the particular moderation actions involved the City’s public-relations contractor.
Investigators should be able to distinguish between those possibilities through objective records.
First Amendment Questions
Public officials do not surrender their own First Amendment rights merely because they hold office. They may maintain personal social-media accounts and control participation on genuinely personal pages.
The analysis changes when an official uses a page to exercise governmental authority or conduct official business.
In Lindke v. Freed, the United States Supreme Court held that a public official’s social-media conduct is attributable to the government when the official:
Possessed actual authority to speak for the government concerning the particular matter; and
Purported to exercise that authority in the relevant social-media post.
The analysis is therefore post-specific.
The Irish Cottage post concerned a City licensing proceeding. Eichmann’s response directly invoked how she had voted or would vote as an alderwoman. The page also uses her elected title, official City email address and City Hall address and describes itself as a source of information for her constituents.
Those circumstances provide a legitimate basis to examine whether Eichmann was acting in an official capacity in connection with that post.
If the post constituted government action, selectively hiding comments because they criticized Eichmann or challenged her statements could present a First Amendment viewpoint-discrimination issue.
That is different from establishing a neutral, prospective policy under which comments are disabled for everyone. FCN has asked investigators to determine whether particular comments or speakers were selectively restricted after the page had been opened for public discussion.
A potential First Amendment violation would ordinarily present a civil constitutional issue. It does not automatically constitute a Wisconsin criminal offense. It may nevertheless provide relevant evidence concerning how official authority or taxpayer-funded communications resources were used.
Public Records Do Not Depend on the Platform
The public-records question is separate from whether comments must remain publicly visible on Facebook.
Wisconsin’s public-records law generally focuses on the content and governmental purpose of a record—not whether it is stored on a government server, private telephone or individually controlled social-media account.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice Public Records Compliance Guide explains that the content of material, rather than its medium, format or location, determines whether it is a public record. Government-business information maintained on an elected official’s privately operated website may qualify as a public record.
Records produced or collected by a government contractor while performing contracted work may also be subject to disclosure under Wis. Stat. § 19.36(3).
Potential public records associated with Eichmann’s page could include:
Posts concerning City business;
Public comments and Eichmann’s responses;
Hidden or deleted-comment records;
Meta moderation and activity logs;
Administrator and page-access records;
Messages submitted through the page;
Draft posts supplied by City officials or contractors;
Communications about what should be posted or removed; and
Christine’s records created while performing taxpayer-funded work.
Public-records law does not necessarily require every Facebook comment to remain continuously visible. Hiding a comment is also not automatically the same as destroying the underlying record.
The relevant questions are whether the record was preserved, whether it could be produced in response to a records request and whether anyone destroyed or concealed it after receiving notice that preservation was required.
FCN informed investigators that Eichmann had been warned by email, before the comments became unavailable, that communications concerning government business could be subject to Wisconsin’s public-records and preservation requirements.
Potential Conduct by Eichmann
The supplemental submission specifically asks investigators to examine Eichmann’s own actions rather than limiting the inquiry to Christine.
Investigators were asked to determine whether Eichmann:
Personally hid, deleted or restricted any comments;
Disabled or locked commenting on the post;
Changed the page’s moderation settings;
Directed Christine or another person to moderate the post;
Knew that another administrator was removing or restricting comments;
Used taxpayer-funded assistance to manage criticism directed at her;
Failed to preserve comments or moderation records concerning City business; or
Communicated with Nelson, Hersh, Christine or another City official about FCN, Jacqueline Nelson or the removal of comments.
If Eichmann personally performed the moderation actions, that would not eliminate the potential First Amendment or public-records issues. Nor would it make Christine irrelevant to the broader investigation. Evidence that Christine posted content, prepared material, monitored the page or possessed administrator, contributor, moderator or other privileged access at any time would establish that Eichmann’s page was included within, or received services from, Franklin’s taxpayer-funded communications operation—even if Christine had no involvement with the specific Irish Cottage post. Such evidence would not, by itself, establish that Christine knew about or participated in hiding the comments. Meta’s page-access and activity records are necessary to determine each person’s actual role.
Conversely, even if Christine did not author the post or moderate its comments, evidence that she possessed privileged access would remain relevant to establishing the extent to which taxpayer-funded services were integrated into elected officials’ individually branded pages.
What FCN Asked Investigators to Preserve
FCN requested preservation and examination of:
Eichmann’s complete Meta activity log;
The page’s hidden and deleted-comment history;
Records identifying comments removed by their original authors;
The page’s administrator and task-access history;
The identity and permission level of every person with privileged access;
Records showing who performed each moderation action;
The page’s comment and moderation settings;
Records showing whether commenting was disabled or locked;
Communications among Eichmann, Nelson, Hersh, Christine and other City personnel;
Communications concerning FCN or Jacqueline Lutz Nelson;
Drafts or posting instructions provided by Christine;
Christine’s invoices and work-product descriptions;
City records identifying which elected officials granted Christine access; and
Any archival system used to preserve elected officials’ social-media content.
FCN also asked investigators to determine whether public resources were used to suppress criticism, retaliate against a critic or protect an elected official’s personal or political interests.
The Records Should Provide the Answer
The available screenshots raise legitimate questions, but they do not provide every answer.
The comment counter supports further investigation, but it does not conclusively prove who removed or hid anything. Eichmann’s control of the page does not prove that she personally performed each moderation action. Christine’s possible access would not prove that she used it.
Likewise, a commenter could have removed a parent comment, Facebook could have filtered the material or an automatic moderation setting could have affected its visibility.
The appropriate next step is to preserve and examine the records that can establish:
Who had access;
Who took each action;
When the action occurred;
Whether a comment was hidden or permanently deleted;
Whether the commenter or a page administrator caused its removal;
Whether the underlying records were retained; and
Whether anyone communicated about restricting the comments.
FCN has asked that this information be treated as an additional investigative lead—not as a predetermined conclusion.
The issue is larger than a disagreement over Facebook etiquette. It concerns whether an official-facing constituent page received taxpayer-funded support, whether public criticism was selectively restricted and whether records documenting those actions were properly preserved.
Those questions should be answered by the evidence. Lt. Gold confirmed that he received the Supplemental Request.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment