Monday, May 18, 2026

Did Vincent Mislead Greendale Residents on The Rock Festival Permits?


By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Open records email, Zimmerman’s public comments, and conflicting statements to residents fuel questions about transparency and representation during the Tacos & Tequila and Country Rising permit debate.

An email obtained through a Franklin open records request is raising new questions about Milwaukee County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent’s public position regarding the controversial Tacos & Tequila and Country Rising music festivals approved this spring at The Rock Sports Complex.

The March 16, 2026 email — sent by Vincent to Franklin Mayor John Nelson, members of the Franklin Common Council, Greendale Village President Jason Cyborowski, Greendale Village Manager Mike Hawes, and others — appears to significantly soften the opposition Vincent publicly expressed less than two weeks earlier during a heated Franklin Common Council meeting regarding the proposed Country Rising concert permit.


During the public comment at the March 3 Franklin Common Council meeting — comments preserved in the publicly available YouTube recording and transcript of the meeting — Vincent directly urged Franklin officials to reject the proposed Country Rising permit, citing years of documented noise complaints, explicit language allegedly heard in Greendale neighborhoods, and ongoing impacts on nearby residents living near The Rock Sports Complex.

“Tonight, I respectfully ask this body to vote down the proposed country concert permit due to the proven disruption,” Vincent told the council on March 3.

Vincent also rejected comparisons between The Rock’s large-scale music festivals and once-a-year community events such as Greendale Village Days, arguing that the frequency and impact of the concerts were fundamentally different.

“The scale, frequency, and documented impact are not comparable.”

She further referenced complaints from Greendale residents regarding profanity and racial slurs allegedly audible during prior events.

“There are also very racial epitaphs that have been heard in my community from the events in this community.”

At the March 3 meeting, Vincent positioned herself firmly alongside Greendale residents opposing the permit and emphasized that surrounding communities deserved a stronger voice in Franklin’s event approval process.

“Being good neighbors requires transparency, communication, and shared accountability,” Vincent stated during the meeting.

Vincent presented herself as an advocate for Greendale residents frustrated by years of noise complaints and what many viewed as insufficient regional coordination between Franklin and neighboring municipalities.

March 16 Email Reveals Softer Tone

However, the March 16 email obtained through the open records request reflects a markedly different tone.

In the email, Vincent informed Franklin officials that she had spoken directly with ROC Ventures owner Mike Zimmerman and praised him for his willingness to discuss mitigation efforts tied to The Rock events.

“I also want to express my appreciation for Mr. Zimmerman’s willingness to have a direct conversation about these concerns and to discuss steps that may help address the impact on surrounding communities,” Vincent wrote.

Vincent further stated that Zimmerman told her ROC Ventures intended to implement recommendations from the Franklin sound study and described efforts to address profanity concerns through what Zimmerman characterized as “PG-13” artist agreements.

Most notably, Vincent no longer asked Franklin officials to reject the permits.

Instead, Vincent wrote:

“I believe it is possible to strike a balance that allows this venue to continue operating successfully while also being mindful and respectful of neighboring communities—particularly the residents of Greendale, whom I represent as Milwaukee County Supervisor for District 11.”

While Vincent continued to emphasize the need for mitigation measures and additional sound monitoring on the Greendale side of the venue, her email stopped short of opposing approval of the festivals and instead focused on coexistence, balance, and implementation of safeguards.

Vincent wrote:

“If the City chooses to move forward with permitting events of this nature, it will be important that appropriate safeguards and mitigation measures are implemented.”

To many residents following the debate, the contrast between Vincent’s March 3 public opposition and her March 16 email represented a substantial shift in tone and messaging.

Zimmerman Publicly Says Vincent “Changed Her Tone”

The change became politically significant during the March 17 Franklin Common Council

meeting, where comments made by ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman — preserved in the publicly available YouTube recording and transcript of the meeting — suggested that Vincent’s position had softened following private discussions regarding mitigation measures and the future of The Rock events.

During his presentation to the council, Zimmerman directly referenced Vincent’s prior opposition to the proposed Country Rising permit.

“I believe Supervisor Kathy Vincent sent a letter to you folks and said that she was asking for no votes,” Zimmerman told the council.

Zimmerman then informed council members that he had personally spoken with Vincent regarding concerns raised by Greendale residents and ongoing discussions surrounding sound mitigation efforts.

“I had a very nice conversation. She has changed her tone.”

Zimmerman further stated:

“As long as there’s a balance, she supports this.”

Zimmerman’s comments created the public impression during the meeting that Vincent had shifted from outright opposition to conditional support for the events if mitigation measures, sound monitoring, and operational safeguards were implemented.

The remarks came after Vincent’s March 16 email to Franklin officials in which she praised Zimmerman’s willingness to discuss mitigation efforts and stated she believed “it is possible to strike a balance” between neighborhood concerns and continued operation of the venue.

Residents Say Vincent Later Disputed Zimmerman’s Characterization

However, according to Greendale residents Joy Zingales and Dana Gindt, Vincent later privately disputed Zimmerman’s characterization of her position during the March 17 meeting itself.

According to Zingales, she texted Vincent during the meeting after hearing Zimmerman publicly state that Vincent now supported the events “as long as there’s a balance.”

Zingales stated Vincent responded that Zimmerman was not telling the truth regarding her support for the permits.

Dana Gindt independently corroborated the interaction and stated Vincent arrived at City Hall shortly afterward and privately spoke with Zingales in the outer lobby during the meeting.

According to both residents, Vincent clarified that she had not agreed to support approval of the permits despite Zimmerman’s public statements to the council.

The differing public statements, private discussions, and evolving messaging surrounding Vincent’s position have since become a major source of controversy among some Greendale residents, particularly those who viewed Vincent’s March 3 public comments as clear opposition to approval of the Country Rising permit.

Critics argue Vincent’s March 16 email materially softened her earlier position and gave Franklin officials and ROC Ventures political cover to move forward with approving the controversial events, while later private comments to residents appeared inconsistent with both her email and Zimmerman’s public characterization of their discussions.

Because Vincent’s Milwaukee County supervisory district includes all of Greendale, some residents are now questioning whether she ultimately represented the interests of Greendale residents who opposed the events or whether political relationships and behind-the-scenes discussions influenced her evolving public position.

Some critics have specifically questioned whether Vincent’s working relationship with Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor — a politically influential figure in Franklin and Milwaukee County politics — may have contributed to her apparent shift in tone. At present, however, no public evidence has emerged showing any improper coordination or agreement regarding the permits.

Supporters of Vincent may argue that she never explicitly endorsed the permits and consistently emphasized the importance of mitigation measures, regional cooperation, and neighborhood protections throughout the process.

Broader Scrutiny Over Multiple Public Roles

The controversy surrounding Vincent’s position on The Rock permits comes amid broader public scrutiny regarding her multiple public roles and overlapping responsibilities.

Vincent currently serves as:

  • Milwaukee County Supervisor for District 11,
  • a Greendale School Board member,
  • and a full-time educator within the Racine Unified School District.

Her overlapping taxpayer-funded positions have previously drawn criticism from political opponents, conservative media figures, and local watchdog publications questioning whether one individual can effectively balance multiple elected and professional public responsibilities simultaneously.

In September 2024, disciplinary records involving Vincent became public following reporting by Franklin Community News and Kenosha County Eye regarding allegations that Vincent conducted Milwaukee County Board and Greendale School Board business during school hours while employed as a teacher within the Kenosha Unified School District.

The reporting cited records allegedly showing Vincent participating in virtual meetings, calls, and governmental activities unrelated to classroom instruction during school hours. Records obtained through open records requests reportedly showed Vincent received disciplinary action connected to the allegations.

The controversy gained additional regional attention after conservative talk radio host Mark Belling discussed the issue on WISN-AM, referring to Vincent as a “Triple Dipper” for simultaneously collecting three taxpayer-funded paychecks tied to her multiple public positions.

Critics have argued that the overlapping roles raise legitimate concerns regarding scheduling conflicts, divided responsibilities, and public accountability — particularly when Vincent publicly represents constituents on controversial regional issues such as the debate surrounding the Tacos & Tequila and Country Rising music festivals at The Rock Sports Complex.

Supporters of Vincent, however, have argued that she maintains active participation in county government, school board matters, and constituent advocacy despite the criticism surrounding her multiple positions. Vincent has previously defended her attendance records and public service involvement, arguing that political opponents have exaggerated the controversy for partisan purposes.

Questions surrounding Vincent’s overlapping public responsibilities resurfaced again on May 18 during a Milwaukee County Committee on Community, Environment and Economic Development meeting.

Although Vincent does not serve on the committee, meeting records and the Microsoft Teams broadcast show Vincent participating remotely for approximately 30 minutes between roughly 9:45 a.m. and 10:15 a.m.

A review of the Racine Unified School District academic calendar does not indicate that either students or faculty were off on May 18.

No public evidence has been presented showing Vincent violated district employment policies related to the May 18 meeting participation, and educators frequently participate in outside meetings during planning periods, breaks, or approved release time. However, critics argue the incident is likely to renew scrutiny regarding overlapping public responsibilities and scheduling conflicts tied to Vincent’s multiple taxpayer-funded positions.

For some Greendale residents already frustrated by what they viewed as conflicting public and private messaging regarding the Tacos & Tequila and Country Rising festival permits, the broader controversy surrounding Vincent’s overlapping governmental and professional roles has added to growing concerns about transparency, accountability, and whether constituents are receiving clear and consistent representation from elected officials.

Debate Over The Rock Continues

The controversy unfolded amid a broader debate over The Rock Sports Complex and Franklin’s push to expand large-scale entertainment events as part of the city’s economic development strategy.

During the March 17 meeting, Zimmerman repeatedly argued that concerts and festivals are essential to The Rock’s long-term viability.

“When we started this development over a decade ago, it was never just about baseball,” Zimmerman told the council.

He described entertainment events as “absolutely critical” to the venue and promoted Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila as economic drivers capable of positioning Franklin as a regional entertainment destination.

Residents opposed to the events, however, continued to raise concerns regarding:

  • excessive noise,
  • profanity,
  • impacts on children and families,
  • and the effect large-scale concerts have on nearby neighborhoods in both Franklin and Greendale.

Despite the controversy, the Franklin Common Council ultimately voted 5-1 on March 17 to approve permits for both the Tacos & Tequila and Country Rising music festivals.

But for many residents following the debate, the controversy surrounding Vincent’s March 16 email and the conflicting accounts regarding her actual position became almost as contentious as the permits themselves — raising broader questions about transparency, political messaging, and whether residents received a clear and consistent understanding of where elected officials truly stood as Franklin moved forward with approving the events.

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor Accused of Pressuring Franklin Alderman Salous Following ROC Festival Vote












By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Newly obtained public records reviewed by Franklin Community News raise significant ethical and public-interest questions involving Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor, ROC Ventures, and communications surrounding the Franklin Common Council’s March 17, 2026 vote approving the “Country Rising” and “Tacos & Tequila” festivals at Ballpark Commons.

The records include:

  • text messages allegedly sent by Taylor to Alderman Nabil Salous shortly after the council vote,
  • ROC Ventures-related communications involving permit advocacy and elected officials,
  • and records showing Taylor operating through a ROC Ventures organizational email account while serving as both a Milwaukee County Supervisor and Chairman of the Milwaukee County Board Finance Committee.

Taken together, the records raise broader questions involving:

  • political pressure,
  • conflicts of interest,
  • disclosure obligations,
  • nonprofit governance,
  • and the relationship between public office, nonprofit leadership, and private development interests connected to Ballpark Commons and ROC Ventures.

The March 17 Vote

The controversy centers on the Franklin Common Council’s March 17, 2026 approval of ROC Ventures’ extraordinary entertainment permit for the 2026 “Country Rising” and “Tacos & Tequila” festivals at Franklin Field.

According to official meeting minutes, the permit included conditions involving:

  • independent sound monitoring,
  • “PG-13” artist performance expectations,
  • pre-event sound calibration,
  • coordination with Franklin Police and City officials,
  • and a voluntary “Resident Staycation Program” for nearby residents impacted by the events.

The motion was approved on a 5-1 vote:

  • Peccarelli — Aye
  • Eichmann — Aye
  • Hasan — Aye
  • Day — Aye
  • Salous — Aye
  • Craig — No

According to the official minutes, Mayor John Nelson recessed the meeting at approximately 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 9:08 p.m.

Text Messages Sent After the Vote

Records obtained through open records requests indicate Taylor attended the March 17 meeting.

Shortly after the vote and recess, Taylor allegedly sent a direct text message to Alderman Nabil Salous stating:

“You really surprised me by doing the right thing. Suggestion… Quit listening to people who have no clue and if you want to talk about me do it to my face or we will have some serious issues.”

The message was later forwarded by Salous to the Franklin City Clerk in response to an open records request.

Three days later, Taylor allegedly sent Salous another message stating:

“Almost time for a recall.”

The communications have raised concerns regarding:

  • political pressure,
  • retaliation,
  • intimidation,
  • and outside influence tied to ROC Ventures-related municipal matters.

A reasonable person could interpret the messages as attempts to pressure or influence an elected official following a controversial municipal vote.

Whether the communications rise to the level of unlawful threats would depend on additional facts and legal interpretation.

Similar Messages Previously Sent to FCNewsWI Publisher

The Salous messages are not the only records raising questions regarding Taylor’s communications with critics or individuals involved in ROC-related disputes.

Additional records reviewed by Franklin Community News show Taylor previously sending confrontational messages to FCNewsWI publisher Dr. Richard Busalacchi during disputes involving Franklin politics and ROC-related reporting.

In an April 11, 2023 exchange, Taylor wrote:

“Then it will be game on if you write anything regarding Mike, John or I on anything outside of the City of Franklin municipal government.”





During the same conversation Taylor also stated:

Taylor also stated:

“Anything outside on City of Franklin municipal government is off limits.”

and later:

“I am done with you. We will handle you accordingly.”

The exchanges involved:

  • Mayor John Nelson,
  • ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman,
  • and disputes surrounding reporting published by Franklin Community News.

Standing alone, each communication may be subject to interpretation. However, when viewed alongside the later Salous messages involving:

  • “serious issues”
  • and
  • “Almost time for a recall,”

critics may reasonably argue the records reflect a broader pattern of confrontational or retaliatory communications directed toward individuals involved in criticism, reporting, or ROC-related governmental controversies.

Taylor’s Expanding Role in ROC Ventures Matters

Additional records reviewed by Franklin Community News show Taylor communicating through:

stevet@rocventures.org

in discussions involving:

  • ROC permit advocacy,
  • meetings with elected officials,
  • and operational matters tied directly to the Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila festival approvals.

One March 16, 2026 email sent from Taylor’s ROC Ventures organizational account to Alderman Yousef Hasan and businessman Mohamad Khalek referenced materials prepared for presentation to the Franklin Common Council and stated:

“Mike and I look forward to discussing and answering any questions.”

The attached documents were formal ROC Ventures memorandums supporting permit approval for the festivals.

The records appear to show Taylor:

  • directly participating in ROC permit advocacy,
  • coordinating meetings involving elected officials,
  • and functioning in a governmental-relations or operational role tied to ROC Ventures.

From Public Office to ROC Leadership

Questions surrounding Taylor’s role become more significant when viewed in the broader context of the Ballpark Commons redevelopment itself.

At the time of the redevelopment and sale of the former Crystal Ridge Ski Hill property, Taylor simultaneously served as:

  • a Milwaukee County Supervisor,
  • and a Franklin Alderman.

The former Crystal Ridge property — a landfill and ski hill owned by Milwaukee County — was ultimately transferred to ROC Ventures as part of the Ballpark Commons redevelopment project.

Public records indicate the transaction reportedly occurred:

  • without a traditional request-for-proposals (RFP) process,
  • without competitive bidding,
  • and without broader public solicitation for alternative redevelopment proposals.

The property was reportedly transferred for a purchase price of $1 as part of the redevelopment arrangement.

During the same period, Taylor participated in governmental matters connected to:

  • redevelopment approvals,
  • zoning,
  • financing discussions,
  • and municipal actions tied to the project.

Following his unsuccessful reelection campaign in 2018, Taylor later became Executive Director of the ROC Foundation, a nonprofit organization affiliated with the same Ballpark Commons/ROC enterprise connected to the redevelopment.

ROC Foundation Finances and Governance Questions

IRS Form 990 filings reviewed by Franklin Community News show the ROC Foundation reported fluctuating financial performance between 2020 and 2024, including:

  • multiple years of operating losses,
  • one year of near break-even performance,
  • a significant surplus in 2023,
  • and a return to losses in 2024.

Executive compensation paid to Taylor reportedly increased during that same period:

  • 2020: approximately $53,000
  • 2021: approximately $60,000
  • 2022: approximately $63,000
  • 2023: approximately $79,000
  • 2024: approximately $79,000

The filings also show substantial fluctuations in charitable program spending ratios:

  • 2020: 3.9%
  • 2021: 24.2%
  • 2022: 25.9%
  • 2023: 12.3%
  • 2024: 85.7%

Several nonprofit accountability organizations commonly view spending approximately 65% or greater on charitable programming as a benchmark for stronger mission alignment and efficiency.

The records additionally show payments from the ROC Foundation to ROC Ventures reportedly increasing from approximately:

  • $10,000 in 2023
    to:
  • approximately $23,000 in 2024,
    including rent and management-related expenses.

ROC Foundation Financial Overview (IRS Form 990 Summary)

The filings also reportedly disclosed:

  • no formal conflict-of-interest policy,
  • no independent compensation review process,
  • and limited documented board oversight.

These disclosures are not themselves evidence of wrongdoing. However, they raise broader governance and transparency questions given the overlapping relationships between:

  • ROC Ventures,
  • the ROC Foundation,
  • Steve Taylor,
  • and politically sensitive municipal matters tied to Ballpark Commons.

What Role Does the ROC Foundation Actually Play?

One significant question raised by the records remains largely unanswered:

What role does the ROC Foundation actually play in the day-to-day operational, governmental-relations, and political activities involving ROC Ventures and Ballpark Commons?

The ROC Foundation publicly presents itself as a separate nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization focused on:

  • youth athletics,
  • recreation,
  • community programming,
  • and charitable initiatives.

However, records reviewed by Franklin Community News appear to show Taylor — while serving as Executive Director of the ROC Foundation — simultaneously engaging in:

  • ROC Ventures permit advocacy,
  • municipal coordination,
  • operational discussions,
  • and politically sensitive governmental matters benefiting the broader ROC enterprise.

The records raise broader questions regarding:

  • whether sufficient separation existed between the nonprofit and for-profit entities,
  • whether nonprofit leadership became intertwined with private development advocacy,
  • and whether the Foundation operated at sufficient arm’s length from ROC Ventures operations.

What Could Steve Taylor Potentially Gain?

The records do not establish that Taylor personally profited unlawfully from ROC Ventures-related matters.

However, they do raise legitimate public-interest questions regarding what Taylor potentially stood to gain — politically, professionally, financially, or organizationally — through his close involvement with ROC-related activities before, during, and after the Ballpark Commons redevelopment process.

The records reflect a progression in which Taylor:

  • participated in governmental matters involving Ballpark Commons while serving in public office,
  • later became Executive Director of the ROC Foundation affiliated with that same development,
  • received increasing executive compensation through the Foundation,
  • and now appears operationally involved in ROC Ventures governmental and permit matters.

Critics may reasonably question whether:

  • public office and political influence translated into professional or organizational opportunities tied to ROC-related entities,
  • and whether sufficient separation existed between:
    • public decision-making,
    • nonprofit leadership,
    • and private development advocacy.

Ethical and Public-Interest Questions

The records reviewed by Franklin Community News do not by themselves establish criminal wrongdoing.

However, they raise substantial public-interest and ethics questions involving:

  • conflicts of interest,
  • political pressure,
  • nonprofit governance,
  • disclosure obligations,
  • transparency,
  • and the increasingly blurred lines between public office and private development interests.

Potentially relevant statutes and ethics provisions that could warrant review include:

  • Wis. Stat. § 19.59 governing ethical conduct of local officials,
  • Wis. Stat. § 946.12 concerning misconduct in public office,
  • Milwaukee County ethics disclosure requirements,
  • and applicable financial disclosure standards.

The records also raise questions regarding:

  • behind-the-scenes coordination involving elected officials,
  • the use of personal devices and personal accounts for public business,
  • and whether all responsive records were fully produced in response to open records requests.

Broader Public-Interest Concerns

The issue is not whether elected officials may support redevelopment projects or maintain political alliances.

The broader public-interest concern is whether:

  • a sitting Milwaukee County Supervisor,
  • using a ROC Ventures organizational email account,
  • while actively participating in ROC-related municipal affairs,
    crossed the line from political support into inappropriate influence over local governmental decision-making.

Taken together, the records raise growing questions regarding:

  • political influence,
  • transparency,
  • conflicts of interest,
  • disclosure obligations,
  • nonprofit governance,
  • and the increasingly blurred relationship between public office, nonprofit leadership, and private development advocacy tied to ROC Ventures and Ballpark Commons.

Critics argue the records reflect an increasingly close relationship between ROC Ventures leadership and influential Franklin political figures — a relationship likely to intensify ongoing public debate surrounding Ballpark Commons, redevelopment politics, and governmental transparency in Franklin.

County Supervisor Steve Taylor, Franklin Mayor John Nelson, and ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Franklin Joint Review Board Approves Controversial TID 10 Amid Legal Objections, Open Meetings Questions, and Growing Scrutiny

 












By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Franklin’s Joint Review Board voted May 7 to approve the controversial TID 10 redevelopment proposal tied to the Poth’s General project, advancing one of the largest proposed Tax Increment Financing districts in the City’s recent history despite mounting legal objections, procedural concerns, and growing criticism over whether Wisconsin law was properly followed.

The approval came after weeks of escalating public controversy involving:

  • Formal legal objections
  • Competing legal memorandums
  • Allegations of materially misleading public statements
  • Disputes over blight eligibility
  • Questions surrounding the statutory “but-for” requirement
  • Concerns regarding procedural irregularities
  • And now, possible Open Meetings Law issues

What initially began as a redevelopment proposal has rapidly evolved into a broader legal and governance dispute over the limits of public subsidy and the role of oversight bodies charged with protecting taxpayer interests.

Last-Minute Appointment Change Before Vote

Before the Joint Review Board meeting began, Mayor John Nelson withdrew his nomination of Cathy Richard to fill a vacant seat on the Board following public criticism regarding past social media posts attributed to Richard.

Nelson instead nominated former Franklin Alderman Mike Barber.

Two additional individuals also expressed interest in the position:

  • Darrell Mallak
  • N.J. Mathwig

During the meeting:

  • School District representative Andy Chromy nominated Barber
  • Franklin Economic Development Director John Regetz seconded the nomination

An MATC representative nominated Mallak, but the motion failed to receive a second.

The Board then voted unanimously to appoint Barber.

Technology Problems Raise Open Meetings Questions

The meeting itself was marked by repeated technology and participation issues involving remote members.

Representatives from multiple taxing jurisdictions participated remotely through two-way video conferencing but reportedly experienced ongoing connection and audio problems during portions of the meeting.

According to attendees, some remote participants were unable to fully participate verbally and were instructed to submit:

  • Questions
  • Comments
  • Motions
  • Votes

During portions of the meeting, communication from remote participants reportedly occurred through the RingCentral chat function visible on the meeting screen, with messages directed to Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersch due to ongoing audio and connection issues.

That process is now drawing additional scrutiny regarding whether portions of the meeting complied with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law requirements.

Critics argue:

  • Deliberations and communications between board members are generally expected to occur openly and contemporaneously before the public
  • Reliance on chat-based communication routed through an intermediary may create transparency concerns
  • Portions of the Board’s deliberative process may not have been fully audible or observable to members of the public in real time
  • Questions may arise regarding whether all communications relevant to motions, deliberations, or voting were fully preserved on the public record

The issue could become particularly significant given the complexity of the legal and factual issues before the Board and the limited substantive discussion prior to approval.

Questions Raised About Role of Chair

Additional procedural concerns have also emerged surrounding the role of Franklin Economic Development Director John Regetz, who served as Chair of the Joint Review Board.

Observers have questioned whether it was appropriate for Regetz:

  • To second motions while serving as Chair
  • To vote as a participating member of the Board
  • And to oversee a process involving a TID proposal actively supported by the City administration

The questions add another layer to growing criticism regarding the procedural handling of the TID approval process.

Attorney Asked Members About Legal Objection Before Final Vote

Immediately before the final vote, Franklin City Attorney Jessie Wesolowski addressed the Board regarding the formal legal objection submitted by attorney Joseph R. Cincotta challenging the legality of the proposed TID.

According to attendees, Wesolowski asked Joint Review Board members whether they had received or reviewed Cincotta’s letter prior to voting.

It reportedly remained unclear whether all members had actually reviewed the objection.

Newly appointed board member Mike Barber reportedly stated that he had seen the letter “on social media.”

Wesolowski also informed the Board that attorneys representing developer Land By Label had submitted a formal written response to Cincotta’s objections.

She then asked Board members whether they wished to review the developer’s response before proceeding with the vote.

According to attendees, members declined additional review.

Regetz reportedly asked whether the letters should simply be “read into the record,” but instead the documents were merely placed on file before the Board proceeded toward approval.

Critics now argue the exchange raises additional questions regarding whether the Board meaningfully reviewed or independently evaluated the competing legal arguments before voting.

Legal Duty of Joint Review Board Now Under Scrutiny

At the center of the controversy is the legal role of the Joint Review Board itself.

Under Wisconsin law, the JRB is not intended to serve as a ceremonial body simply affirming decisions already made by a municipality.

The Board has an independent statutory obligation to determine whether:

  • The required “but-for” standard has actually been met
  • The blight findings are legally and factually supported
  • The use of Tax Increment Financing complies with Wisconsin law

The “but-for” requirement is one of the core safeguards built into Wisconsin’s TIF statute.

It requires decision-makers to independently determine that a project would not proceed without public subsidy.

Similarly, blight findings must be grounded in statutory definitions and supported by sufficient factual evidence — not merely accepted because they appear in consultant reports or municipal project materials.

Critics now argue there is little evidence the Joint Review Board independently evaluated those requirements before approving the district.

Pelkey Warned Officials About “Theft of Public Funds”

Much of the criticism surrounding the TID approval process stems from multiple memorandums and public comments submitted by Franklin resident Andy Pelkey in the weeks leading up to the vote.

In public comments before the Common Council and Joint Review Board, Pelkey repeatedly warned officials that they were acting as trustees of taxpayer funds and had a legal obligation to ensure the statutory findings supporting the TID were factually accurate.

“You are the trustee of the public funds,” Pelkey told officials during public comment. “It’s the taxpayer’s money.”

Pelkey sharply criticized what he viewed as the City’s reliance on disputed factual claims to justify approximately $15 million in public financing.

“If you’re giving away $15 million of public funds for which you are the trustee, just make sure you’ve got your facts down and that there’s nothing amiss,” he stated.

He further warned:
“If there are any misstatements in there, false statements that are relevant and are significant, and you just turn a blind eye and give the money away anyway — that’s theft. It’s theft of public funds.”

One of Pelkey’s recurring criticisms involved claims that portions of the redevelopment area were “landlocked,” which he argued was factually incorrect.

“The land’s not landlocked,” Pelkey stated during public comment. “Landlocked means that you don’t have the right to go from a public street to a point on the property.”

He argued the parcels already possess access to 76th Street through contiguous ownership and existing access rights.

Pelkey Email Demanded “Meaningful Response”

Following the Joint Review Board meeting, Pelkey sent a May 6 email to members of the Franklin Common Council demanding what he described as a “meaningful response” to unresolved factual disputes surrounding the project.

In the email, Pelkey stated he remained concerned that the Joint Review Board had failed to independently evaluate the factual and legal predicates necessary to support approval of the TID.

“The discussion appeared to rely primarily upon conclusions contained within the Project Plan materials rather than independently evaluating whether the factual and legal predicates necessary for those conclusions were actually satisfied,” Pelkey wrote.

Pelkey also criticized City officials for allegedly dismissing objections simply because the matter had already been debated or approved.

“A meaningful response is not to state that the project has already been debated extensively or previously approved,” he wrote.

Instead, Pelkey argued the City had an obligation to directly address whether challenged factual claims were materially accurate.

“A meaningful response is to demonstrate that the challenged factual representations were not false or misleading and that the statutory findings relied upon by the City were supported by materially accurate information.”

His email concluded:
“The attached memorandum and exhibits identify the specific factual disputes that remain unresolved.”

Prior Franklin Development Battle Adds Historical Context

The controversy surrounding TID 10 also carries an interesting historical connection to another major Franklin development dispute.

Attorney Joseph R. Cincotta — who now represents property owner Linda Mathwig in opposition to TID 10 — previously represented Franklin residents who opposed the proposed Strauss Brands slaughterhouse development in Franklin several years ago.

That earlier battle became one of the most politically divisive development fights in recent Franklin history and ultimately resulted in Strauss abandoning the project.

Notably, the resident opposition effort in the Strauss matter was led in part by:

  • Current Franklin Director of Administration Kelly Hersch
  • Newly elected Franklin Alderwoman Danielle Kenney

While the Strauss dispute involved very different issues than the current TID controversy, the reappearance of several of the same legal and political figures in another high-profile Franklin development battle is drawing additional public attention as scrutiny surrounding TID 10 continues to intensify.

Limited Discussion Before Approval

Despite:

  • Formal legal objections from attorney Joseph R. Cincotta
  • Multiple memorandums submitted by Pelkey
  • Disputes regarding factual claims in City-issued FAQs
  • Challenges to the blight designation
  • Questions involving the “but-for” finding
  • And warnings of potential litigation

discussion before approval reportedly remained limited.

School District representative Andy Chromy asked several clarifying questions involving:

  • The “but-for” analysis
  • The blight designation

However, observers note there appeared to be little independent factual investigation or substantive legal examination of the competing claims submitted into the public record.

Following those discussions:

  • Chromy made the motion to approve TID 10
  • Newly appointed member Mike Barber seconded the motion
  • The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approval

Critics now argue the Board appeared to function primarily as a body ratifying conclusions already reached by the Franklin Common Council and City consultants rather than serving as an independent reviewing authority.

Potential Litigation Appears Increasingly Likely

With the Joint Review Board now formally approving TID 10 despite ongoing objections, attention may increasingly shift toward whether opponents pursue judicial review.

Under Wisconsin certiorari review standards, courts generally examine whether municipal bodies:

  • Acted according to law
  • Relied on sufficient evidence
  • Exercised reasonable judgment
  • And followed proper procedure

If litigation occurs, scrutiny may now extend beyond the substance of the TID itself and into:

  • The adequacy of the Joint Review Board’s independent review
  • Remote participation issues
  • Voting procedures
  • Appointment decisions
  • And whether legal safeguards required under Wisconsin law were meaningfully exercised

From Redevelopment Proposal to Legal Test Case

What began as a redevelopment proposal has now become something far larger.

The central issue is no longer simply whether the Poth’s General project is desirable.

The issue increasingly becoming the focus is whether the statutory safeguards built into Wisconsin’s Tax Increment Financing laws were treated as meaningful legal requirements — or merely procedural hurdles on the path toward approval.

And with legal objections continuing to grow, the final decision regarding Franklin’s controversial TID 10 may ultimately be made not by City officials, but by the courts.

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/

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

‘Unqualified From the Start’: Nelson’s Praise of Kelly Hersch Raises New Questions About Accountability












By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi - Franklin Community News

Franklin Mayor John Nelson’s comments before the Common Council this week are reigniting debate over the controversial hiring and continued defense of City Administrator Kelly Hersch.

During council remarks recognizing Hersch’s three-year anniversary with the city, Nelson repeatedly emphasized that Hersch was hired unanimously by the Common Council and praised what he described as her accomplishments and growth while “learning on the job.” But for many residents and critics, those comments do not settle the concerns surrounding Hersch’s qualifications when she was originally selected — they revive them.

The issue has never simply been whether Hersch improved over time. The question has always been why Franklin leadership selected someone critics argue lacked the necessary executive and municipal experience in the first place, while dismissing concerns raised publicly at the time.

“Learning on the Job” in One of Franklin’s Most Powerful Positions

Nelson’s remarks may have unintentionally reinforced one of the central criticisms surrounding Hersch’s appointment.

By publicly acknowledging that Hersch was effectively “learning on the job,” Nelson appeared to validate what many residents argued from the beginning: that Franklin entrusted one of the city’s most powerful administrative roles to someone who did not possess the level of experience traditionally expected for the position.

The role of city administrator is not an entry-level municipal position. The administrator oversees daily city operations, budgeting, personnel matters, labor negotiations, policy implementation, and coordination across multiple departments. Residents reasonably expect someone entering that role to already possess substantial executive-level governmental experience.

Instead of addressing whether Franklin residents were best served by hiring a candidate who allegedly lacked that background, Nelson framed the issue as a success story about growth and adaptation.

But critics argue that is not the standard taxpayers should expect.

Repeated Emphasis on “Unanimous” Approval

Nelson twice stressed during his remarks that Hersch was approved unanimously by the Common Council.

That detail may have been intended to reinforce legitimacy and consensus. However, unanimous approval does not eliminate questions about transparency, qualifications, or the hiring process itself.

In fact, critics argue the repeated emphasis on unanimity highlights a broader concern: whether Franklin’s leadership collectively failed to conduct the level of scrutiny expected for such a critical appointment.

A unanimous vote can demonstrate unity.

It can also demonstrate that no one in city leadership was willing to ask difficult questions.

Political Connections and Questions About the Hiring Process

The controversy surrounding Hersch’s appointment was never limited to qualifications alone.

Before becoming Franklin’s Director of Administration, Hersch reportedly played a leadership role in Mayor John Nelson’s 2023 mayoral campaign. That political relationship came on the heels of litigation involving the City of Franklin connected to the Strauss Brands controversy.

Critics have long argued that the sequence of events raises serious questions about whether Franklin prioritized political loyalty over qualifications during the hiring process.

Concerns were also raised that other applicants who allegedly met or exceeded the stated minimum qualifications for the position were bypassed or excluded from serious consideration.

For critics, the issue is not personal.

It is whether Franklin residents received the most qualified leadership available — or whether political relationships and internal favoritism played a greater role in the selection process than merit and experience.

Nelson’s comments this week may have unintentionally intensified those concerns.

By repeatedly praising Hersch for extensive training, nonstop work, dedication, and effectively learning while serving in the role, Nelson appeared to reinforce the very criticism residents raised from the beginning: that Franklin hired someone into one of the city’s most powerful administrative positions before she possessed the level of executive municipal experience many believe the job required.

During Tuesday night’s meeting, Nelson praised Hersch for undergoing “lots of trainings,” working “seven days a week,” and dedicating extensive time to the position.

“She has worked diligently. She has worked very hard, focused, lots of trainings,” Nelson said.

Nelson also described Hersch as someone who “doesn’t turn it off on a nine-to-five basis” and said “daily means seven days a week.”

“I’m very, very happy and I’m very proud that I was able to present her to council,” Nelson stated, later emphasizing again that the council “approved her again unanimously.”

For critics, those comments only intensify the underlying concern.

The issue, they argue, is not whether Hersch works hard.

The issue is whether extensive on-the-job development and continual training should have been necessary in the first place for someone appointed to oversee city operations at the highest administrative level.

The Original Questions Never Fully Went Away

Three years later, Nelson’s public comments have effectively reopened the same questions critics raised when Hersch was first appointed.

If Franklin required someone to develop into the role through extensive training and continual on-the-job growth, why was that person selected over allegedly more experienced candidates in the first place?

And why were those concerns dismissed politically instead of addressed directly at the time?

Public Confidence Requires More Than Celebration

Public officials are free to praise colleagues and employees. But when leaders publicly celebrate controversial decisions without acknowledging the concerns residents raised at the time, it risks appearing dismissive of legitimate public scrutiny.

The issue is not whether Hersch has supporters inside city government.

The issue is whether Franklin residents received the level of competence, transparency, and accountability they deserved from the beginning.

Nelson’s remarks may have been intended as a routine anniversary recognition.

Instead, they revived a larger question many residents believe was never fully answered:

Why was someone allegedly still “learning on the job” placed into one of the most important administrative positions in the city in the first place?

The Political Risk for Nelson

Nelson’s comments also carry political implications beyond Hersch herself.

By strongly tying himself to Hersch’s tenure and repeatedly defending the hiring decision, Nelson is effectively making her administration part of his own political legacy.

That creates additional scrutiny over:

  • Hiring decisions

  • Administrative turnover

  • Departmental controversies

  • Public records disputes

  • Financial management

  • Leadership culture within City Hall

The more aggressively Nelson insists the decision was unquestionably correct, the more attention critics are likely to place on whether the results actually justify that confidence.

Concerns Over Separation of Powers Inside City Hall

Nelson’s remarks also renewed concerns about the proper separation of authority between the Mayor’s Office and the Director of Administration position itself.

Under Franklin’s governmental structure, the Director of Administration is intended to serve as a professional administrative leader responsible for overseeing city operations, personnel coordination, budgeting, and implementation of policy independent of day-to-day political considerations.

Critics argue that Nelson’s comments blurred that distinction.

By repeatedly emphasizing his personal role in selecting Hersch, defending her publicly, and closely associating her accomplishments with his own leadership, Nelson reinforced concerns that the position has become politically tied to the mayor rather than operating as an independent administrative office serving the broader interests of the city.

Those concerns are amplified by Hersch’s prior involvement in Nelson’s mayoral campaign and allegations that more qualified candidates were bypassed during the hiring process.

Critics argue the issue is larger than any individual personality conflict.

It is whether Franklin’s governmental structure is functioning as intended — with independent administrative leadership and meaningful institutional checks — or whether political loyalty has effectively merged executive and administrative authority inside City Hall.

For residents concerned about transparency and accountability, that distinction matters.

The Director of Administration position was designed to provide professional management and operational independence, not simply function as an extension of the mayor’s political operation.

Ongoing Investigation Adds Additional Scrutiny

The renewed scrutiny surrounding Hersch’s role also comes as both Hersch and Mayor John Nelson reportedly remain tied to an active law enforcement investigation.

According to reporting by FCN, investigators obtained a warrant outlining allegations connected to actions involving city leadership. FCN further confirmed directly with the lead investigator at the West Allis Police Department that the investigation has not concluded and remains active and ongoing.

While authorities have not announced criminal charges and no conclusions have been publicly released, the existence of an ongoing investigation adds another layer of public concern surrounding City Hall leadership and accountability.

The investigation has become particularly significant because it overlaps with many of the same issues critics have raised for years, including:

  • transparency in city government,

  • political favoritism,

  • use of public office,

  • internal decision-making,

  • and accountability among senior city officials.

Against that backdrop, Nelson’s public celebration of Hersch’s leadership and repeated insistence that her appointment was unquestionably successful is likely to face increased scrutiny from residents who believe unanswered questions still remain.

For critics, the issue is no longer limited to qualifications alone.

It is whether Franklin leadership has consistently placed political loyalty and internal relationships ahead of transparency, public trust, and independent accountability.

The existence of an ongoing investigation does not establish wrongdoing or guilt.

However, Nelson’s decision to publicly celebrate Hersch’s tenure while both remain tied to an unresolved investigation is likely to generate continued public scrutiny moving forward.

Accountability Is Not Personal

None of these questions are personal attacks.

Residents have a right to ask whether public officials selected the most qualified candidate available for a powerful taxpayer-funded position.

They also have a right to revisit those questions when city leadership itself publicly characterizes the position as one that required significant on-the-job learning.

That is not unfair scrutiny.

That is accountability.

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/

Did Vincent Mislead Greendale Residents on The Rock Festival Permits?

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi Franklin Community News Open records email, Zimmerman’s public comments, and conflicting statements to re...