Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin County magistrates press for details on $30,000 public-relations proposal
Summary
Magistrates discussed a proposed paid public-relations and marketing package — including podcasts, radio spots and social-media management — that presenters called a short-term 'bridge' to an eventual in-house communications director; several magistrates requested more data on reach, RFP process, liability and timing before advancing the proposal.
Frankfort — Franklin County Fiscal Court members heard a presentation on Nov. 19 for a paid public-relations and marketing proposal that would produce podcasts, social-media content and 60-second radio spots and cost up to $30,000 over the coming period.
The presenters — identified in the record as Kristen Cantrell and the proposal team — said the program would act as a temporary "bridge" to create a blueprint for an eventual in-house public-information director and that the county would own produced materials. "This is just meant to tell your story and tell it proactively in a strategic manner," Cantrell said, describing the work as a year-or-two engagement to build processes the county could later adopt in-house.
Magistrates praised the goal of proactively sharing county work but raised a string of concerns before any contract is considered. Squire Sebastian and others asked for demographics, coverage maps and monthly metrics; one magistrate flagged the need for a competitive procurement process and several asked whether an in-house part-time communications hire had been fully explored. Squire (unnumbered) warned about the proximity to campaign season, saying, "I have some skepticism at campaign time," and asked for safeguards to prevent political use. Cantrell and the presenters repeatedly responded that the stations and their staff would not provide political content as part of the paid package and that the firm would not post partisan material. "We do not post anything political on our stations unless you pay for it," a presenter said.
Other concerns centered on liability and content accuracy. One magistrate, citing a conference presentation, warned that governmental social-media posts that prove false can expose entities to legal risk and urged a controlled review process. Presenters offered training for county staff on social-media best practices and monthly reporting on audience metrics, which they said would include listenership and app analytics.
The court did not approve a contract at the Nov. 19 work session. Instead, several magistrates asked for follow-up: individual meetings with the vendor to review coverage maps and data, a possible committee-of-the-whole meeting to refine parameters, and clarification of procurement requirements (RFP/RFQ). The judge said the proposal would be treated as a work-session item and any contract would come back later with details and answers to the magistrates' questions.
What happens next: Magistrates asked staff to schedule follow-up meetings with the vendor and to circulate additional data and a revised scope addressing procurement, reach to underserved parts of the county and content-control safeguards. No formal contract was authorized on Nov. 19.
