This capstone is fictional, but it uses a real starting point: Wisconsin’s 2026 Certified Local Government awards include historic-resource survey projects for both Mineral Point and Stoughton ¹. You will turn those parallel surveys into a carefully governed learning and interpretation initiative without misusing the grant, confusing the cities’ authority, or turning cultural history into marketing inventory.

The proposal

Create a two-year Two-City Cultural Heritage Lab:

• each city completes its own grant-funded survey under its own authority;
• local nonprofits and cultural partners help gather stories, reach participants, and interpret how survey knowledge can support future education;
• artists and historians are paid to develop temporary, accessible public prototypes;
• no prototype implies designation, promises property regulation, or begins rehabilitation;
• each city publishes its own decisions and grant deliverables;
• partners share a methods exchange, not a merged government project;
• final outputs include public learning events, a digital guide, and recommendations for future independently approved work.

The fictional facts

Public resources

• Mineral Point CLG award: up to $34,500 reimbursement.
• Stoughton CLG award: up to $30,000 reimbursement.
• Each city has separately budgeted $8,000 for accessibility, communication, and public engagement outside the survey contract.
• A regional foundation offers $70,000 to a nonprofit consortium for artist/historian interpretation.
• A local bank offers $15,000 sponsorship in return for recognition.
• Donors pledge $25,000, with one requesting permanent naming of the digital archive.

The actual 2026 grant amounts come from the current award page; all other numbers are invented for the exercise.

Operating proposal

• 12 oral-history interviews in each city;
• four accessible public history workshops per city;
• two paid artist interpretation prototypes per city;
• shared methods convening;
• digital map using selected survey/public data;
• final public report distinguishing history, community memory, survey findings, and future recommendations.

Risks and missing facts

• survey consultant procurement is not complete;
• one Shake Rag director’s firm may bid in Mineral Point;
• the Stoughton mayor has appeared in a foundation promotional video;
• no oral-history consent or rights framework exists;
• the digital vendor has not passed accessibility/security review;
• grant reimbursement may create a $40,000 combined cash gap;
• the foundation wants participant demographic data;
• one workshop location has no step-free entrance;
• a preservation group wants every identified property recommended for designation;
• property owners fear regulation;
• a candidate requests speaking time at the launch;
• neither city has approved the shared branding;
• long-term archive hosting has no owner or budget.

Phase 1: frame the decisions

Write one sentence for each:

Mineral Point municipal decision

Example:

Authorize the survey procurement and public-engagement plan within the CLG award, city budget, preservation authority, and conflict controls; no rehabilitation or designation is authorized.

Stoughton municipal decision

Same form, under Stoughton’s actual bodies and delegations.

Nonprofit board decision

Accept or decline the foundation award and authorize only a capped design phase until cash, data, rights, access, conflict, partner, and archive conditions are resolved.

Community influence

Residents can identify overlooked histories/resources, shape learning questions, test prototypes, and comment on future recommendations; they cannot select an unqualified consultant, change grant eligibility, guarantee designation, or commit public funds.

Phase 2: authority and conflict map

For each decision, identify:

• legal/governing source;
• accountable body/officer;
• staff owner;
• required recommendation/confirmation;
• conflict or dual-role person;
• advice needed;
• notice/records path;
• evidence of final approval.

Handle the conflicted bidder

The Shake Rag director:

• discloses to the nonprofit and appropriate city channel before scope/selection;
• does not shape the request, criteria, budget, shortlist, references, or vote;
• does not use nonprofit or city relationships to influence;
• follows the stricter applicable process;
• may be excluded from bidding if counsel/process requires.

Disinterested leaders and municipal counsel determine the actual participation rule. The file documents qualification, competition, scoring, conflict controls, and final selection ².

Phase 3: participation and access plan

Choose levels:

The levels follow the principle that participation must match actual influence ³.

Access minimum:

• accessible venues or an equivalent integrated program solution approved through qualified review;
• captioned hybrid participation;
• accessible registration, documents, maps, and digital prototypes;
• effective communication and reasonable modification;
• plain-language explanation of survey versus designation;
• transportation/schedule alternatives;
• paid participation for sustained expert/lived-experience labor;
• accommodation request process and budget;
• no public disclosure of disability requests.

Title II duties remain with each city for its programs and contracted delivery ⁴.

Phase 4: money and agreement

Consolidated sources

Do not deposit city grant awards in the nonprofit account unless a lawful, written arrangement specifically authorizes a payment. Do not count the same workshop against both city and foundation budgets without an allocation method.

Nonprofit uses

This matches the $70k + $15k + $25k non-city sources. City survey/engagement spending remains in each city’s ledger.

Agreement package

1. separate city-consultant survey contracts;
2. foundation-nonprofit grant agreement;
3. city-nonprofit engagement/services agreements if public money pays nonprofit work;
4. inter-partner MOU for the shared methods exchange;
5. artist/historian contracts;
6. oral-history consent/license;
7. digital vendor/data/accessibility terms;
8. venue/facility agreements;
9. sponsor and gift/naming decisions.

Phase 5: measurement

Create a dashboard:

Outputs

• properties/resources surveyed under professional method;
• participants and unique contributors;
• workshops, interviews, prototypes;
• artist/historian compensation;
• accessible formats and accommodation response;
• city/nonprofit dollars by source/use.

Quality

• consultant acceptance;
• historical source transparency;
• contributor review/consent;
• prototype accessibility/usability;
• participant experience;
• corrections resolved.

Outcomes

• previously underrepresented histories added;
• resident understanding of survey versus designation;
• future planning questions clarified;
• institutions with usable preservation data;
• continued creative/historical participation.

Guardrails

• no unsupported economic-impact claim;
• no designation promise;
• no campaign platform;
• no private donor control of public findings;
• no publication beyond consent/rights;
• no inaccessible digital product;
• no project expansion without authority.

Phase 6: crisis test

Two weeks before launch:

• a participant withdraws oral-history consent;
• a candidate claims the project is a “secret property-control plan”;
• the website map exposes a private email address;
• one city consultant misses a milestone;
• the inaccessible venue cannot be fixed in time.

Response:

1. honor consent and rights process;
2. correct the policy claim with plain-language scope and official records;
3. remove exposure, preserve evidence, assess breach, notify under plan;
4. use contract cure/escalation and protect grant timeline;
5. move or redesign the event rather than providing an inferior segregated experience;
6. coordinate facts while each institution speaks within authority;
7. publish next steps and later after-action changes.

Phase 7: draft motions

Nonprofit design-phase motion

“I move that the board accept the foundation award subject to final written terms and authorize up to $12,000 of project funds for a 90-day design phase; authorize no public launch, permanent naming, city-fund receipt, oral-history publication, or digital production contract; require disinterested conflict handling, a 13-week cash forecast, data/consent/rights plan, accessibility review, partner decision-rights matrix, archive owner and lifecycle cost, and final sources-and-uses; and require management to return by [date] with a go/no-go motion.”

Municipal motion outline

Counsel and the clerk must draft the actual action. The outline should identify:

• grant/appropriation authority;
• procurement and consultant;
• capped amount/fund;
• public-engagement scope;
• conflict handling;
• accessibility;
• reporting and records;
• staff authority and change limits;
• return date.

Do not copy the nonprofit motion into city minutes.

Your final board-and-mayor book

Produce:

1. two-institution authority map;
2. open meetings/records/nonprofit transparency matrix;
3. dual-role/conflict register;
4. participation decision-space and access plan;
5. sources/uses plus 13-week cash forecast;
6. agreement stack and RACI;
7. cultural-value measurement brief;
8. place/project stage gates;
9. coalition network and appointment/recruitment matrix;
10. communication/crisis protocol;
11. advocacy/campaign role cards;
12. draft motions, reporting calendar, and after-action plan.

Capstone standard

You pass when a skeptical resident, nonprofit director, city clerk, participant, and grant monitor can each answer:

• Who decided?
• Under what authority?
• Where did the money go?
• What could the public influence?
• How were conflicts and access handled?
• What did the project produce and change?
• Where are the records?
• What happens next?

Final rule

Public-nonprofit leadership is not the art of getting everyone to say yes. It is the craft of making separate, lawful, evidence-based promises fit into one accountable result.