Taylor Ethics Complaint Heads to Special Milwaukee County Ethics Board Meeting September 11

Taylor Ethics Complaint Heads to Special Milwaukee County Ethics Board Meeting September 11

Special closed-session meeting comes before the Board’s next regular meeting as supplemental filing documents additional activity involving the Supervisor-branded Facebook page of County Finance Committee Chair Steve Taylor

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The verified ethics complaint involving Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve F. Taylor is moving to its next significant stage.

The Milwaukee County Ethics Board has scheduled a special meeting for Friday, September 11, 2026, at which the complaint involving Taylor is expected to be considered in closed session.

The meeting follows Franklin Community News’ August report detailing a signed and notarized Verified Complaint concerning Taylor’s use of the Facebook page “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” and the relationship between that page, his Milwaukee County office, and his political campaign and fundraising infrastructure.

Since that initial report, two significant developments have occurred.

First, the required District Attorney review stage has been completed and the matter has returned to the Ethics Board for further consideration.

Second, a 12-page Supplemental Information/Addendum has been submitted documenting additional activity involving Taylor’s Facebook page and changes to the page after the original complaint was filed.

No finding has been made that Taylor violated the Milwaukee County Ethics Code.

The September 11 meeting is not a hearing and is not a final determination against Taylor. It is, however, the next significant procedural development in the complaint.

[READ FCN’S ORIGINAL AUGUST REPORT]

Why a Special Meeting?

The timing is noteworthy.

The Ethics Board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2026. Rather than waiting until that meeting, the Board has scheduled a special meeting for September 11.

The publicly posted agenda provides for the Board to enter closed session under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law provision allowing a governmental body to consider or investigate charges against specific persons.

The agenda further provides that, at the conclusion of the closed session, the Board may reconvene in open session to take whatever action it deems necessary.

The scheduling of a special meeting should not be interpreted as evidence that the Board has already determined Taylor violated the Ethics Code—or that it has already made a probable-cause determination.

What it does establish is that the matter is being taken up now rather than simply being left until the Board’s November regular meeting.

What the Original Complaint Alleges

The original 39-page Verified Complaint, filed by Richard Busalacchi and Kevin Fischer, concerns Taylor’s Facebook page titled “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor.”

The complaint documents that the page identifies Taylor as a “Government Official,” states that “This page will be used to talk about matters facing Milwaukee County,” identifies his County Board position, and is used to communicate about Milwaukee County governmental matters. 

At the time the complaint was filed, the page directed visitors to:

www.stevetaylor4milwaukeecounty.com

and

stevetaylor4milwaukeecounty@gmail.com

The linked website is identified in the complaint as an active campaign website for Friends of Steve F. Taylor and contains campaign information and mechanisms through which visitors can financially support Taylor’s campaign. 

The original complaint describes the resulting pathway this way:

County-supported Government Official Facebook page → Taylor campaign website → campaign contribution solicitation and payment mechanism.

The complaint does not contend that Taylor is prohibited from campaigning, fundraising, criticizing FCN, or using the title and prestige of his elected office in connection with otherwise lawful campaign activity.

Instead, it raises a narrower question:

Are County employees, County work time, County equipment, County information-technology resources or other taxpayer-supported resources being used to maintain or support a governmental-facing communications platform that also directs members of the public into Taylor’s political campaign and fundraising infrastructure?

The complaint asks the Ethics Board to determine who administers the page; whether Taylor’s legislative staff or other County employees create, review, schedule, publish or moderate content; whether those activities occur during compensated County work time; and whether County computers, phones, networks or other publicly funded resources are involved. 

[READ THE ORIGINAL 39-PAGE VERIFIED ETHICS COMPLAINT]

After the Complaint Was Filed, the Page Changed

One of the clearest developments documented in the supplemental filing is a change to Taylor’s Facebook page.

The screenshots submitted with the original complaint show that the page did not display a link to Taylor’s official Milwaukee County Supervisor webpage when the complaint was prepared.

After the Verified Complaint was filed and FCN publicly reported on it, Taylor’s Facebook page was modified to include a direct link to his official Milwaukee County webpage. 

The August 31 supplemental filing carefully avoids claiming why Taylor made the change.

It states:

“I do not assert that the timing establishes Taylor’s reason for making this change, nor do I ask the Board to infer motive merely from the sequence of events.”

The significance is therefore not speculation about Taylor’s motivation.

It is the objective before-and-after record.

The Ethics Board can compare the configuration of Taylor’s Facebook page when the complaint was filed with how the same page was configured afterward.

Additional Evidence of County-Related Use

The supplemental filing also provides additional evidence concerning how Taylor uses the account.

In a June 10 exchange concerning Bender Park, a Milwaukee County park, Bender Park Friends thanked Taylor for sharing its concerns with the Parks Administration.

Taylor responded through the Supervisor page that he was:

“always glad to help and also hold Parks accountable when they slip up.”

The supplemental filing argues that the exchange is relevant because Taylor appears to be communicating with a community organization concerning Milwaukee County Parks while describing assistance and oversight connected with County government. 

Taylor’s August 27 post similarly discussed the Milwaukee County Capital Improvements Committee, Bender Park, Whitnall Park Golf Course, Scout Lake, the Investing in Justice Courthouse Complex, and his own service on the courthouse task force. 

Together, these examples further focus a fundamental question:

What exactly is the nature of the “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” Facebook page? Is it a private political page, a campaign page, a County-affiliated governmental communications page—or some combination of those functions?

Taylor’s Finance Leadership Raises the Accountability Stakes

The questions raised by the complaint also come at a time when Taylor occupies one of the Milwaukee County Board’s most significant financial leadership positions.

Taylor serves as Chair of the Milwaukee County Board’s Committee on Finance, placing him in a central role in the County’s consideration of budgets, spending, fiscal policy and taxpayer resources.

Taylor’s position as Finance Committee Chair does not create a different legal standard under the Ethics Code. The allegations must be evaluated under the same Code and evidentiary requirements applicable to other County officials.

But there is a separate question of public accountability.

FCN believes officials entrusted with significant responsibility for taxpayer dollars should be expected to meet a particularly high standard of transparency when questions arise concerning their own use of taxpayer-supported employees, work time, equipment or other public resources.

That distinction is especially relevant here because the complaint is not simply about what Taylor says on Facebook.

It asks whether publicly funded resources may be supporting a governmental-facing communications platform that also directs members of the public into Taylor’s campaign infrastructure.

As Finance Committee Chair, Taylor has a leadership role involving the County’s finances and expenditure of public money.

An official charged with helping oversee how taxpayer dollars are spent should be prepared to provide particularly clear answers when questions concern whether taxpayer-supported resources are being used in connection with his own political activity.

That does not presume Taylor violated the Ethics Code.

Determining whether County resources were actually involved—and whether any such use violated the Code—is precisely what the complaint asks the Ethics Board to examine.

Critical Comments Are No Longer Publicly Visible

The supplemental filing documents another development involving moderation of the page.

Following Taylor’s August 27 post criticizing FCN, Busalacchi posted two responses addressing subjects Taylor himself had raised, including Milwaukee County’s projected structural deficit, capital spending, the courthouse proposal, and Taylor’s committee responsibilities.

Those comments initially appeared publicly beneath Taylor’s post.

They subsequently were no longer publicly visible when the same post was viewed independently through another Facebook account. 

The supplemental filing does not accuse Taylor personally of deleting the comments.

It specifically acknowledges that the available evidence does not establish whether the comments were deleted, hidden, or subjected to another Facebook moderation function. 

That makes another unanswered question increasingly relevant:

Who actually administers and moderates the “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” Facebook page?

Facebook Confirms Commenting Was Limited on Another Taylor Post

On August 31, Taylor published another lengthy post through the same Supervisor-branded Facebook page titled:

“Fake Community News (FCN) is NOT the Press.”

Taylor criticized FCN and its writers, including their use of public-records requests, ethics complaints, scrutiny of elected officials, recall activity, and other political activity. 

This time, there is no ambiguity about whether some commenting restriction was imposed.

Facebook itself displayed the notice:

“Supervisor Steve F. Taylor limited who can comment on this post.”

The supplemental filing expressly acknowledges that limiting comments does not, by itself, establish an Ethics Code violation.

Instead, the information was submitted as another piece of the developing factual record concerning the operation and moderation of the same Facebook account. 

[READ THE AUGUST 31 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION / ADDENDUM]

The Ethics Board Has Addressed County-Affiliated Social Media Before

The original complaint also cites the Milwaukee County Ethics Board’s 2024 Annual Activities Report.

That report described a separate matter involving political campaign-related material appearing on a County-affiliated social-media account.

According to the report, Ethics officials concluded that the documented conduct “would potentially violate” Ethics Code provisions.

The official involved was advised against posting campaign-related content on County-affiliated social-media accounts in the future, with the report specifically citing MCO §9.06(1). 

That prior matter did not involve Taylor and does not determine the outcome of this complaint.

But it demonstrates that Milwaukee County Ethics officials have previously considered the intersection between County-affiliated social media and political campaign activity to present a potential Ethics Code concern.

What Happens September 11?

Three distinctions are critical:

September 11 is not a hearing.

September 11 is not the Preliminary Conference.

September 11 is not a determination that Taylor violated the Ethics Code.

Under Milwaukee County’s published process, following the District Attorney stage, the Ethics Board considers whether there is a reasonable basis for the belief that a violation of the Ethics Code has or might have occurred.

If that threshold is satisfied, a Preliminary Conference is scheduled.

That makes the immediate question coming out of September 11 straightforward:

Does the Taylor Complaint Advance to a Preliminary Conference?

If it does, the complaint will have cleared an important initial procedural threshold.

That still would not constitute a finding that Taylor violated the Ethics Code.

What Happens From Here?

If a Preliminary Conference is scheduled, the matter moves into a more substantive fact-gathering stage.

Both the complainant and the subject of the complaint receive notice and may provide evidence and witnesses.

The process is not structured as a face-to-face confrontation between the complainants and Taylor. The complainant meets with the Ethics Board first, while the subject of the complaint meets with the Board separately.

The Board may also pursue additional information it determines is necessary.

That could become particularly important because several central questions cannot be answered simply by examining a public Facebook page:

• Who has administrator access to the page?

• Do Taylor’s County legislative staff or other County employees prepare, post, review, schedule or moderate content?

• Do they perform those activities during compensated County work time?

• Are County computers, phones, networks, accounts or other taxpayer-supported resources involved?

• Who performed the moderation that resulted in FCN’s comments no longer being publicly visible?

Advancement to a Preliminary Conference would not mean the Ethics Board had determined those allegations were true.

It would mean the complaint had cleared the initial threshold necessary for the Board’s process to continue.

The Board Can Seek Additional Evidence

The Ethics Board is not necessarily limited to the screenshots and documents already supplied by the complainants.

The original complaint specifically asks for examination of administrator information, County employee involvement, work time, devices, networks, account access, and other evidence potentially capable of establishing who operates the Facebook page and with what resources.

Some of the most important evidence may therefore be information possessed by Taylor, Milwaukee County employees, Milwaukee County itself, or the social-media platform—not information private complainants could independently obtain.

The question at this stage is not necessarily whether the complainants themselves have already proven every element of an Ethics Code violation.

The question is whether there is enough to warrant the Ethics Board continuing to examine what actually occurred.

What Can Happen After a Preliminary Conference?

After the Preliminary Conference and any additional fact gathering, several outcomes are possible.

The complaint can be dismissed if the Board determines that further proceedings are not warranted.

Certain minor matters may potentially be resolved through a conditional dismissal or stipulation.

Or the matter can proceed to a formal hearing.

If the Board orders a hearing, that still does not mean Taylor has been found to have violated the Ethics Code.

Instead, the allegations move into a more formal evidentiary process.

If the Case Goes to a Formal Hearing

If a formal hearing is ordered, the proceedings become considerably more structured.

Taylor would receive notice identifying the applicable Ethics Code provisions and would have procedural rights, including reasonable discovery.

The Ethics Board appoints a hearing examiner to conduct the proceeding and develop the evidentiary record.

The hearing process provides mechanisms for obtaining evidence and testimony.

Ultimately, however, the hearing examiner does not make the final Ethics Code determination.

The Milwaukee County Ethics Board ultimately decides whether a violation occurred.

Only after the evidentiary process and application of the required legal standard could such a determination be made.

What Could Happen if a Violation Is Ultimately Found?

If the Ethics Board ultimately determines that an Ethics Code violation occurred, Milwaukee County identifies several potential remedies or sanctions.

Depending upon the circumstances and the Board’s authority, those can include:

• An order requiring the official to conform his conduct to the Ethics Code;

• A monetary forfeiture of $100 to $1,000 for each violation;

• Return of County property, funds or gifts and/or restitution;

• Potential censure, suspension or removal from office or employment, where authorized.

None of those consequences is presently before Taylor.

Taylor has not been found to have violated the Ethics Code and is entitled to respond to the allegations and evidence as the process proceeds.

September 11 Is a Gateway—Not a Verdict

That is perhaps the most important distinction for readers.

The September 11 special meeting does not determine whether Steve Taylor violated the Milwaukee County Ethics Code.

Instead, the immediate development to watch is whether the Ethics Board determines there is a sufficient reasonable basis to believe that a violation has or might have occurred and schedules a Preliminary Conference.

If that happens, the Taylor complaint will have cleared an important initial threshold and entered a process in which the Ethics Board can more fully examine the underlying evidence.

That could include determining:

Who administers the page?

What role, if any, do County employees play?

Are taxpayer-supported resources involved?

And is a governmental communications platform being used in a way that also benefits Taylor’s political campaign infrastructure?

Only after that process—and potentially a formal evidentiary hearing—could the Ethics Board make a final determination that an Ethics Code violation occurred.

The Central Question Remains

The August 31 supplemental filing ultimately puts the developing factual issue this way:

“WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE ‘SUPERVISOR STEVE F. TAYLOR’ FACEBOOK PAGE, AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS IT BEING USED IN CONNECTION WITH TAYLOR’S MILWAUKEE COUNTY OFFICE?” 

The related question raised by the original complaint remains equally important:

If County personnel or taxpayer-supported resources are being used to administer that page, are those governmental resources also being used in connection with a platform that directs visitors into and benefits Taylor’s political campaign infrastructure?

Taylor’s position as Chair of the Committee on Finance adds an important public-accountability dimension.

The official helping oversee Milwaukee County’s finances should be expected to demonstrate especially clear stewardship and transparency when the question involves the use of taxpayer-supported resources.

Those are questions for the Milwaukee County Ethics Board to determine.

September 11 may tell us whether the Board believes there is a sufficient basis to continue looking for the answers.

Franklin Community News will report the Board’s action when it becomes available.

Read the Documents

[READ FCN’S ORIGINAL AUGUST REPORT]

[READ THE ORIGINAL 39-PAGE VERIFIED ETHICS COMPLAINT]

[READ THE AUGUST 31 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION / ADDENDUM]

A Valuable Franklin Senior Luncheon Should Not Become City Hall’s Monthly Podium

A Valuable Franklin Senior Luncheon Should Not Become City Hall’s Monthly Podium

Seniors were directed to official Facebook pages maintained with taxpayer-funded resources as questions emerge about missing public comments

Commentary by Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi, Publisher — Franklin Community News

Today, I had the opportunity to attend my first monthly luncheon held by Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc. The organization has approximately 170 members, and about 140 people attended today’s gathering.

My overall impression of the organization was positive. Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc. provides residents age 55 and older with an excellent opportunity to meet one another, build relationships and learn about issues affecting older adults.

Today’s program included useful presentations from the Franklin Health Department and Franklin Fire Department paramedics. Those presentations addressed health, emergency response and continuing-care matters relevant to older residents.

Following the meal, attendees enjoyed a singer who performed classic standards. The entertainment was warmly received and contributed to the fellowship and community atmosphere.

This is a worthwhile organization, and eligible Franklin residents should be encouraged to participate.

That is also why it is fair to ask whether its limited monthly meeting time is being used as effectively as possible—and whether City Hall has been given too prominent and permanent a place on the agenda.

A Separate Organization Receiving City Support

Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc. is a separate organization governed by its own board consisting of a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer and director at large. It is not a City board or governmental body.

The City of Franklin does, however, subsidize the organization’s luncheons through an allocation in its annual budget. The City contributes $8 toward each participating senior’s meal, while the participant pays $7.50. City officials attending the luncheon pay for their own meals.

Based on today’s attendance of approximately 140 people, the City subsidy would amount to roughly $1,120 for this luncheon.

The public support makes the program affordable and accessible. It also makes it reasonable for taxpayers and participating seniors to ask how the program is structured and whether its limited meeting time remains primarily focused on the interests of its members.

Does Every City Official Need to Speak?

The mayor, director of administration and Common Council president have a reserved table near the front of the room. Their table is also given the first opportunity to proceed to the buffet.

City officials regularly attend, and Mayor John Nelson—or someone speaking on his behalf—apparently addresses the organization at each monthly meeting.

There is nothing wrong with City officials attending. There is also value in having officials provide seniors with timely and relevant information.

The direct question, however, is this:

Is it necessary for Mayor John Nelson, Common Council President Michelle Eichmann and Director of Administration Kelly Hersh all to speak at every monthly luncheon?

With the scheduled meeting lasting approximately one hour, multiple City Hall presentations can consume a significant portion of the available program. City officials should be invited when they have timely information relevant to seniors—not automatically provided a standing monthly platform simply because they hold office.

An Exhaustive Development Presentation

At today’s luncheon, Mayor Nelson also brought Economic Development Director John Regetz to discuss ongoing commercial and development projects throughout Franklin.

Economic development is a legitimate subject. Residents should know what is being built, how major projects may affect their neighborhoods and what public financial assistance may be involved.

The presentation, however, covered an exhaustive list of projects and went into considerable detail. It appeared better suited for an Economic Development Commission meeting, Common Council presentation or dedicated community forum than a limited senior luncheon.

Members appeared to lose interest as the presentation continued, and at least one attendee appeared to fall asleep. That observation is not intended to embarrass the individual. It illustrates that the presentation’s length and depth may not have matched the setting.

A more effective presentation might have highlighted several major developments, briefly explained how they affect residents, provided a printed summary and allowed time for questions.

The Health Department and Fire Department paramedic presentations offered a useful contrast. Their subjects had an immediate and easily recognizable connection to the health, safety and continuing-care needs of residents age 55 and older.

Seniors Directed to Taxpayer-Supported Facebook Pages

During today’s meeting, Common Council President Michelle Eichmann went out of her way to tell attendees that they could obtain official Franklin information from her aldermanic Facebook page or Mayor Nelson’s Facebook page.

Director of Administration Kelly Hersh told attendees they could also obtain information from the City’s website.

That distinction matters because Nelson’s and Eichmann’s Facebook pages have both been documented as receiving support from Mary Christine, Franklin’s taxpayer-funded contract marketing and public-relations consultant.

These are not simply personal pages maintained exclusively through the elected officials’ private resources. Taxpayer-funded public-relations resources have been used to help prepare, maintain or distribute content through both pages.

During the November 4, 2025 Common Council meeting, Nelson stated that Christine was available to help alderpersons with social-media content. He told Council members:

“Any of you at any point in time can communicate with Mary.”

Six days later, during the November 10, 2025 Milwaukee County Intergovernmental Cooperation Council meeting, Nelson acknowledged that Franklin’s paid public-relations contractor had access to the social-media accounts of multiple elected officials:

“[She] does, you know, have access to those of us that have allowed her to post things.”

Nelson also told the municipal officials that Franklin paid its part-time public-relations contractor up to $25,000 per year.

Taken together with the additional page-administration records reviewed by FCN, these statements document that taxpayer-funded resources have been used in connection with both Nelson’s and Eichmann’s elected-official Facebook pages.

That makes Eichmann’s direction to approximately 140 seniors more significant. She was directing attendees to pages supported, at least in part, by a City contractor paid with taxpayer dollars.

Eichmann’s Page Presents Itself as Official

Eichmann’s Facebook page does not present itself as a personal or campaign account.

Facebook classifies it as a “Government Official” page. It identifies her as “Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann,” lists Franklin City Hall at 9229 W. Loomis Road as its address and provides her official City email address, meichmann@franklinwi.gov, as its contact information.

The page describes itself as an “Informational Page created for the Constituents of D2 in Franklin, WI.” Its posts address City services, licensing decisions, development projects and other governmental matters.

Those features provide strong evidence that Eichmann uses the page in her official capacity to communicate with constituents.

The City website should remain the central source for agendas, minutes, ordinances, budgets, public records and other official information. A Facebook page bearing an elected official’s name necessarily presents events and controversies through that official’s selected perspective—even when a taxpayer-funded contractor helps create or publish its content.

Eichmann’s Denial Is Also Removed

The questions surrounding the page did not end with the senior luncheon.

One day earlier, Eichmann published a Facebook post linking to a news story about the Irish Cottage’s court challenge to its 30-day license suspension.

During the resulting discussion, Eichmann responded to questions about who additionally post to and administers her page by denying that it was administered by a City-paid staff member.

That response is no longer visible.

The wording of the denial was important. Mary Christine is not technically a City employee or “staff member.” She is Franklin’s City-paid contract marketing and public-relations consultant.

A denial involving a City “staffer” therefore does not answer the more precise question:

Has Mary Christine—or any other City-paid contractor—been given administrator, editor, moderator, posting or other access to Eichmann’s official aldermanic Facebook page?

Removing Eichmann’s denial does not answer that question.

Seven Documented Comments Are Now Missing

The Facebook post continues to display an indicator showing 20 comments. Approximately 13 comments and replies remain publicly visible.

FCN documented seven specific comments that appeared in the thread but are no longer visible:

• Three comments posted by Franklin Community News.

• Three comments posted by Jacquie Nelson, Mayor Nelson’s former wife. (FCN has a screen shot of Jacquie Nelson's initial response on Eichmann's post and Eichmanns response.  Both of which were deleted by Eichmannn.

  

• Eichmann’s own response denying that a City-paid staff member administered her page.

Those seven missing comments account for the apparent difference between Facebook’s displayed total of 20 and the approximately 13 comments and replies still visible.

Before the comments disappeared, FCN posted a comment to Eichmann on the thread and expressly warned her that hiding or deleting communications concerning official government business could implicate Wisconsin’s public-records requirements.

The existing evidence does not conclusively establish who removed each comment. A commenter can delete their own material. Facebook can filter comments or limit their visibility. Privacy and blocking settings can affect what individual users see. A page administrator can also hide or delete comments.

Jacquie Nelson may have removed her own three comments. That would not explain why all three FCN comments and Eichmann’s own response are no longer visible.

The page’s administrator and moderation records should establish what occurred.

Does Wisconsin Law Prohibit Deleting or Hiding the Comments?

Wisconsin law does not establish a blanket rule requiring every Facebook comment to remain publicly displayed forever.

The legal question is whether the material constitutes a public record and, if so, whether an official copy was preserved for the required retention period.

Wisconsin defines a record broadly to include electronically generated or stored information created or kept by a governmental authority. The Wisconsin Department of Justice emphasizes that content determines whether something is a record—not the device, platform or account on which it is stored.

The Wisconsin Public Records Board’s social-media guidance specifically identifies material that may require retention, including content that:

• Conveys official government information.

• Documents governmental policies, procedures or activities.

• Is authorized by the government.

• Contains feedback, including public comments or posts received through social media.

• Documents governmental decisions or actions.

The guidance also states that records-retention responsibilities remain even when a social-media company discontinues service or removes information.

Under Wis. Stat. §19.21(4), municipal public records generally must be retained for the period established by ordinance. For most municipal records, that period may not be less than seven years unless the Wisconsin Public Records Board has approved a shorter period.

That does not necessarily mean every comment must remain visible on Facebook for seven years. A page administrator may be able to hide or remove material from public display if the City preserves a complete and retrievable copy in an approved records system and follows the applicable retention schedule.

However, simply deleting a qualifying public record without preserving it elsewhere may violate the municipality’s records-retention obligations.

The Public Records Board further states that a government agency may legally dispose of a record under an authorized retention schedule only when no litigation, audit or public-records request concerning that record is pending.

FCN’s earlier email warned Eichmann not to destroy the comments, but a warning about a possible future complaint may not, by itself, constitute a formal public-records request. FCN should therefore submit a specific written request and preservation notice immediately.

A Separate First Amendment Issue

Even if a copy is preserved for records purposes, selectively hiding or deleting comments may create a separate First Amendment problem.

In Lindke v. Freed, the United States Supreme Court held that a public official’s social-media conduct constitutes governmental action when the official possesses authority to speak for the government on the matter and purports to exercise that authority in the relevant post.

The analysis is fact-specific.

Eichmann’s page is labeled “Government Official,” uses her elected title, lists City Hall as its address, provides her official City email, says it exists to inform District 2 constituents and publishes information about official City matters. Taxpayer-funded public-relations resources have also been used in connection with the page.

Those facts strengthen—but do not automatically resolve—the argument that Eichmann was acting in her official capacity when publishing and moderating posts concerning City licensing and litigation.

If the page and particular post constitute official governmental activity, removing comments because they criticize Eichmann, dispute the City’s position or question the use of taxpayer-funded resources could constitute prohibited viewpoint discrimination.

Preserving a private archival copy would satisfy part of the records-retention concern, but it would not necessarily cure unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination if the comment was hidden from public discussion because of its viewpoint.

Records That Should Be Preserved and Disclosed

Eichmann and the City should immediately preserve and disclose:

• The original Irish Cottage post.

• All comments and replies associated with it.

• Records showing which comments were hidden, deleted or reported.

• The date, time and account responsible for each moderation action.

• The page’s administrative and moderation activity history.

• The identities and access levels of all administrators, editors and moderators.

• Any available Meta or Facebook page-access records.

• Communications among Eichmann, Nelson, Hersh and Christine concerning the post or its comments.

• Records showing whether the missing comments were archived outside Facebook.

• The City’s records-retention policy for elected officials’ social-media pages.

• Records documenting Mary Christine’s work on Nelson’s and Eichmann’s pages.

FCN is not asserting, based solely on the missing comments, that Eichmann personally removed all seven.

FCN is reporting the documented facts: seven previously visible comments are missing; three were posted by FCN; three were posted by Jacquie Nelson; the seventh was Eichmann’s own denial concerning the administration of her page; and the post continues to display a total of 20 comments.

Mayor Publicly Blames a Franklin Resident

The most troubling moment at today’s luncheon came during Mayor Nelson’s remarks.

Someone asked why the former Poth’s General Store property at South 76th Street and West Rawson Avenue remains fenced, gated and undeveloped.

The mayor could have explained the project’s status, described the pending litigation and allowed members to draw their own conclusions.

Instead, Mayor Nelson called Franklin resident Linda Mathwig by name, asked, “Linda, where are you?” and pointed her out before approximately 140 people. He then told attendees that the lack of progress was Mathwig’s fault because she filed a lawsuit challenging the tax-incremental financing district.

Those comments were inappropriate, disparaging and completely out of place at a senior luncheon.

Mathwig has a constitutional right to petition her government and seek judicial review of government action. People may agree or disagree with her lawsuit, but she should not be publicly singled out and blamed by the mayor for exercising that right.

Nelson was speaking through a microphone routinely made available to City officials. Mathwig was seated in the audience without a comparable platform or planned opportunity to respond.

That imbalance demonstrates the potential problem with allowing a community luncheon to become a standing City Hall podium.

A Worthwhile Program That Should Remain Focused on Seniors

None of these concerns should diminish the work of Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc., its independent board or its volunteers.

The monthly luncheon offers fellowship, useful information, an affordable meal and enjoyable entertainment. It is an excellent opportunity for older Franklin residents to connect with one another, and I encourage eligible residents to participate.

The organization’s board nevertheless determines its programming, invited speakers, reserved seating and use of the microphone. It should consider whether recurring presentations by multiple City officials are the best use of the organization’s limited monthly meeting time.

City officials should be welcomed when they have concise, timely and relevant information to share. They should not require a permanent place on every agenda.

Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc. should remain first and foremost an organization for seniors—a place where members can connect, learn, receive valuable information and enjoy one another’s company.

It should not become City Hall’s monthly platform. Its microphone should not be used to publicly target a resident for challenging a government decision, and its members should not be directed to elected officials’ taxpayer-supported Facebook pages without transparency about who helps create, publish and control the content appearing there.

FCN Will Refer the Matter to the Public Integrity Unit

Franklin Community News will submit a supplemental complaint to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit and request that it be added to the ongoing investigation involving Mayor John Nelson, Director of Administration Kelly Hersh and City-contracted marketing and public-relations consultant Mary Christine.

The new matter is connected to that investigation because it involves the same taxpayer-funded public-relations arrangement and raises additional questions about the contractor’s access to elected officials’ Facebook pages.

FCN will ask investigators to determine who had administrative or moderation access to Eichmann’s page; whether Christine or another City-paid individual created, posted or moderated its content; who removed or restricted the seven missing comments; and whether Eichmann, Nelson, Hersh or Christine communicated about the comments or their removal.

The referral will specifically raise two additional issues:

First, were comments critical of Eichmann or questioning the use of taxpayer-funded resources selectively hidden or deleted from a Facebook page presented and operated as an official governmental channel? If so, investigators should determine whether public resources were used to censor criticism or engage in viewpoint-based moderation.

Second, did the missing comments and related moderation records constitute public records, and if so, were complete copies preserved in accordance with Wisconsin records-retention requirements? Removing a comment from public view and destroying the only retained copy are not necessarily the same act. Investigators should determine whether the comments, page activity logs, notifications and administrative records remain available elsewhere.

FCN will also ask whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to suppress criticism, protect the messaging of particular elected officials or perform work outside the legitimate scope of the City’s public-relations contract.

FCN is not asserting that Eichmann personally removed all seven comments or that the evidence presently establishes a criminal violation. Commenters may delete their own material, Facebook may affect visibility and different page administrators may possess moderation authority.

Those unresolved questions are precisely why an independent review is warranted.

The purpose of the referral is to preserve and obtain the page-access records, Facebook activity logs, archived comments, City communications and contractor records necessary to determine what occurred, whether public comments were improperly censored and whether all qualifying public records were properly retained.

The incident presents an additional investigative lead involving the same contractor, public resources and elected-official social-media system already under review.

Sources

Wisconsin Public Records Board: Records Management and Social Media

Wisconsin Legislature: Wis. Stat. §19.21(4)

U.S. Supreme Court: Lindke v. Freed

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/

 

IRISH COTTAGE SUES CITY OF FRANKLIN, WINS TEMPORARY COURT ORDER AS 30-DAY LICENSE SUSPENSION WAS SET TO BEGIN

Emergency order granted one day before suspension; court docket notes presence of attorney with prior ties to Mayor John Nelson, Supervisor Steve Taylor and Irish Cottage counsel

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The Irish Cottage's 30-day liquor-license suspension was scheduled to begin September 1.

Instead, one day before the suspension was to take effect, the Franklin establishment went to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, sued the City of Franklin and obtained an emergency temporary restraining order.

According to Milwaukee County Circuit Court records, Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC filed a petition for writ of certiorari against the City of Franklin on August 31, 2026, challenging the City's licensing action.

The case, Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC v. City of Franklin, Milwaukee County Case No. 2026CV008008, has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Reyna Morales.

Court records show attorney David Halbrooks appeared for Irish Cottage at an emergency proceeding at approximately 3:18 p.m. August 31.

The docket states:

“Attorney David Halbrooks in court for Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC. Mike Maistelman in Court.”

Irish Cottage requested an ex parte temporary restraining order.

Judge Morales granted the request.

A hearing concerning the temporary restraining order is scheduled for September 18 at 10:30 a.m.

The temporary order does not resolve the merits of Irish Cottage's challenge or determine whether Franklin acted lawfully in imposing the suspension.

But its timing is significant.

The court intervened on the afternoon before Franklin's 30-day suspension was scheduled to begin.

WHAT EXACTLY DID THE JUDGE STOP?

That is one of the first questions that needs to be answered by the controlling written order.

The court docket indicates that a temporary restraining order was granted and that a proposed order was to be submitted. Court records further indicate that Document #9 controls because Document #8 contained an extra page.

The precise language of that signed order matters.

Until the controlling order is reviewed, it would be premature to characterize every action Franklin is prohibited from taking.

What is clear is that Irish Cottage sought emergency judicial intervention immediately before Franklin's suspension was scheduled to begin—and received it.

WAS FRANKLIN REPRESENTED AT THE EMERGENCY HEARING?

Another significant question concerns the City's participation.

The docket specifically identifies Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage and separately records Maistelman's presence.

It does not identify City Attorney Christina Lucchesi or another Franklin attorney as appearing at the 3:18 p.m. proceeding.

That does not necessarily establish that Franklin received no notice.

An ex parte TRO can be considered without the ordinary notice and participation associated with a full hearing, and the docket alone does not establish what communications may have occurred before the proceeding.

But several questions remain:

When did Franklin first learn Irish Cottage was seeking an emergency court order?

Was the City given an opportunity to respond before the TRO was granted?

And, if Franklin had advance notice, why does the docket not identify a City attorney as appearing?

“MIKE MAISTELMAN IN COURT”

The docket contains another unusual detail.

It doesn't merely identify David Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage.

It separately states:

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

The distinction matters.

The docket expressly says Halbrooks was “in court for Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC.”

It does not say the same thing about attorney Michael Maistelman.

Franklin Community News therefore is not reporting that Maistelman represented Irish Cottage at the proceeding.

But his presence deserves attention because Maistelman has several documented professional relationships that provide relevant context.

MAISTELMAN RECENTLY REPRESENTED MAYOR JOHN NELSON

In January 2026, Maistelman represented Franklin Mayor John R. Nelson in an election-law dispute involving a challenge to Nelson's nomination papers for the April mayoral election.

In a January 11 email to Franklin's City Clerk, Maistelman submitted what he described as:

“Respondent John R. Nelson's Verified Response and Request for Dismissal”

and requested dismissal of the nomination-paper challenge.

That establishes a recent professional attorney-client relationship between Maistelman and Franklin's current mayor.

TAYLOR'S CAMPAIGN PAID MAISTELMAN'S FIRM

Maistelman also represented Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor's campaign during a 2024 nomination-paper dispute.

Urban Milwaukee reported that Taylor's campaign, represented by Maistelman, was prepared to challenge opponent Andrew Matias's nomination signatures before withdrawing its challenge after the Milwaukee County Election Commission rejected signatures Matias needed to remain on the ballot.

Official campaign-finance records provide an additional connection.

Friends of Steve F. Taylor reported paying Maistelman & Associates $1,000 on January 9, 2024 for “Election Commission Challenge/Meeting.”

Thus, Taylor's relationship with Maistelman isn't based merely upon the two men appearing at the same political event.

It was a documented professional relationship involving legal representation and a campaign payment.

A POLITICAL CONTRAST: REPUBLICAN BACKING AND A LAWYER WITH DEEP DEMOCRATIC TIES

There is another interesting political dimension.

Both Mayor John Nelson and Supervisor Steve Taylor received backing from the Milwaukee County Republican Party in connection with the 2026 spring election.

Taylor has publicly identified himself as a Republican and has been described by Wisconsin media as a conservative Republican.

At the same time, Taylor has faced criticism from some conservatives who question his Republican credentials—criticism commonly expressed through the political label “RINO,” or “Republican in Name Only.”

Yet when Nelson and Taylor encountered election-law disputes, both turned to Michael Maistelman.

That is noteworthy because Maistelman's professional history has long included extensive representation of Democratic candidates and political organizations.

As far back as 2005, the State Bar of Wisconsin reported that Maistelman had been recognized by Campaigns & Elections magazine for his work “representing Democratic candidates and organizations in election and campaign finance matters in Wisconsin.”

Federal Election Commission records also document Maistelman representing the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

His election-law clients over the years have included prominent Democrats, including former Gov. Jim Doyle and Gov. Tony Evers.

Contemporary national reporting has described Maistelman as a Democratic elections lawyer in Wisconsin.

None of this means there was anything improper about Nelson or Taylor retaining him.

Election-law attorneys are hired for their expertise, and Maistelman has decades of experience in Wisconsin election and campaign-finance law. Lawyers also are not necessarily politically aligned with every client they represent.

But it provides additional context.

Two Franklin-area elected officials backed by the Milwaukee County Republican Party separately turned to an attorney with decades of documented professional ties to Democratic candidates and organizations for election-law representation.

Now that same attorney is specifically identified by the court as being present when Irish Cottage obtained emergency judicial relief against the City of Franklin.

Again, there is no evidence that Nelson or Taylor participated in, directed, financed or otherwise had anything to do with Irish Cottage's lawsuit.

Their previous relationships with Maistelman do not establish such a connection.

But they make his unexplained presence worthy of a straightforward question:

Why was Michael Maistelman there?

THE HALBROOKS CONNECTION MAY BE EVEN MORE RELEVANT

Maistelman's political relationships aren't the only reason his presence is noteworthy.

Perhaps more directly relevant to the Irish Cottage case is his history with Irish Cottage attorney David Halbrooks.

The two attorneys have previously worked together representing businesses challenging municipal liquor-license decisions.

In litigation involving Milwaukee's Texture Nightclub, Halbrooks and Maistelman represented the establishment in obtaining temporary judicial relief that allowed the nightclub to remain open while its licensing dispute proceeded.

The two attorneys also represented a tavern in Questions, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, litigation involving a 25-day Class B tavern and amusement-license suspension.

That case involved challenges to Milwaukee's licensing proceedings, including issues involving procedure, notice, evidence and findings.

The factual and legal circumstances are not identical to Irish Cottage's dispute with Franklin.

But the similarity in subject matter is difficult to ignore:

Halbrooks and Maistelman have previously worked together challenging municipal liquor-license actions.

Irish Cottage is now challenging Franklin's 30-day licensing suspension.

Halbrooks is identified as Irish Cottage's attorney.

And when Irish Cottage obtained emergency judicial relief on August 31, the court docket separately recorded:

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

That makes the unanswered question about Maistelman's role considerably more significant than if he were simply an unrelated attorney sitting in the courtroom.

FRANKLIN JUST WENT THROUGH ANOTHER MAJOR LICENSE CASE

The Irish Cottage lawsuit also comes only weeks after Franklin exercised its licensing authority against another establishment.

On the Border provides an unusually recent comparison.

And Franklin's official records reveal a striking sequence of votes.

JUNE 2: FRANKLIN GRANTS ON THE BORDER'S LICENSES

On June 2, the Common Council considered On the Border's applications for its Class B combination liquor and entertainment/amusement licenses for July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027.

After returning from closed session, Alderwoman Mira Kresovic moved to approve the licenses.

Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann seconded the motion.

The vote was:

YES — Kresovic, Eichmann and Peccarelli

ABSTAIN — Kenney, Salous and Hasan

NO — None

The unusual 3-0-3 vote initially caused confusion.

The Council subsequently attempted to hold the matter until June 16.

But Franklin's own June 16 meeting materials state that the City Attorney reviewed the procedure and determined that the June 2 motion granting the licenses had passed.

Thus, on June 2:

Kresovic made the motion to grant On the Border's licenses.

Eichmann seconded it and voted yes.

EIGHT DAYS LATER, SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT CHANGED

On June 10, prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against the company operating On the Border alleging that it intentionally kept a place of prostitution.

That was material new information occurring after the June 2 licensing vote.

Franklin responded quickly.

On June 16, the Common Council moved forward with a process that could result in revocation. The City ultimately retained outside counsel to assist in developing the licensing complaint.

The matter proceeded to a formal hearing.

JULY 16: SIX HOURS OF TESTIMONY AND A REVOCATION

On July 16, the Common Council conducted an extensive licensing hearing concerning On the Border.

The proceeding lasted nearly six hours.

Law enforcement presented evidence.

The establishment was represented by counsel.

Council members heard testimony and arguments before entering closed session to deliberate.

When the Council returned to open session, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law arising from the hearing.

Alderman Nabil Salous seconded Eichmann's motion.

The vote was:

YES — Eichmann, Salous and Hasan

NO — Kresovic and Johnson

The motion carried 3–2, and On the Border's licenses were revoked.

The voting history is notable.

June 2

Kresovic moved to grant the licenses.

Eichmann seconded the motion and voted yes.

July 16

Eichmann made the motion approving the findings supporting revocation.

Kresovic voted no.

That reversal should not be presented without its important context.

A significant intervening event occurred between the votes: the June 10 criminal complaint against the business.

Council members also had the benefit of the evidentiary record developed during the subsequent licensing proceedings.

But the On the Border case establishes something else that is particularly relevant now.

FRANKLIN KNOWS HOW TO BUILD A FORMAL LICENSING RECORD

Whatever one thinks about the ultimate On the Border decision, Franklin created an extensive administrative record before revoking the licenses.

The proceeding included a formal complaint, notice, representation by attorneys, an extended evidentiary hearing, testimony, evidence, arguments, Council deliberations, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a recorded public vote.

Mayor Nelson himself publicly emphasized the importance of due process while the controversy was unfolding.

Franklin then conducted the formal hearing before imposing the ultimate licensing sanction: revocation.

That makes the comparison with Irish Cottage particularly important.

TWO LICENSE CASES. TWO DIFFERENT PATHS.

Within approximately three months, Franklin has confronted two consequential alcohol-licensing matters.

ON THE BORDER

Franklin granted the licenses.

Significant new information subsequently emerged.

The City initiated formal proceedings.

A lengthy evidentiary hearing was conducted.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted.

The licenses were revoked approximately six weeks after they had been granted.

IRISH COTTAGE

Franklin imposed a 30-day suspension of the establishment's licenses.

The suspension was scheduled to begin September 1.

On August 31, Irish Cottage filed a petition for writ of certiorari against the City.

That same afternoon, Irish Cottage requested emergency judicial relief.

Judge Morales granted a temporary restraining order.

The court docket identifies Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage.

It separately records:

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

And the next hearing is scheduled for September 18.

WHAT DID IRISH COTTAGE SAY FRANKLIN DID WRONG?

That may ultimately be the most important question in the entire case.

A certiorari proceeding allows a court to review a governmental decision. But Franklin Community News will not presume the precise legal grounds of Irish Cottage's challenge without reviewing the petition and supporting filings themselves.

The On the Border comparison nevertheless provides an important benchmark.

Only weeks ago, Franklin demonstrated that it can create a substantial quasi-judicial record before imposing a serious licensing sanction.

Now another Franklin licensing decision has reached Circuit Court—and a judge intervened before the punishment could begin.

That does not establish that Franklin violated Irish Cottage's rights.

It does mean the process Franklin used deserves careful scrutiny.

QUESTIONS THAT NOW NEED ANSWERS

The September 18 hearing may provide some of them.

Until then, several questions remain unanswered:

What precisely does Judge Morales' temporary restraining order prohibit Franklin from doing?

When did the City first learn that Irish Cottage was seeking emergency judicial relief?

Was Franklin given an opportunity to participate in the August 31 proceeding?

Why isn't a Franklin attorney identified as appearing at that proceeding?

What specific procedural or legal errors does Irish Cottage allege occurred during Franklin's licensing process?

How does the administrative record supporting Irish Cottage's 30-day suspension compare with the extensive record Franklin developed before revoking On the Border's licenses?

And then there is the question created by four words in the court docket:

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

Maistelman recently represented Franklin Mayor John Nelson.

His firm was paid by Supervisor Steve Taylor's campaign for election-law representation.

He has decades of documented professional ties to Democratic candidates and organizations even as Nelson and Taylor received Milwaukee County Republican Party backing.

He has previously worked alongside Irish Cottage attorney David Halbrooks in municipal liquor-license litigation.

Yet the court docket does not identify Maistelman as counsel for Irish Cottage—or explain why he was there.

None of those facts proves political influence, coordination or misconduct.

There is presently no evidence that Mayor Nelson or Supervisor Taylor had any involvement in Irish Cottage's lawsuit.

But journalism does not require ignoring an unexplained fact simply because its significance is not yet known.

It requires distinguishing what is known from what remains unanswered.

And right now, one of those unanswered questions is remarkably simple:

WHY WAS MICHAEL MAISTELMAN IN THE COURTROOM—AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

The answer may ultimately be entirely routine.

But until the court record or the attorneys involved explain it, it remains part of a developing story involving Franklin's licensing authority, due process, political relationships and a suspension that was stopped in court just hours before it was scheduled to begin.

Franklin Community News will continue reviewing the court record as the case proceeds.

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/