Thursday, August 20, 2026

From Enchant to SnowGlobe to FrostFest: What Happened to Ballpark Commons’ Previous Holiday Traditions?

From Enchant to SnowGlobe to FrostFest: What Happened to Ballpark Commons’ Previous Holiday Traditions?

Part 1 of a 3 Part Investigative Series

As FrostFest sells tickets before final city approval could be located, Franklin Common Council President Michelle Eichmann’s extensive record of motions and votes involving ROC Ventures adds another issue to watch when the new festival reaches the city’s licensing process.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

FRANKLIN, Wis. — Three years ago, Ballpark Commons welcomed a massive Christmas attraction to Franklin Field with predictions of hundreds of thousands of visitors and hopes that it would become a year-over-year holiday tradition.

It was called Enchant Christmas.

A year later, the holiday attraction returned with a different identity:

SnowGlobe Holiday Festival — Powered by Enchant.

SnowGlobe was still included among ROC Ventures’ planned Ballpark Commons events as late as April 2025.

Now another holiday festival is coming to Franklin Field.

This one is called FrostFest — Wisconsin’s Winter Festival.

And once again, families are being invited to begin a tradition.

A current FrostFest Facebook advertisement announces:

“A new Wisconsin winter tradition is coming to Ballpark Commons!”

But the latest reinvention raises questions about what happened to the traditions that came before it — and about what consumers are being promised this time.

Enchant Was Supposed to Become a Tradition

Enchant Christmas made its Wisconsin debut at Franklin Field in November 2023.

The nationally touring attraction featured a massive illuminated Christmas maze, ice skating, Santa Claus, entertainment, food and beverages and a holiday marketplace.

Expectations were enormous.

Early promotional materials projected nearly 300,000 visitors from throughout the Midwest.

By opening night, organizers were projecting approximately 250,000 visitors during the 29-night run and more than $30 million in economic impact for southeastern Wisconsin.

ROC Ventures CEO Michael Zimmerman publicly described a much longer-term ambition.

“Our biggest goal with this event is to make it a legacy goal — a tradition, if you will,” Zimmerman told WISN during Enchant’s November 2023 opening.

Zimmerman said the goal was to hold it “year over year.”

Yet a final publicly reported Franklin attendance figure has been difficult to locate.

That absence is particularly notable because Franklin officials apparently sought information about the event after it concluded.

A March 5, 2024 Franklin Common Council agenda packet stated that information concerning Enchant requested by the Council had not yet been received for its review.

The following month, an April 16 Common Council agenda included:

“ROC PRESENTATION — ENCHANT CHRISTMAS EVENT.”

Council minutes indicate no action was taken following that presentation.

What ROC reported to alderpersons could answer an important question that remains unresolved publicly:

How did Enchant’s actual performance compare with the extraordinary attendance and economic-impact projections made before the event?

A Year Later, Enchant Became SnowGlobe

When the holiday attraction returned in 2024, it had a new name.

Ballpark Commons marketed it as:

“SnowGlobe Holiday Festival (Powered by Enchant)”

Ballpark Commons’ own event page made the connection explicit.

Zimmerman was quoted saying:

“We are excited to bring Enchant back to Milwaukee.”

The page remains online and categorized under “Enchant.”

SnowGlobe therefore was not simply another unrelated Christmas event occupying Franklin Field.

Ballpark Commons itself presented it as the return of Enchant under a new festival identity.

Social House Entertainment also became involved with SnowGlobe.

Contemporary reporting identified Social House personnel discussing festival operations and refunds after SnowGlobe’s opening was delayed.

Social House Entertainment also filed a federal trademark application for SNOWGLOBE in June 2024 covering holiday festivals and related entertainment services.

But SnowGlobe would not become the long-term identity either.

SnowGlobe Was Still Planned in 2025

The disappearance of SnowGlobe is particularly interesting because city records indicate ROC Ventures still contemplated the event after its 2024 season.

An April 17, 2025 Franklin Plan Commission agenda packet contains a ROC Ventures document addressing sound levels for planned Ballpark Commons events.

Among them:

“SNOWGLOBE HOLIDAY.”

That means SnowGlobe remained in ROC Ventures’ plans as late as April 2025.

Publicly available materials reviewed for this story, however, have not established that a comparable SnowGlobe holiday festival ultimately occurred in 2025.

One remnant remains online.

Ballpark Commons’ old SnowGlobe event page continues to link visitors to SnowGlobe’s Milwaukee website.

As of Aug. 20, 2026, that page remains live with the message:

“SEE YOU NEXT YEAR!”

The page does not say when the message was posted, so it cannot establish which year “next year” meant.

But SnowGlobe is not what is returning to Franklin Field in 2026.

Now It’s FrostFest

The latest holiday identity is FrostFest — Wisconsin’s Winter Festival, scheduled to run from Nov. 19 through Dec. 27.

Its social-media advertising announces:

“A new Wisconsin winter tradition is coming to Ballpark Commons!”

The advertisement promotes holiday light displays, ice skating, a giant winter slide, festive food and drinks and other attractions.

FrostFest’s website similarly promotes holiday lights, live entertainment, holiday music, Santa and holiday characters, food and beverages, a marketplace and photo opportunities.

Additional attractions include ice skating, a giant snow slide, rides, games and professional photography.

Many are similar in type to experiences previously offered through Enchant and SnowGlobe.

But FrostFest is being introduced as something new.

That makes the history worth remembering.

In 2023, Enchant was supposed to become the tradition.

In 2024, that tradition became SnowGlobe.

In 2026, families are being invited to start another one.

Facebook Ads Promote “Early Bird Tickets Start at Just $12”

FrostFest’s social-media advertising is already generating questions from prospective customers about what the festival’s heavily promoted $12 ticket price actually buys.

A Facebook advertisement reviewed for this story tells prospective customers:

“Early Bird tickets start at just $12.”

It encourages customers to purchase by Aug. 31 for the “lowest ticket prices of the year,” complimentary parking and the best selection of dates and arrival windows.

What the Facebook advertisement does not say is that $12 is the promotional children’s admission price.

FrostFest’s detailed pricing lists early-purchase tickets at:

Adults, ages 13 and older — $22

Children, ages 3 through 12 — $12

Children age 2 and younger are free.

The festival lists regular adult admission at $24 and peak adult admission at $28.

The $12 Price Continues Into the Ticketing Process

The distinction is not immediately apparent when customers begin selecting tickets.

For the Nov. 19 opening date reviewed for this story, the ticketing system displayed:

5:30 p.m. Entry — $12.00+

6:30 p.m. Entry — $12.00+

7:30 p.m. Entry — $12.00+

After selecting an arrival window, however, the customer is presented with the actual categories:

Adult Ticket — $22

Child Ticket — $12

The $12 ticket therefore exists.

But among the ticket options reviewed for this story, there was no $12 adult admission.

The sequence presented to a customer is:

Facebook ad: “Early Bird tickets start at just $12.”

FrostFest website: “Lowest ticket prices of the year, starting at just $12.”

Arrival window: “$12.00+.”

Ticket category: Adult $22 / Child $12.

Customers Are Asking Where the Discounted Tickets Are

Comments appearing beneath FrostFest’s Facebook advertising show that some prospective customers have already struggled to understand the offer.

One commenter asked:

“Does anyone know how to order and receive the discounted price? No matter which date I choose - it comes up full price?”

Another wrote:

“Misleading ad. $12 is a children's price.”

Other consumers asked where FrostFest is located, whether tickets could be transferred if a selected date no longer worked and whether photographs or video of the attraction were available.

No FrostFest response was visible beneath those questions in the portion of the post reviewed for this story.

That does not establish that FrostFest never responded elsewhere or whether festival personnel were actively monitoring the post.

But the comments do establish something more limited:

Prospective customers are publicly questioning how to obtain the price featured in FrostFest’s advertising.

The consumer-transparency question is straightforward:

Would a prospective customer understand from “Early Bird tickets start at just $12” that $12 is the children’s price while adult admission starts at $22?

The distinction could be made explicit simply by advertising:

“Early Bird adult tickets start at $22; children’s tickets start at $12.”

Franklin Is Repeating the $12 Message

The promotional language is not limited to FrostFest’s own social-media advertising.

Engage Franklin (Part 3 of our 3 part series) also promotes FrostFest with the “starting at just $12” language without identifying the $12 amount in that prominent promotion as the children’s admission price.

That matters because FrostFest’s detailed pricing shows adult early-purchase admission beginning at $22.

It also means the pricing message is being amplified beyond FrostFest’s own advertising.

The Extras Can Increase the Price

The admission ticket does not include every FrostFest attraction.

FrostFest currently lists ice skating at $10, the Giant Snow Slide at $5, games and activities at $5, professional photography at $20, and a Premier Pass at $25 in addition to admission.

The Premier Pass includes skating and skate rental, unlimited use of the snow slide, participating rides and attractions and other benefits, but does not include admission.

An adult purchasing the $22 promotional admission and $25 Premier Pass would therefore spend $47 before food, beverages, photography or other purchases.

A family consisting of two adults and two children purchasing promotional admission and Premier Passes for everyone would spend $168 before those additional purchases.

Parking is normally listed at $20 per vehicle, although FrostFest says parking is complimentary during the early-purchase promotion.

“Frost Fest” Isn’t a New Name in Milwaukee

FrostFest is a new name for Ballpark Commons’ holiday attraction, but “Frost Fest” is not new to the Milwaukee area.

The Milwaukee Public Market held its first Frostfest in February 2026.

The War Memorial Center separately promoted its 4th Annual Frost Fest in 2026.

There is no evidence reviewed for this story suggesting either event is connected to the Ballpark Commons festival.

Ballpark Commons’ event distinguishes itself online through FrostFestWI.com and the tagline “Wisconsin’s Winter Festival.”

There is also an existing federal trademark registration involving the name.

Arkansas-based BensBrew LLC obtained a federal registration for FROST FEST in 2024 and claims use dating to 2015. Its registration concerns beer and certain charitable beer-festival entertainment services.

That does not establish that the Franklin FrostFest infringes the registration. Trademark rights depend on factors well beyond similar names.

It does establish that the term was already federally registered for certain festival-related services before the Franklin event launched.

Meanwhile, FrostFest’s consumer-facing website does not prominently identify the legal company producing the Franklin event.

Its footer states:

“Copyright © 2026 FrostFest | Wisconsin’s Winter Festival.”

A copyright footer does not identify the legal operator or establish trademark ownership.

The identity of that operator may become clearer through Franklin’s municipal approval process.

Tickets Are Being Sold — But Where Is the City Approval?

FrostFest is already advertising and selling tickets for its November opening.

But a review of publicly available Franklin Common Council and License Committee records through Aug. 20, 2026 did not identify final approval specifically for FrostFest.

That does not establish that FrostFest lacks required municipal authorization.

An application may have been submitted without yet appearing in a publicly posted meeting packet, and the event remains months away.

But Franklin’s handling of Enchant and SnowGlobe demonstrates that major holiday attractions at Franklin Field have gone through the city’s licensing process.

And that process introduces another significant figure into the FrostFest story:

Franklin Common Council President and District 2 Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann.

Common Council President Michelle Eichmann’s ROC Ventures Record Could Matter for FrostFest

On April 21, 2026, Eichmann nominated herself for Common Council president. Alderman Yousef Hasan also sought the position. Eichmann prevailed 4-2 in a secret-ballot vote

Her role is significant because she simultaneously serves on several bodies with responsibilities potentially relevant to Ballpark Commons.

Eichmann is currently a member of the License Committee, Plan Commission, Economic Development Commission and Personnel Committee, among other assignments.

Her License Committee appointment for the current term was confirmed at the same April 21 meeting at which she became Council president. 

The License Committee consists of three alderpersons and is charged with reviewing business-license applications and making recommendations to the Common Council. Eichmann currently serves alongside Alderwoman Danelle Kenney and Alderman Clarke Johnson.

That means Eichmann is not simply one of six alderpersons who may eventually vote on a FrostFest matter.

She is Common Council president and a member of the committee involved in the city's licensing review.

Her history with ROC Ventures and Ballpark Commons applications makes that dual role particularly relevant.

Eichmann’s Involvement Dates Back to Enchant

Eichmann’s involvement with the Ballpark Commons holiday attraction reaches back to its original Enchant incarnation.

During the 2023 licensing process, a motion was made to hold over the ROC Ventures-Enchant Christmas matter until a subsequent License Committee meeting.

The motion passed 2-1.

Eichmann was the lone vote against holding the matter over.

The record establishes her vote. It does not, by itself, establish her reason for opposing the delay.

Her involvement with ROC Ventures matters continued after Enchant.

More Than an Occasional Vote

City records reviewed for this story show Eichmann repeatedly participating in decisions involving ROC Ventures and Ballpark Commons.

And in a number of instances, her role went beyond simply casting a vote.

In May 2024, Eichmann seconded a motion involving the licensed business/entity name ROC Ventures LLC, doing business as Ballpark Commons/The Rock Sports Complex.

That same evening, she seconded motions to approve ROC Ventures’ proposed post-Milkmen fireworks and Summer Concert Series.

Both proposals failed 2-4.

On the fireworks proposal, Eichmann was one of only two alderpersons voting for approval.

She was likewise one of only two supporting the Summer Concert Series proposal.

That is relevant because it shows instances in which Eichmann supported ROC Ventures proposals even when a majority of her Council colleagues did not.

It does not establish why.

The Pattern Continued

Eichmann continued participating in ROC Ventures applications in 2025 and 2026.

In April 2025, she seconded the motion approving ROC Ventures’ post-Milkmen fireworks as an Extraordinary Entertainment & Special Event subject to conditions.

When an additional ROC Ventures fireworks date was subsequently brought before the Council because it had been inadvertently omitted from the original application, Eichmann moved to approve it.

The motion passed 5-1.

Her involvement continued into 2026.

In February, Eichmann moved to approve ROC Ventures’ fireworks and drone shows at Franklin Field.

The motion passed unanimously.

She also moved to approve ROC Ventures’ 17-date Umbrella Bar Summer Concert Series, including a 10:35 p.m. hard stop and 65-decibel condition.

And when ROC Ventures’ Country Rising and Tacos & Tequila festivals reached the Council, Eichmann made the initial motion to approve them.

That motion failed for lack of a second.

Eichmann then moved to table the applications.

The record therefore shows something more specific than simply describing Eichmann as generally supportive or opposed to ROC Ventures.

Franklin’s current Common Council president has repeatedly made, seconded and voted on motions affecting ROC Ventures and Ballpark Commons.

Nothing in that record by itself establishes an improper relationship between Eichmann, Zimmerman or ROC Ventures.

But it does make her role particularly relevant when another significant Ballpark Commons attraction reaches Franklin’s approval process.

Why Eichmann's ROC Ventures Record Matters for FrostFest

The important issue is not whether Eichmann should be presumed to support FrostFest.

There is no basis for making that assumption before the application is considered.

The importance lies in the municipal process.

As a License Committee member, Eichmann may participate when licensing matters are reviewed and recommendations are developed.  This is common practice.

As an alderwoman, she can participate when those recommendations reach the full Common Council.

And as Common Council president, she now holds a leadership position on the legislative body ultimately considering many of those matters.

Her presidency is not merely ceremonial in every circumstance. City minutes from July 2 show Eichmann calling a special Common Council meeting to order as Council president when Mayor John Nelson was absent. 

That combination makes the FrostFest proceedings worth watching closely.

Not because Eichmann’s past votes prove what she will do.

They don't.

But because a city official who has been involved with Ballpark Commons matters since Enchant arrived now occupies an even more prominent position as Franklin considers the development’s newest holiday attraction.

What Will the License Committee Ask?

If FrostFest comes before the License Committee, the public proceedings provide an opportunity to answer questions that remain unclear from the event's consumer-facing materials.

Who legally owns and operates FrostFest?

Which company is selling the tickets?

Who assumes financial responsibility for the event?

What is the maximum ticket capacity?

How many visitors are projected?

What are the operating hours?

What amplified entertainment is planned?

What sound limits will apply?

There is also a consumer question that now deserves attention:

Will committee members ask about FrostFest advertising tickets “starting at just $12” when the $12 promotional ticket reviewed for this story is the children's admission price and adult admission starts at $22?

Those questions should not depend on whether an alderperson historically supported or opposed ROC Ventures.

They are basic questions that officials can ask of any company seeking approval for a major multi-week entertainment event.

SnowGlobe Shows What the Approval Process Can Reveal

The 2024 SnowGlobe process demonstrates why FrostFest's eventual application matters.

SnowGlobe appeared before Franklin as an Extraordinary Entertainment & Special Event.

City records publicly identified the person in charge, Franklin Field as the location and 25 planned operating days.

The Common Council ultimately approved the event subject to conditions that included a 65 dBA sound limit.

Because SnowGlobe operated for weeks, Franklin also required a periodic review addressing possible noise violations, complications and documented sound exceedances.

Franklin's current Extraordinary Entertainment & Special Event process remains active. The License Committee is specifically charged with reviewing license applications and making recommendations to the Council.

No comparable publicly available FrostFest application or final approval was located in the records reviewed for this story through Aug. 20.

The Application Could Answer What the Advertising Doesn't

When the FrostFest application becomes public, it may answer questions that the event's website currently does not.

Who is the legal operator?

Who owns or controls the FrostFest brand?

Who is financially responsible?

How many tickets can be sold?

What attendance does the operator project?

What hours will it operate?

What amplified entertainment is planned?

What neighborhood protections will be required?

And what conditions will Franklin impose?

None of the repeated branding changes establishes wrongdoing.

Neither does Eichmann's record of voting for or advancing ROC Ventures matters establish an improper relationship.

But both are relevant parts of the public history.

2023 — Enchant Christmas: introduced with enormous attendance projections and a stated goal of becoming a year-over-year tradition. Eichmann opposed a License Committee motion to delay consideration of the ROC Ventures-Enchant matter.

2024 — SnowGlobe Holiday Festival, Powered by Enchant: Ballpark Commons presented the attraction as Enchant's return under a new identity.

2025 — SnowGlobe remained in ROC Ventures' plans: city records continued to identify “SNOWGLOBE HOLIDAY.”

2026 — FrostFest: another name, another marketing campaign and another invitation to begin a winter tradition. Meanwhile, Eichmann is now president of the Common Council while continuing to serve on the License Committee. Her election as Council president and committee appointment were confirmed in April. 

This time, consumers are already buying tickets.

Some are publicly asking where they can find the advertised $12 price.

And as of Aug. 20, final FrostFest approval could not be identified in the publicly available License Committee and Common Council records reviewed for this story.

That gives Franklin officials — including Common Council President Michelle Eichmann and the other members of the License Committee — an opportunity to establish the answers before opening night.

Three years ago, Enchant was supposed to become the tradition.

Today, FrostFest is asking families to start another one.

Before Franklin embraces its newest winter tradition, its licensing process should make clear who is behind it, what consumers are actually buying, what conditions will govern it — and what happened to the traditions that came before.

The upcoming series will provide:

We also examine Common Council President Michelle Eichmann’s documented role in ROC Ventures matters.

PART 2 — THE $78,500 SOUND STUDY
Franklin taxpayers paid for answers about Ballpark Commons sound. Why hasn't the complete study been released?

PART 3 — FOLLOW THE HOTEL-TAX MONEY
We examine Engage Franklin, ROC Ventures/ROC Enterprises, Michael Zimmerman, Common Council relationships and approximately $1.5 million connected to Franklin Field naming rights. 
What does Engage Franklin provide taxpayers and the tourism industry in return for its share of Franklin's hotel-tax revenue?

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/

Thursday, August 6, 2026

Exploratory Recall Committee Formed for Franklin Alderwoman and Common Council President Michelle Eichmann

 


Exploratory Recall Committee Formed for Franklin Alderwoman and Common Council President Michelle Eichmann

A group of concerned Citizens of Franklin has formed an Exploratory Recall Committee to determine whether there is sufficient community support to pursue a recall of Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann, who represents Franklin's District 2 and currently serves as President of the Franklin Common Council.

The purpose of the committee is to gather community input, discuss concerns regarding the direction of city leadership, and determine whether a formal recall effort should move forward. No recall petitions are being circulated at this time.

Because Alderwoman Eichmann serves as President of the Common Council, her decisions and leadership affect all Franklin residents, not just those who live in District 2.

Residents of District 2 are strongly encouraged to sign up to receive updates and information about the exploratory effort. However, all Franklin residents are encouraged to participate, share their perspectives, and support the committee's efforts as we evaluate the level of community interest.

District 2 currently includes Wards 4, 5, 6, and 7, with the polling location at the Franklin Law Enforcement Center, 9455 W. Loomis Road. An official District 2 map accompanies this announcement to help residents determine whether they live within the district.

Interested?

If you would like to:

  • Receive updates on the exploratory committee;
  • Volunteer your time;
  • Attend future informational meetings; or
  • Be notified if the committee decides to proceed with a formal recall effort,

please sign up here:

➡️ Michelle Eichmann Recall Exploratory Committee

Signing up does not mean you are signing a recall petition. It simply indicates your interest in receiving information and updates regarding the Exploratory Recall Committee.

Tuesday, August 4, 2026

Mayor Nelson Orders Franklin Community News Publisher Removed From Council Meeting During Comments on Suspended Ethics Code

Mayor Nelson Orders Franklin Community News Publisher Removed From Council Meeting During Comments on Suspended Ethics Code

Alderman Salous moved to grant additional speaking time, but no Council member seconded the motion

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Franklin Mayor John Nelson ordered Franklin Community News publisher Dr. Richard Busalacchi to leave Tuesday evening’s Common Council meeting after Busalacchi’s three-minute public-comment period expired while he was addressing the City’s suspended Code of Conduct and Ethics.

Busalacchi requested an additional minute and a half to complete his presentation. Alderman Salous moved to extend his time by one minute, but no Council member seconded the motion.

“Motion fails,” Nelson announced.

During the exchange that followed, Nelson repeatedly told Busalacchi that he had already received his opportunity to speak.

“You had your opportunity,” Nelson said. “A motion was made. It failed. Citizen comment is over—for you.”

Nelson then told Busalacchi, “We’re going to ask you to leave,” called for an officer and again said, “Good night, Mr. Busalacchi. Have a good night.”

Police officers subsequently escorted Busalacchi from the Council chambers.

Watch the Presentation and Removal

The video below shows Busalacchi’s public comments, his request for additional time, Alderman Salous’s motion, Nelson’s response and the exchange that resulted in Busalacchi being escorted from the meeting. Please start at 1:31:32.

The video provides the complete context and allows residents to evaluate the tone and conduct of everyone involved.

Busalacchi did not yell or scream while delivering his prepared presentation. His time expired immediately after he asked the Common Council to place Resolution 2023-7983 on its next agenda and began introducing three specific actions he wanted the Council to take.

Franklin’s Ethics Code Has Been Suspended for More Than Three Years

Busalacchi’s comments addressed Franklin’s lack of a functioning local process for considering alleged misconduct by elected and appointed officials.

Franklin abolished its former Ethics Board and repealed its local ethics ordinance in 2005. At the time, then-Mayor Fred Klimetz warned that relying exclusively on state law would leave the City with less-stringent standards, primarily focused on financial conflicts, and fewer opportunities for residents to obtain local redress.

Franklin attempted to close that accountability gap in 2022.

After several months of consideration and amendments, the Common Council unanimously adopted a Code of Conduct and Ethics on August 2, 2022.

Nelson, then serving as an alderman, had requested that the ethics-code subject be placed before the Council in 2020. He subsequently participated in developing and amending the Code and voted for its final adoption. Alderwomen Kristen Wilhelm and Michelle Eichmann also participated in its development.

However, at Nelson’s first regular Common Council meeting as mayor on May 2, 2023, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2023-7983.

The resolution established a moratorium on the “application and enforcement” of the Code while the City conducted what it described as a “review, consideration and evaluation process.”

The official action is recorded under Item G.19 on page 8 of the May 2, 2023 Common Council minutes.

More than three years later, the moratorium remains in effect.

The publicly available record identifies no person or committee assigned responsibility for completing the review, no deadline, no completed report and no public explanation of what deficiencies required suspending the Code’s application and enforcement.

City Website Does Not Disclose the Moratorium

Despite the moratorium, the City continues to display the Code of Conduct and Ethics on its official website.

The posted document does not notify residents that its application and enforcement were suspended in May 2023.

A resident reading the City’s Code could reasonably believe that its complaint process remains operational and that a sworn complaint submitted under the Code would be reviewed. It would not be processed through the suspended enforcement procedure.

The City is therefore displaying ethical standards that residents cannot invoke through the process described in the document.

An Accountability Gap With Practical Consequences

Busalacchi’s presentation was not merely about an outdated policy or an unfinished administrative review. It addressed Franklin’s lack of a functioning local process for considering allegations involving Nelson, Eichmann and other City officials.

Several matters seeking outside review have been filed:

  • A John Doe matter remains open. Read Here.

  • A complaint before the Wisconsin Elections Commission remains open. Read Here.

  • A public-integrity complaint or referral to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office remains open. Read Here.

  • A publicly reported and subsequently unsealed search warrant was issued as part of an investigation involving allegations concerning Nelson and the use of taxpayer-funded personnel or contractors for political purposes. Read Here.

  • Complaints submitted to Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel were dismissed.

The existence of a complaint or investigation does not establish that misconduct occurred. The allegations have not been finally adjudicated.

Their existence does, however, demonstrate why a functioning and impartial process is necessary. Without such a process, neither the complainant nor the official accused receives an independent local determination based on evidence.

Busalacchi maintains that the Franklin Police Department has declined on multiple occasions to investigate allegations involving Nelson, Eichmann and other local officials. When local police decline to investigate and the City’s Code of Conduct remains suspended, residents must seek review from county, state or other outside authorities.

Nelson Previously Acknowledged Outside Complaints

Nelson has previously acknowledged Busalacchi’s efforts to obtain review from outside agencies.

During an investigative interview concerning alleged misconduct connected to Nelson’s former employment as a Village of Waterford police lieutenant, Nelson stated:

“So the problem with him is he’s looking for anybody that’ll listen to his case against me.”

Nelson then identified several agencies:

“That includes Milwaukee DA’s Office, court counsel, State of Wisconsin Ethics Board, even the FBI.”

The Waterford investigative-interview transcript provides the context for Nelson’s statements.

Those statements do not establish the merits or outcome of any complaint. They do establish that Nelson was aware Busalacchi had sought outside review concerning his conduct.

That history provides relevant context for Tuesday’s meeting. The resident addressing the absence of a local ethics process was someone who had pursued complaints involving the mayor and other Franklin officials. The mayor enforcing the speaking limit and ordering the resident to leave was one of the officials whose conduct had been presented to outside agencies.

Busalacchi did not use his three-minute presentation to argue the merits of the individual allegations. Instead, he asked why Franklin’s supposedly temporary ethics moratorium remains in place and sought an independent process capable of evaluating any complaint fairly.

Questions About Consistent Enforcement

The removal also raises questions about whether Franklin’s public-comment rules have been applied consistently.

Busalacchi has attended or reviewed numerous Common Council meetings in which speakers were permitted to continue after the three-minute limit. In some instances, Nelson allowed a speaker to continue. In others, the mayor sought the Council’s consent before allowing additional time.

A frequent speaker commonly referred to as “the Colonel” has been permitted to continue beyond the allotted time on multiple occasions.

Other residents have yelled, raised their voices or engaged in heated exchanges with Council members and Nelson without being removed from the chambers, according to Busalacchi’s observations.

On Tuesday, Nelson indicated that the Council would follow its formal procedure. The recording captures him saying words to the effect of, “We’re going to do it the right way,” as Salous moved to extend Busalacchi’s time.

When no Council member seconded the motion, Nelson declared that it had failed.

Busalacchi said he is unaware of any previous Franklin resident being removed from a Common Council meeting under comparable circumstances. A comprehensive review of prior meetings would be necessary to determine whether he was the first person removed.

“If the three-minute rule is going to be strictly enforced, it must be enforced consistently,” Busalacchi said. “The procedure should not change depending on who is speaking, what issue is being discussed or whether the mayor agrees with the comments.”

The circumstances do not, by themselves, prove that Busalacchi was removed because of the subject of his presentation. They do make transparency and consistent enforcement particularly important.

When a mayor strictly enforces a speaking limit against a resident discussing unresolved ethics matters involving that mayor—after other speakers have reportedly received additional time or engaged in more disruptive conduct without removal—even the appearance of selective treatment warrants public scrutiny.

Three Requested Actions Were Never Presented

Busalacchi reached the three-minute limit immediately after making the following statement:

“I ask the Common Council to place Resolution 2023-7983 on its next meeting agenda and take three specific actions.”

Because the motion to extend his time received no second, Busalacchi was unable to present those actions publicly.

His prepared remarks called upon the Council to:

  1. Disclose whether the promised review was ever conducted and release any resulting report, recommendations or other work product.

  2. Immediately notify residents on the City’s website that the Code’s application and enforcement are suspended.

  3. Establish a definite public timetable for ending the moratorium and implementing a functioning process that provides for independent investigation, impartial decision-making, appropriate due-process protections and meaningful action when violations are established.

Busalacchi was not asking the Council simply to reactivate the former complaint procedure. His comments recognized that the former procedure may not have provided sufficient independence and impartiality.

The objective is a credible process that protects complainants, provides due process to accused officials and produces decisions based on evidence rather than political relationships.

Busalacchi’s concluding statement—which he was prevented from delivering when his time expired—read:

“Franklin residents deserve more than ethical standards displayed on a website. They deserve an accountability process that is independent, credible, transparent and actually available when it is needed.”

The unanswered issue extends beyond what happened to one speaker at Tuesday’s meeting.

Franklin adopted ethical standards, suspended their application and enforcement as part of a supposedly temporary review, and has allowed that moratorium to remain in place for more than three years.

The City continues to display the Code on its website without disclosing that residents cannot use its enforcement process.

When local authorities decline to investigate and the City’s ethics process remains unavailable, residents are left searching for an outside agency willing to hear their concerns.

That is precisely why Franklin needs a local accountability process that is independent, impartial and available regardless of who is accused.

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/

Friday, July 24, 2026

Steve Taylor Doesn't Think You Should Decide

EDITORIAL

Steve Taylor Doesn't Think You Should Decide

Call your County Supervisor today and demand the full Milwaukee County Board consider allowing taxpayers to vote before committing approximately $858 million in courthouse construction funding.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Steve Taylor said the quiet part out loud.

During Thursday's meeting of the Milwaukee County Finance Committee, Chairman Steve Taylor explained why he opposed allowing Milwaukee County taxpayers to vote on whether the County should proceed with approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding for a new courthouse.

His explanation was simple.

"This is a representative government. We're elected to make the decision."

He didn't stop there.

Taylor predicted that if the question were placed before voters, they would reject it because, in his words:

"They don't have the information."

He added:

"You're not going to be able to educate the voters the way they need to be. It's going to be all rhetoric."

Whether intentional or not, the message was unmistakable.

Milwaukee County residents were told they should not decide one of the largest borrowing questions in County history because they lack the information necessary to make an informed decision.

We Disagree.

Wisconsin voters routinely make complicated decisions.

They elect governors.

They elect judges.

They elect legislators.

They elect county supervisors....even supervisors who run unopposed.

They approve school construction referenda worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

They vote on technical college borrowing.

They vote on constitutional amendments.

Apparently, according to Chairman Taylor, they can do all of those things—but they cannot be trusted to decide whether Milwaukee County should proceed with approximately $858 million in courthouse construction funding.

That is a remarkable position for an elected official to take.

This Isn't About Whether Milwaukee Needs a New Courthouse

It probably does.

County studies dating back to 2016 have concluded that replacing the aging Public Safety Building is likely more practical than attempting a comprehensive renovation.

Franklin Community News has reported extensively on the deteriorating condition of the building, the more than $75 million in deferred maintenance within the Public Safety Building itself, the more than $334 million in deferred maintenance across the courthouse campus, and the County's conclusion that continued patchwork repairs are no longer the most economical long-term solution.

This editorial is not about whether Milwaukee County needs a modern courthouse.

It is about who gets to decide before taxpayers are committed to financing it.

If taxpayers may ultimately repay the debt, taxpayers deserve the opportunity to express their opinion before that commitment is made.

Leadership Requires Credibility

Chairman Taylor asks Milwaukee County residents to trust his judgment over their own.

That is his right as an elected official who continues to run unopposed for some miraculous reason. Not because his running unopposed is an endorsement of the electorate.

It is equally the public's right to evaluate whether that trust has been earned.

Taylor also serves as Executive Director of the ROC Foundation.

Franklin Community News previously examined the Foundation's publicly available IRS Form 990 filings and reported on the organization's financial condition during Taylor's leadership. Those public filings reflected recurring financial challenges, including years in which expenses exceeded revenues, declining net assets over multiple reporting periods, and operating deficits that required the organization to rely on reserves.  Taylor routinely pays himself more annual salary than what is donated to charity.

Those publicly reported financial records do not, by themselves, establish misconduct or determine whether Taylor is right or wrong about the courthouse project.

They do, however, provide context when evaluating the financial judgment of the individual who now chairs the Milwaukee County Finance Committee and is asking taxpayers to defer to elected officials on one of the largest financial decisions in County history.

Public confidence is built on transparency, accountability, and demonstrated financial stewardship.

When Chairman Taylor argues taxpayers should not decide because, in his view, they "don't have the information," citizens have every right to evaluate that statement in light of his own public record and leadership.

Related Coverage: The Steve Taylor Files

The questions raised in this editorial do not exist in a vacuum.

Over the past several months, Franklin Community News has published a series of investigative reports examining Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor's public record. Those reports are based on public court records, police reports, newspaper archives, campaign finance records, IRS filings, and other publicly available documents.

Among the issues previously reported by Franklin Community News are:

  • A criminal conviction for obstruction of an officer, arising from an incident in which Taylor was found guilty of interfering with a police investigation.

  • A harassment injunction entered following court proceedings involving threatening or intimidating communications, as reflected in court records.

  • Documented allegations from multiple individuals who have publicly claimed Taylor attempted to interfere in court proceedings, employment matters, or government processes involving people with whom he had political disagreements. Franklin Community News has reported these allegations alongside supporting documentation where available and has distinguished allegations from established findings.

  • Questions regarding financial stewardship during Taylor's tenure as Executive Director of the ROC Foundation, based on publicly filed IRS Form 990 returns showing recurring operating deficits, declining net assets over multiple reporting periods, and financial challenges reported by the organization.

  • Questions concerning transparency and ethics in his role as Milwaukee County Supervisor, including matters previously examined by Franklin Community News through public records requests and official government documents.

These reports do not determine how readers should view Supervisor Taylor or the courthouse project.

They do, however, provide important context when evaluating his assertion that Milwaukee County taxpayers should not decide for themselves because they "don't have the information."

Franklin Community News encourages readers to review the underlying court records, police reports, financial filings, and other source documents referenced in The Steve Taylor Files series and to reach their own informed conclusions.

Related reading: The Steve Taylor Files: From Harassment Injunction to Obstruction Conviction (Franklin Community News, June 2026).

If Voters Don't Have Enough Information, Then Give Them the Information

Chairman Taylor's argument was not that Milwaukee County doesn't need a courthouse.

His argument was that voters don't have enough information to make an informed decision.

If that's true, the solution isn't to prevent taxpayers from voting.

The solution is to provide them with the information.

Milwaukee County has already committed $546,475 for communications and advocacy related to the Investing in Justice courthouse project.

If nearly $550,000 has been spent communicating with the public, taxpayers have every right to ask whether they have received the information they need to understand:

  • The total long-term cost of the project.
  • The projected borrowing costs, including interest.
  • The anticipated impact on future County borrowing.
  • The estimated impact on Milwaukee County property taxpayers.

Those are reasonable questions.

They deserve answers.

The Clock Is Ticking

Time is running short.

Every day that passes makes it more difficult for Milwaukee County to place an advisory referendum on the November 3, 2026, ballot if one is ultimately approved.

The Finance Committee's 4–3 vote did not necessarily end the discussion.

Milwaukee County Board Rule 1.09(b)(4) provides a procedure by which the full Milwaukee County Board may withdraw a matter from committee and consider it itself.

If enough County Supervisors believe taxpayers deserve the opportunity to vote, they have procedural options available to bring the issue before the full Board.

Whether those options are pursued now depends upon Milwaukee County's elected supervisors.

What Happens Next?

The Finance Committee's action delayed—but did not necessarily end—the discussion. Individual County Supervisors now have a choice. They can allow the committee's decision to stand, or they can pursue available procedures to bring the matter before the full Milwaukee County Board for consideration. Whether that happens may depend as much on public engagement over the next several days as it does on parliamentary procedure.

Take Action Before July 30

The next meeting of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors is scheduled for:

Thursday, July 30, 2026
12:00 p.m.
Milwaukee County Courthouse – Room 200
901 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Unlike committee meetings, general public comment is not permitted during regular County Board meetings.

That means your voice needs to be heard before July 30.

Call or email your County Supervisor today and ask them to:

Support bringing the courthouse referendum before the full Milwaukee County Board under Rule 1.09(b)(4).

Support allowing Milwaukee County taxpayers to vote before the County commits approximately $858 million in courthouse construction funding.

If the November ballot can no longer be met because of election deadlines, publicly explain why and identify what options remain to give taxpayers a voice before construction borrowing is approved.

Then ask one simple question:

"Do you trust the people who elected you to make an informed decision if they are provided all the facts?"

Even though you cannot speak during the July 30 Board meeting, attend anyway.

A full boardroom sends a powerful message.

It tells elected officials that Milwaukee County taxpayers are paying attention to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in County history.

Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors Contact Information

DistrictSupervisorEmailPhone
1Anne O'ConnorAnne.OConnor@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4280
2Willie Johnson Jr.Willie.Johnson@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4233
3Sheldon A. WassermanSheldon.Wasserman@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4237
4Jack EckbladJack.Eckblad@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4232
5Leevan D. Roundtree Jr.Leevan.Roundtree@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4222
6Shawn RollandShawn.Rolland@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4273
7Felesia A. MartinFelesia.Martin@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4241
8Steven SheaSteven.Shea@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4231
9Patti LogsdonPatti.Logsdon@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4267
10Marcelia Nicholson-BovellMarcelia.Nicholson@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4261
11Kathleen VincentKathleen.Vincent@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4222
12Juan Miguel MartinezJuanMiguel.Martinez@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4222
13Priscilla E. Coggs-JonesPriscilla.Coggs-Jones@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4222
14Caroline Gómez-TomCaroline.Gomez-Tom@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4252
15Sky Z. CaprioloSky.Capriolo@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4222
16Justin BielinskiJustin.Bielinski@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4247
17Steve F. TaylorSteve.Taylor@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4263
18Deanna AlexanderDeanna.Alexander@milwaukeecountywi.gov(414) 278-4222

The Bottom Line

This editorial is not about whether Milwaukee County needs a new courthouse.

It is about whether the people who will ultimately help pay for it deserve a voice before elected officials commit the County to approximately $858 million in construction funding.

Chairman Steve Taylor believes that decision belongs exclusively to elected officials.

Franklin Community News respectfully disagrees.

Representative government does not require elected officials to shield major public decisions from the people they serve.

It requires elected officials to trust the judgment of the citizens who entrusted them with office.

If Milwaukee County residents are expected to help finance one of the largest public construction projects in County history, they deserve more than an explanation after the fact.

They deserve a voice before the decision is made.

The courthouse debate will eventually end.

The principle at stake should not.

Trust the taxpayers. Let them vote.

How You Can Help

Before July 30, contact your Milwaukee County Supervisor.

Ask one question:

"Will you support allowing Milwaukee County taxpayers to vote before approximately $858 million in courthouse construction funding moves forward?"

Then ask them to explain their answer.

Representative government depends on informed citizens.

This is your opportunity to make your voice heard.

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/



From Enchant to SnowGlobe to FrostFest: What Happened to Ballpark Commons’ Previous Holiday Traditions?

From Enchant to SnowGlobe to FrostFest: What Happened to Ballpark Commons’ Previous Holiday Traditions? Part 1 of a 3 Part Investigative Ser...