𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗔𝗛 𝗗𝗨𝗚𝗔𝗡 - 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗧

 

Former Milwaukee County Judge Receives $5,000 Fine in Federal Case; Wisconsin Appeal Continues in Case She Presided Over

By Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

"The interest of the community is that the Court gives orders... that the public understands that the Court will enforce injunction orders... For the confidence of the community that when the court says something, they mean it."

— Judge Hannah Dugan, November 22, 2024

Those were the words of then-Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan as she sentenced me to 75 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction, rejecting a joint recommendation from both the prosecution and defense that I receive probation. I ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit, but the conviction and sentence continue to be challenged through Wisconsin's appellate courts.

Today, Judge Dugan returned to court—not as the judge imposing sentence, but as the defendant.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sentenced Dugan to a $5,000 fine and imposed no prison sentence following her federal conviction. In explaining the sentence, Judge Adelman cited Dugan's decades of public service, lack of prior criminal history, and concluded that incarceration was unnecessary under the circumstances. News reports indicate the court viewed her conduct as a significant departure from an otherwise law-abiding life.

Although the two cases are legally unrelated, the juxtaposition is striking. One courtroom involved Judge Dugan explaining why incarceration was necessary to preserve respect for court orders. The other involved Judge Adelman concluding that a financial penalty—not incarceration—was the appropriate punishment for a former judge.

A Case That Is Still Active

My criminal conviction remains under review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in State of Wisconsin v. Richard Alan Busalacchi, Case No. 2026AP001341-CR.

The appeal challenges both my conviction and the sentence imposed by Judge Dugan.

In addition, my attorney, Kevin Scott, has confirmed that he intends to file a motion in Milwaukee County Circuit Court seeking to vacate the underlying harassment injunction and stay its enforcement pending further proceedings. That motion presents legal issues separate from those currently before the Court of Appeals.

Judge Dugan's Sentencing Philosophy

On November 22, 2024, Judge Hannah Dugan rejected a joint recommendation from both the prosecution and defense that Busalacchi receive probation.

Instead, she imposed a sentence of 75 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction.

Busalacchi ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit.

During sentencing, Judge Dugan repeatedly emphasized that the integrity of the judicial system depended upon enforcement of court orders.

She stated:

"The seriousness of the offense is that we have an injunction in place, and it's violated."

She continued:

"The public understands that the Court will enforce injunction orders... when the court says something, they mean it."

Judge Dugan also expressed concern that failing to enforce injunctions would undermine public confidence in the courts.

"We have too many people that don't get injunctions because they think they're not worth anything... that's not in the interest of the community."

Although the court acknowledged that I had no prior criminal record, decades of public service, significant volunteer experience, and a long employment history, Judge Dugan concluded that incarceration—not probation—was the appropriate sentence.

Two Sentencing Hearings

Nearly twenty months later, Judge Dugan appeared before a federal judge for sentencing in her own criminal case.

Judge Adelman imposed a $5,000 fine and no prison time. According to reports from the sentencing hearing, the court relied on several mitigating considerations, including Dugan's lifetime of public service and lack of criminal history.

Both sentencing hearings involved courts weighing punishment, deterrence, public confidence in the judicial system, and the personal history of the defendant.

The outcomes, however, were different.

Richard Busalacchi	Hannah Dugan
Judge: Hannah Dugan	Judge: Lynn Adelman
Sentence imposed: 75 days House of Correction	Sentence imposed: $5,000 fine
Time actually served: 35 days (good-time credit)	No incarceration
Joint recommendation: Probation (rejected)	Court imposed a non-custodial sentence
Appeal pending	Federal judgment entered

The Timeline

May 1, 2023

Fourteen days before the injunction hearing, Franklin Mayor John Nelson submitted a written request to the Greendale Police Department seeking police reports, CAD notes, booking photographs, and other records relating to me dating back to January 1, 2022. The request is dated May 1, 2023.

May 15, 2023

The harassment injunction was issued.

Subsequent Events

A verified John Doe petition later filed by Busalacchi alleges that the restraining-order process, criminal prosecution, and sentencing were influenced by a coordinated effort involving several public officials acting under color of law. The petition seeks appointment of a special prosecutor and a John Doe investigation. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.

July 2024

During a sworn deposition in a separate matter, Mayor Nelson acknowledged assisting in obtaining the underlying injunction and testified that he later contacted Milwaukee Area Technical College regarding Busalacchi's employment.

Nelson also acknowledged meeting with Busalacchi and arranging a meeting with the Franklin Police Chief. The parties dispute the purpose and significance of those discussions.

November 22, 2024

Judge Hannah Dugan imposed a 75-day House of Correction sentence after rejecting the parties' recommendation for probation. Busalacchi ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit.

Following the Sentencing

The John Doe materials include a contemporaneous text message in which the sender recounts that Franklin Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann allegedly stated that Steve Taylor had "worked it out (timed it with Chisholm) so Rich would be locked up over Christmas." The message is included among the materials supporting the John Doe petition. The allegations reflected in that message have not been adjudicated.

2026

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reopened Busalacchi's appeal.

Attorney Kevin Scott has confirmed that he intends to seek an order vacating the underlying injunction and staying its enforcement.

The verified John Doe petition remains pending.

The Public Debate Continues

As Judge Dugan awaited federal sentencing, discussion of Busalacchi's case continued publicly.

On July 7, 2026, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor posted on the Franklin WI Political Debate Facebook page referring to Busalacchi as a "convicted criminal who was a resident of MY county jail." Franklin Community News has preserved a screenshot of the post.

Taylor's statement came while Busalacchi's conviction remains on appeal and while additional legal proceedings challenging the underlying injunction are being prepared.

Taylor is among the public officials identified in Busalacchi's verified John Doe petition. Taylor has denied wrongdoing, and the allegations contained in the petition have not been adjudicated.

A Sworn Affidavit Raises Additional Questions

The verified John Doe petition is supported by multiple exhibits, including a sworn affidavit from an individual who describes conversations and observations involving public officials before and after the injunction proceedings. The affidavit was submitted to support the petition's request for a judicial investigation under Wis. Stat. § 968.26. The statements contained in the affidavit are allegations submitted in support of that request and have not been adjudicated.

According to the affidavit, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor allegedly discussed efforts related to the underlying injunction and subsequent criminal proceedings. The affidavit also alleges that Milwaukee County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent was present during certain conversations and describes statements concerning contacts with the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office and other public officials.

The affidavit further recounts an incident in which the affiant reports that Judge Hannah Dugan was asked by Vincent about the pending case and allegedly declined to discuss it because she was the presiding judge.

Those statements are among the materials supporting the pending John Doe petition, which asks a court to determine whether further investigation is warranted. No court has made findings regarding those allegations.

Sworn Deposition Testimony

Among the records now available is sworn deposition testimony given by Franklin Mayor John Nelson during a separate Waterford Police Department investigation.

During that testimony, Nelson acknowledged under oath that he assisted in obtaining the underlying harassment injunction.

When asked whether he helped obtain it, Nelson testified:

"I helped her obtain it against him."

Nelson also acknowledged contacting Milwaukee Area Technical College regarding Busalacchi's employment after receiving an email from Busalacchi's MATC account.

Later in the deposition, Nelson acknowledged meeting with Busalacchi and arranging a meeting with the Franklin Police Chief. The parties dispute the purpose and significance of those discussions.

The Questions That Remain

The issues surrounding my case have not been resolved.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals will determine the legal issues raised in my appeal.

The Circuit Court will ultimately determine the merits of Attorney Kevin Scott's anticipated motion to vacate the injunction and stay its enforcement.

Separately, the verified John Doe petition asks whether additional investigation is warranted into allegations that public officials misused governmental authority during the events leading to the injunction, prosecution, and sentencing. Those allegations remain unadjudicated.

Judge Hannah Dugan's federal conviction neither proves nor disproves those allegations, nor does it determine the outcome of my appeal.

What today's sentencing does provide is an opportunity to reflect on the principles Judge Dugan herself articulated from the bench.

When she sentenced me, she emphasized that public confidence in the courts depends upon accountability and respect for judicial orders.

Those same principles apply to everyone entrusted with the administration of justice.

A Reflection on Judicial Accountability

When Judge Dugan sentenced me, she emphasized that the community must have confidence that courts enforce their orders and that "when the court says something, they mean it."

Judge Adelman, sentencing Dugan in federal court, concluded that the purposes of sentencing were satisfied without imprisonment and imposed a financial penalty instead.

The two proceedings reached different outcomes, but both underscore an enduring principle:

Public confidence in the justice system depends on accountability, transparency, and the consistent application of the rule of law.

Editor's Note

Richard A. Busalacchi is the publisher of Franklin Community News and the defendant-appellant in Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case No. 2026AP001341-CR. His appeal remains pending. The allegations described in the verified John Doe petition are contained in a court filing seeking further investigation and have not been adjudicated by any court. Former Judge Hannah Dugan's federal criminal case is unrelated to Busalacchi's appeal, except that she presided over his criminal sentencing.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Franklin Officials Discuss Potential 4% to 4.5% Property Tax Impact During Budget Planning

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A discussion during Franklin’s June 23 Finance Committee meeting has raised important questions about the City’s financial future and what it could ultimately mean for taxpayers.

While reviewing preliminary financing scenarios for the City’s 2027 budget and capital improvement program, Finance Director Danielle Brown told committee members that borrowing approximately $10 million could translate into roughly a 4% to 4.5% increase in the City’s portion of the average property tax bill. The estimate was presented during a discussion of debt financing options and was not an approved tax increase. Any future levy increase would require action by the Common Council during the 2027 budget process.  

Brown’s comments came near the conclusion of a nearly three-hour meeting that focused on the growing financial pressures confronting the City of Franklin. Throughout the evening, committee members, Mayor John Nelson, Finance Director Danielle Brown, Fire Chief Jim Meyers , former Finance Director Paul Ratzenberg, and other city officials discussed rising personnel costs, infrastructure needs, Tax Increment District (TID) obligations, borrowing strategies, and the challenges of balancing future budgets under Wisconsin’s levy limit law.  

Although no budget decisions were made, the discussion offered one of the clearest public examinations to date of the financial issues that will shape Franklin’s 2027 budget.

Limited Revenue Growth Creates Budget Pressure

Finance Director Brown explained that Wisconsin’s levy limit law continues to restrict the City’s ability to increase operating revenue.

Based on preliminary estimates, Franklin expects approximately $50 million in net new construction, which would generate only about $167,000 in additional operating levy capacity under current law.  

Committee members acknowledged that while new development continues throughout Franklin, the additional operating revenue generated by levy limits is small when compared to projected increases in wages, benefits, equipment replacement, and infrastructure costs.

The discussion quickly evolved beyond next year’s budget into a broader conversation about whether the City’s current financial model can remain sustainable over the long term.

Personnel Costs Continue to Rise

Throughout the meeting, officials repeatedly emphasized that personnel costs represent the largest component of Franklin’s operating budget.

Mayor John Nelson explained that approximately 80 percent of the City’s share of property tax revenue is devoted to employee compensation and benefits, leaving relatively little flexibility as labor costs continue to increase.  

Among the financial pressures discussed were:

• A previously approved 4 percent wage increase for police employees, estimated to cost approximately $700,000 annually.
• Pending labor negotiations with the Fire Department.
• Salary adjustments for non-represented employees.
• Rising benefit costs.

Former Finance Director Paul Ratzenberg noted that when revenues remain relatively flat while personnel expenses continue increasing, difficult choices become unavoidable.

“If one major category continues to increase,” Ratzenberg explained, “other kinds of costs are going to have to give.”  

Budget Reductions May No Longer Be Sustainable

Committee members also discussed efforts made during last year’s budget process.

Departments were asked to reduce proposed expenditures by approximately five percent to help balance the budget.

While those reductions achieved short-term savings, officials acknowledged that continuing to defer spending may become increasingly difficult.

Brown noted that the Fire Department has already exceeded its overtime budget while Public Works has delayed projects by leaving positions vacant.  

Fire Chief Adam Remus explained that although vacant positions have reduced salary costs, overtime has become necessary to maintain emergency staffing levels. The department remains below its overall personnel budget only because several authorized positions remain vacant.  

Committee members observed that delaying maintenance, equipment replacement, or hiring may reduce costs today but often results in higher expenses later.

Millions in Capital Improvements Still Need Funding

The committee reviewed approximately $8 million in capital projects that have largely already been approved or committed, including:

• Road reconstruction
• Fire station improvements
• Fire apparatus
• Department of Public Works equipment
• Municipal building improvements
• Other infrastructure projects

Officials also discussed expanding that borrowing package to approximately $10 million, depending upon final capital priorities.  

Much of the discussion centered not on whether these projects are necessary, but how they should be financed.

TIF Districts Play an Important Role in Franklin’s Financial Picture

Tax Increment Districts also became an important part of the discussion.

Finance Director Brown indicated that future TID-related infrastructure may require an additional $8 million to $10 million in borrowing if planned redevelopment projects proceed.  

Former Finance Director Ratzenberg explained that Franklin has adopted an internal policy limiting how much debt the City wants to carry, even though Wisconsin law would permit substantially higher borrowing.

As a result, borrowing for redevelopment infrastructure must compete with borrowing for roads, public safety facilities, equipment replacement, and other citywide priorities.  

Committee members also discussed delayed infrastructure associated with TID No. 8, including Elm Road.

According to the discussion, development proceeded with the expectation that additional infrastructure would eventually be constructed. However, officials noted that the tax increment generated within the district has not yet produced sufficient revenue to support all planned improvements.  

The committee described the situation as a difficult balancing act.

Constructing infrastructure can encourage additional development, but borrowing to build that infrastructure requires confidence that future tax increment will ultimately repay the debt.

Borrowing Today Means Paying Tomorrow

One of the evening’s longest discussions centered on debt financing.

Ratzenberg explained that every dollar borrowed today ultimately requires taxpayers to repay both principal and interest.

Using a mortgage analogy, committee members compared repayment schedules over 10, 15, and 20 years.

Longer repayment periods reduce annual debt payments but increase total interest costs.

Shorter repayment schedules save interest but require larger annual debt-service levies.  

A Potential 4% to 4.5% Property Tax Impact

Near the conclusion of the meeting, Brown estimated that borrowing approximately $10 million could result in roughly a 4% to 4.5% increase in the City’s portion of the average property tax bill.  

The estimate was provided during discussion of financing scenarios and should not be interpreted as a decision by the Finance Committee or Common Council.

Any future property tax levy will be determined during the City’s annual budget process following additional committee review, public discussion, and action by the Common Council.

A Recommendation to Gradually Increase Debt Levies

Ratzenberg recommended gradually increasing Franklin’s debt-service levy over several years rather than postponing adjustments until larger increases become necessary.

Historically, Franklin has levied less than its maximum allowable debt-service levy, helping keep taxes lower while reducing funds available for operations.

He argued that smaller, incremental adjustments may be easier for taxpayers to absorb than larger increases implemented all at once.  

The committee voted to forward that recommendation to the Common Council for future consideration.  

Landfill Revenue and Shared Services Also Discussed

Officials also acknowledged that Franklin’s annual landfill siting revenue—currently about $2.5 million—will not continue indefinitely.

That revenue has helped finance capital improvements for years, and future councils will eventually need to identify alternative funding sources.  

Committee members also discussed potential long-term cost savings through shared municipal services, including possible regional partnerships for health department operations and other governmental functions.  

Former Finance Director Takes Lead Role in Technical Discussion

Although Finance Director and Treasurer Danielle Brown presented portions of the June 23 budget discussion, much of the committee’s detailed conversation regarding debt management, levy strategy, capital borrowing, and long-term financial planning was led by former Franklin Finance Director Paul Ratzenberg.  Ratzenberg responded to numerous questions from committee members, explained the City’s historical borrowing practices, and offered recommendations regarding future debt-service and levy strategies.  

The City’s job description identifies the Director of Finance & Treasurer as the official responsible for leading the City’s financial operations, including budget development, debt management, bond issuance, investment of City funds, oversight of Tax Increment District finances, and providing financial guidance to the Mayor, Finance Committee, and Common Council.  

Brown joined the City of Franklin in July 2023 after serving as Deputy Treasurer for the Village of Waterford. Prior to that, she worked for Cancer Treatment Centers of America while completing accounting degrees at Gateway Technical College and the University of Wisconsin–Parkside. Mayor John Nelson previously served as a police lieutenant in Waterford before "retiring" amid an ongoing investigation. 

While Brown serves as Franklin’s Finance Director, Ratzenberg’s extensive participation in the June 23 meeting reflected his continuing role to the City and his familiarity with Franklin’s long-term debt structure and financial history.  

What Happens Next?

The June 23 Finance Committee meeting marked the beginning—not the conclusion—of Franklin’s 2027 budget process.

Over the coming months:

• Department heads will submit budget requests.
• The Mayor will prepare a recommended budget.
• The Finance Committee will continue reviewing revenues, expenditures, and borrowing plans.
• The Common Council will ultimately determine the City’s operating budget, capital improvement plan, and property tax levy.

While many questions remain unanswered, the discussion made one point clear: Franklin’s elected officials face increasingly difficult decisions as they work to balance infrastructure needs, employee compensation, redevelopment projects, and taxpayer affordability.

Understanding TIF: Why New Development Doesn’t Immediately Fund City Services

One of the most misunderstood aspects of municipal finance is Tax Increment Financing (TIF).

When a Tax Increment District is created, increases in property taxes generated by new development are generally dedicated to repaying redevelopment costs such as roads, utilities, public infrastructure, land acquisition, and debt issued to support the project.

Those additional taxes do not immediately become available to support the City’s General Fund, police, fire, parks, or other municipal services.

Only after a TID closes do the increased property values become part of the City’s regular tax base, benefiting the City, Franklin Public Schools, Milwaukee County, MATC, and other taxing jurisdictions.

During the June 23 meeting, officials discussed how future TID infrastructure may require $8 million to $10 million in additional borrowing, illustrating how redevelopment often requires significant upfront investment before its long-term tax benefits are realized.  

FCN Analysis

The June 23 Finance Committee meeting provided one of the most comprehensive public discussions of Franklin’s financial outlook in recent years. Rather than focusing solely on the 2027 budget, officials examined broader issues affecting the City’s long-term fiscal health, including levy limits, personnel costs, capital borrowing, Tax Increment District financing, infrastructure investment, and debt management.

Although no property tax increase has been proposed or approved, the discussion underscored the difficult fiscal choices facing the City as budget development continues. Those decisions will unfold over the coming months through additional Finance Committee meetings and Common Council deliberations before the 2027 budget is ultimately adopted.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Can Franklin Afford Another Executive Learning on the Job, like Kelly Hersch?

 

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

As the Franklin Common Council prepares to vote on Mayor John Nelson’s appointment of attorney Christina Lucchesi as the City’s next City Attorney, the selection is renewing a familiar debate at City Hall: Are Franklin’s executive positions increasingly being filled by candidates expected to grow into the role rather than meeting the City’s published preferred qualifications from the outset, concluding a recruitment process that City officials describe as “comprehensive” and “extensive.”?

Yet, as the Council prepares to act, significant questions remain regarding the recruitment process itself—including how finalists were evaluated, what compensation has been negotiated, and what records support the recommendation presented to elected officials.

On Wednesday, July 1, Franklin Community News submitted a formal public records request seeking documents related to the recruitment, including the names and résumés of finalists, interview evaluations, recommendation memoranda, employment agreements, and negotiated compensation.

Those records had not been released before publication.

Appointment Authority Established by City Ordinance

Under Franklin Municipal Code § 55-1, the City Attorney is selected by:

“Mayor, subject to confirmation by majority of all members of Council.”

That ordinance establishes the legal appointment process.

The Personnel Committee, while responsible for overseeing recruiting procedures and personnel policy, generally serves in an advisory capacity under § 10-12, unless specifically authorized by the Common Council to take final action on a particular matter.

A Recruitment Led by City Administration

Documents included in the Wednesday July 1, 2026 Council packet show that Director of Administration Kelly Hersh played a central role in the recruitment.

In a June 26 email sent to Mayor John Nelson, the Common Council, and current City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski, Hersh wrote:

“Following the interview process, we identified an outstanding candidate, Christina Lucchesi…”

She continued:

“I am pleased to share that we extended an offer of employment, which she has accepted.”

The same email invited Council members to attend an informal “meet and greet” before the formal confirmation vote.

The recommendation materials presented to the Council similarly state that:

“Mayor Nelson, City Administration, and Human Resources unanimously concluded that Christina M. Lucchesi was the candidate best qualified to serve as Franklin’s next City Attorney.”

The packet repeatedly praises Lucchesi’s legal background, professionalism, collaborative approach, and commitment to public service.

A Candidate with Broad Legal Experience

Lucchesi’s résumé reflects a diverse legal career spanning commercial transactions, bond financing, construction law, environmental law, intellectual property, contracts, labor matters, and real estate.

She has served as bond counsel, borrower’s counsel, and issuer’s counsel on more than $1 billion in public financing transactions, worked as an attorney with von Briesen & Roper, and currently maintains a private practice focusing on construction, business, and transactional law.

The Council packet highlights this experience while emphasizing her collaborative leadership style and commitment to municipal service.

Published Qualifications vs. Experience

The City’s published job description identifies several qualifications that are strongly preferred, including:

• At least ten years providing municipal or related legal services.
• Previous experience serving as a Wisconsin City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney.
• Experience with Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
• Municipal governance and public sector legal counsel.

At Thursday’s special meeting, Lucchesi openly acknowledged that she has not served as a municipal attorney and had only recently begun reviewing many of Franklin’s ongoing legal issues.

She explained that much of her practice has centered on contracts, negotiations, construction law, public finance, and business transactions.

Current City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski also noted during the meeting that he did not have municipal experience when he began serving Franklin decades ago, a point several participants raised to illustrate that municipal practice can be learned.

Importantly, the City’s job description also expressly provides that Franklin may consider equivalent education and experience when evaluating candidates.

What Was Missing From the Public Discussion

During Thursday’s approximately 50-minute public meeting, Council members questioned Lucchesi about:

• ethics,
• conflicts of interest,
• public records,
• closed session procedures,
• Facebook and social media,
• leadership philosophy,
• and succession planning.

However, several subjects received little or no public discussion, including:

• how many applicants applied,
• how many finalists were interviewed,
• how candidates were evaluated,
• whether interview scoring sheets were used,
• negotiated salary,
• employment contract,
• benefits,
• or why Lucchesi was selected over other finalists.

The Council packet similarly states that the City conducted an “extensive recruitment process” and “comprehensive review of applicants,” but does not provide details regarding the number of applicants or the evaluation process.

Public Records Request Filed

To better understand the recruitment process, Franklin Community News requested:

• the names and résumés of finalists;
• interview schedules and panel members;
• interview evaluation and scoring documents;
• recommendation memoranda;
• employment agreement and negotiated compensation;
• the number of applicants;
• recruitment postings;
• and records documenting the Mayor’s appointment.

The request also seeks any records authorizing the recruitment process and the policies governing recruitment for unclassified positions such as the City Attorney.

A Broader Governance Question

This appointment also comes against the backdrop of previous public debate surrounding executive appointments at City Hall.

Franklin Community News previously examined the hiring of Director of Administration Kelly Hersh, specifically "Learning on the Job", raising questions about the City’s application of its published qualifications and recruitment process.

The current City Attorney appointment presents a similar governance question—not whether Lucchesi possesses the legal ability to serve, but how Franklin evaluates candidates against its own published qualifications and how transparent that process is to the public.  Lucchesi is also a resident of Franklin, which raises many conflict of issue questions.

The documents released to date provide a detailed explanation of why City officials believe Lucchesi is the right choice. At the same time, many of the records that would allow residents to independently evaluate the recruitment process remain unavailable before the Common Council is scheduled to vote.

Tuesday’s Vote

The Franklin Common Council is expected to consider Resolution 2026-____ confirming Mayor Nelson’s appointment of Christina M. Lucchesi as City Attorney at its meeting Tuesday evening July 7 at 6:30pm.

Whether additional records are released before that vote may determine how fully the public and the Franklin Common Council can evaluate one of the City’s most significant executive appointments before the decision is made.

Editor’s Note

On July 1, 2026, Franklin Community News submitted a request under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law seeking records relating to the recruitment and appointment of the City Attorney. This article is based on publicly available meeting materials, the July 2 special meeting, City ordinances, and documents released as part of the July 7, 2026 Common Council agenda packet. Franklin Community News will update this story as additional records become available.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

SPECIAL MEETING SET THURSDAY AS COMMON COUNCIL TO MEET MAYOR’S CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTEE

 

FRANKLIN, Wis. — The Franklin Common Council will hold a special meeting Thursday morning to meet Mayor John Nelson’s nominee for City Attorney, Christina M. Lucchesi, ahead of a formal vote on her appointment scheduled for the July 7 Common Council meeting.

The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m, Thursday July 2 in the Administration Conference Room at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road. According to the published agenda, the purpose of the meeting is to provide council members with an opportunity to meet Lucchesi, gather information, and ask questions before considering her appointment. The agenda specifically states that no action will be taken during Thursday’s meeting.  

Extensive Municipal Law Background

Publicly available professional profiles indicate that Lucchesi brings more than 15 years of legal experience, including approximately 11 years as an attorney with von Briesen & Roper, S.C. before opening the Law Office of Christina M. Lucchesi in Franklin in 2025.

Her practice has included municipal law, environmental law, public finance, construction and contract law, real estate matters, and serving as bond counsel on public financing projects. According to her professional biography, she has advised municipalities, reviewed development agreements, negotiated contracts, and represented public entities in a variety of legal matters.

Her Franklin law office also provides legal services in estate planning, probate, trusts, real estate, contracts, and related legal matters.

Opportunity for Public Discussion

Although no vote will be taken Thursday, the meeting is expected to provide the first public opportunity for council members to discuss Lucchesi’s qualifications, experience, and philosophy regarding the role of the City Attorney before next week’s confirmation vote.

Among the topics that could reasonably be addressed are her experience advising municipal governments, her approach to Wisconsin’s Open Meetings and Public Records laws, and how she views the role of the City Attorney in serving the Common Council, the Mayor, and the City as a municipal corporation.

Managing Potential Conflicts

Because Lucchesi both maintains a private law practice and resides in Franklin, Thursday’s meeting may also provide an opportunity to discuss how potential conflicts of interest would be identified and managed.

Attorneys serving municipalities commonly maintain private practices, and simply living or practicing in the community does not create a conflict of interest. However, municipal attorneys are expected to comply with professional ethics rules governing conflicts of interest and, when appropriate, disclose or recuse themselves from matters involving current or former clients or other circumstances that could affect their impartiality.

Residents may also be interested in learning whether Lucchesi has previously represented Franklin residents, businesses, developers, or organizations that conduct business with the City, and what procedures would be followed should such matters come before the Common Council.

Appointment Process

Thursday’s meeting may also provide insight into the City’s selection process, including why Mayor John Nelson chose Lucchesi for the position and what qualities he believes make her the best candidate to serve as Franklin’s next City Attorney.

Franklin Community News will attend the meeting and report on the discussion ahead of the Council’s anticipated vote on July 7.

New Waterford Records Lawsuit Renews Scrutiny of Time Cards at the Center of Earlier Investigation

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

A new lawsuit filed this week by the Wisconsin Transparency Project is once again placing the Town of Waterford Police Department’s timekeeping records under judicial scrutiny—and, in doing so, has renewed attention on the very categories of records that investigators examined during the department’s high-profile internal investigation involving current Franklin Mayor John Nelson.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2026, Town of Waterford Supervisor Robert Ulander filed a public records lawsuit in Racine County Circuit Court seeking the release of police officer schedules and time cards through late 2025. According to the complaint, Ulander wants to review the records for discrepancies involving officer work schedules, payroll reporting, special-event assignments, and whether the Town was properly reimbursed for police services provided to the Village of Waterford.

Circuit Judge David W. Paulson promptly issued an order directing the Police Department to either produce the requested records or appear at a hearing on August 11, 2026, to explain why the records should remain withheld.

In announcing the lawsuit, Attorney Tom Kamenick, President and Founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, said the request is about government accountability. 

“The Town Police Department claims a laundry list of bad things will happen if these records are released. But none of them happened when the Town released the same records in the past.”

Supervisor Robert Ulander said public oversight requires access to those records.

“Prior to this police chief, I was able to get these records without difficulty and used them to identify officers claiming time when they weren’t actually working, working special events the Town is not supposed to pay for, and performing duties different than what they were scheduled for without authorization.”

Ulander also said the records are necessary to ensure the Town is receiving appropriate reimbursement for police services provided to the Village of Waterford under the municipalities’ service agreement.

What the Court Filing Alleges

While Attorney Tom Kamenick’s news release announced the filing of the lawsuit, the petition filed in Racine County Circuit Court provides additional detail about why Town of Waterford Supervisor Robert Ulander believes the requested records are important.

According to the petition, Ulander had routinely obtained police department time cards and officer schedules before the Town hired a new police chief in the fall of 2025. He alleges those records enabled him to identify multiple discrepancies and potential violations of Town policy.  

Among the examples cited in the lawsuit, Ulander alleges he identified:

• Officers who were scheduled for road patrol but instead performed other duties without authorization;
• Officers who claimed compensation for time they allegedly were not working by comparing time cards with other available information, including video recordings and social media posts;
• Officers who claimed compensation for working “special events” that Town policy generally required event organizers—not taxpayers—to fund; and
• The need to determine whether the Village of Waterford, rather than Town taxpayers, properly reimbursed the Town for officers performing contracted police services.  

The petition also places the records request in the broader context of the Waterford Police Department’s recent history. It notes that after the department’s police chief unexpectedly resigned in January 2024, multiple officers resigned while under internal investigations into alleged misconduct, including allegations involving fraudulent timekeeping.  

The Police Department denied Ulander’s January 2026 records request, arguing that releasing schedules and timesheets could reveal staffing levels, deployment patterns, and periods when personnel were unavailable, potentially compromising officer safety and law enforcement operations.  

Ulander disagrees, arguing in his petition that Wisconsin’s Open Records Law establishes a strong presumption in favor of disclosure and that similar records had been released in the past without creating the harms now asserted by the Department. He further argues that the public has an enhanced interest in these records because of the Department’s history of timekeeping discrepancies and to ensure that the Town is properly reimbursed for services provided to the Village of Waterford.  

Judge Orders Police Department to Produce Records or Defend Its Denial

One day after the lawsuit was filed, Racine County Circuit Judge David W. Paulson issued an Alternative Writ of Mandamus, ordering the Town of Waterford Police Department to either immediately release the requested records or appear before the court on August 11, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. to show cause why the records should not be released.

The writ states that it appears Robert Ulander submitted a public records request on January 20, 2026, under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law and that the Police Department denied the request. Based on the petition and supporting declaration, the court directed the Department to either comply with the request or defend its decision in open court.  

An Alternative Writ of Mandamus is not a final ruling on the merits of the case. Rather, it is a procedural order requiring the responding government agency to either perform the act requested—in this case, producing the records—or explain to the court why it believes it has no legal obligation to do so. The Department must now either release the requested time cards and schedules or justify its denial at the August hearing.  

For Franklin Community News, the court’s action is significant because the records sought in this lawsuit—officer schedules, time cards, and payroll-related documents—are the same categories of records that investigators examined during the Town of Waterford’s administrative investigation involving then-Lieutenant John Nelson. During that investigation, Nelson acknowledged supervisory responsibilities involving payroll and scheduling, while investigators questioned him extensively regarding administrative hours, reimbursement reports, and timekeeping practices. Although the current lawsuit does not name Nelson or allege misconduct by him, it seeks access to the underlying records that were central to many of the questions raised during that earlier investigation, reinforcing the public’s continuing interest in transparency and accountability.

Why This Lawsuit Matters Beyond Waterford

At first glance, the lawsuit appears to be a straightforward dispute under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law.

But for those who have followed the events surrounding the Town of Waterford Police Department over the past several years, the request involves much more than access to employee schedules.

The lawsuit seeks many of the same categories of records—time cards, schedules, payroll documentation, and records related to compensated work—that investigators examined during the Town’s extensive internal investigation involving then-Lieutenant John Nelson, now serving as Mayor of Franklin.

Importantly, the current lawsuit does not accuse Mayor Nelson of wrongdoing, nor is he a party to the case. Instead, it seeks records from the same department where investigators previously questioned Nelson under oath about payroll administration, officer scheduling, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reimbursement reports, and administrative hours associated with the department’s boat patrol program.

That historical connection helps explain why today’s records dispute extends beyond a routine public-records request.

The Records Behind the Investigation

Franklin Community News obtained and reviewed the complete 361-page transcript of Nelson’s investigative interview.

The transcript reveals that investigators devoted substantial attention to:

• payroll administration;
• officer scheduling;
• timekeeping records;
• Wisconsin DNR reimbursement reports;
• administrative hours;
• grant-funded activities;
• overtime reporting; and
• supervisory approval of reimbursement documentation.  

During the interview, Nelson acknowledged that his responsibilities included payroll and scheduling.

“I would handle things from payroll, scheduling…”

That testimony is significant because the current lawsuit seeks access to the very types of records that fell within those supervisory responsibilities.

The Records Behind the Headlines

For many Wisconsin residents, the Waterford Police Department became synonymous with controversy.

Over the past several years, news reports documented internal investigations, employee complaints, officer resignations, litigation over public records, and ultimately the Town’s decision to dissolve its police department.

Today’s lawsuit does not revisit those events directly.

Instead, it asks a different question:

Should the public have access to the records that document how officers were scheduled, how their time was recorded, and how taxpayer-funded work was reported?

Those questions closely mirror issues examined during Waterford’s internal investigation involving then-Lieutenant John Nelson.

Franklin Community News reviewed the complete 361-page transcript of Nelson’s investigative interview, conducted as part of that investigation.

The interview reveals that investigators devoted substantial time to reviewing payroll administration, officer scheduling, boat patrol operations, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reimbursement reports, administrative hours, and supervisory approval of payroll-related records.  

Early in the interview, Nelson acknowledged that those responsibilities fell within his supervisory role.

“I would handle things from payroll, scheduling…”

That testimony is noteworthy because the records sought in the current lawsuit—time cards and schedules—are the same types of records investigators questioned him about during the administrative investigation.

Questions About Payroll and Administrative Hours

One of the most detailed portions of the investigative interview centered on Waterford’s annual DNR boat patrol reimbursement program.

Nelson explained that, as lieutenant, he was responsible for coordinating much of the program, including scheduling officers, overseeing buoy installation and removal, preparing monthly reports, and signing annual reimbursement documents submitted to the State of Wisconsin.  

Investigators then turned to what they described as a discrepancy between monthly reports and the year-end reimbursement request.

According to the investigators, the monthly reports reflected approximately 43.5 administrative hours, while the annual reimbursement submission reflected approximately 121 administrative hours—a difference of about 77.5 hours.  

Investigators questioned Nelson about how that difference occurred and whether additional administrative hours had been added before the final reimbursement request was submitted.

Nelson rejected the suggestion that he directed anyone to falsify records.

Instead, he repeatedly stated that his goal was to ensure the reports accurately reflected legitimate reimbursable work.

At one point, he explained that he wanted the reports to “jive” with the work that had actually been performed.  

He further stated that if legitimate administrative hours had not been included in the monthly reports, amended reports could have been submitted to correct the record.

Investigators responded that they had found no evidence that amended reports had been filed.

More Than a Payroll Review

The interview was not limited to accounting questions.

Investigators advised Nelson that they were examining a broad range of allegations concerning department operations and management.

According to the transcript, topics discussed during the interview included:

• payroll administration;
• officer scheduling;
• administrative reimbursement records;
• grant-funded hours;
• use of Town resources;
• campaign-related activity;
• workplace complaints;
• personnel management;
• alleged retaliation; and
• dissemination of confidential information.  

Throughout the interview, Nelson disputed many of the investigators’ assertions and frequently challenged the credibility and motivations of those who had made complaints.

Nelson’s Public Response

When investigative records later became public, Nelson forcefully denied the allegations in interviews with several Milwaukee media outlets.

In a separate interview with WISN 12 News, Nelson characterized the investigation as “100% a witch hunt” and “a fishing expedition” designed to discredit officers. WISN reported that Nelson retired before the administrative investigation concluded and that several other officers also resigned or retired before their investigations were completed.

Speaking with TMJ4 News, Nelson described the investigation as “ridiculous and baseless,”calling it an “absolute hit-job” and a “character assassination.” TMJ4 also reported that the investigation included allegations involving inaccurate time records and conducting Franklin mayoral business while on duty in Waterford, allegations Nelson denied.

Later, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on a separate public-integrity investigation involving Nelson in his capacity as Franklin mayor after the unsealing of a search warrant relating to alleged misuse of public resources. The newspaper reported that Nelson denied wrongdoing and had not been charged with a crime at the time of publication and FCN has confirmed there is an ongoing investigation being conducted by the West Allis Police Department on behalf of the Milwaukee County District Attorney of Public Integrity.

Why Today’s Lawsuit Matters

Supervisor Robert Ulander’s lawsuit is not about relitigating the Waterford investigation.

Nor does it allege misconduct by Mayor Nelson.

Instead, it seeks disclosure of records that may help answer broader questions about how the department documented employee work hours, scheduled officers, assigned special-event duties, and accounted for taxpayer-funded labor.

Attorney Tom Kamenick argues those records have been released before and that the Town has not demonstrated why they should now be withheld.

Whether the court agrees will be decided later this summer.

But the lawsuit underscores a broader principle behind Wisconsin’s Public Records Law: meaningful public oversight often depends not on press releases or official statements, but on access to the underlying government records themselves.

FCN Analysis

For Franklin residents, this lawsuit has significance beyond Waterford.

Mayor John Nelson has consistently maintained that the Waterford investigation was politically motivated and without merit.

The new lawsuit does not challenge that position.

What it does challenge is whether records documenting officer schedules, timekeeping, and payroll administration should remain hidden from public review.

Those are the same categories of records investigators considered important enough to examine during their interview with Nelson. Whether those records ultimately support or undermine concerns about departmental practices is precisely the type of question Wisconsin’s Public Records Law is intended to help answer through public access to government records rather than speculation.

Coming Next in The Nelson Files: Part Two will examine investigators’ questions regarding campaign activity, use of public resources, and other topics discussed during Nelson’s recorded interview.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/