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.

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/

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

District	Supervisor	Email	Phone
1	Anne O'Connor	Anne.OConnor@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4280
2	Willie Johnson Jr.	Willie.Johnson@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4233
3	Sheldon A. Wasserman	Sheldon.Wasserman@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4237
4	Jack Eckblad	Jack.Eckblad@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4232
5	Leevan D. Roundtree Jr.	Leevan.Roundtree@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4222
6	Shawn Rolland	Shawn.Rolland@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4273
7	Felesia A. Martin	Felesia.Martin@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4241
8	Steven Shea	Steven.Shea@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4231
9	Patti Logsdon	Patti.Logsdon@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4267
10	Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell	Marcelia.Nicholson@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4261
11	Kathleen Vincent	Kathleen.Vincent@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4222
12	Juan Miguel Martinez	JuanMiguel.Martinez@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4222
13	Priscilla E. Coggs-Jones	Priscilla.Coggs-Jones@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4222
14	Caroline Gómez-Tom	Caroline.Gomez-Tom@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4252
15	Sky Z. Capriolo	Sky.Capriolo@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4222
16	Justin Bielinski	Justin.Bielinski@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4247
17	Steve F. Taylor	Steve.Taylor@milwaukeecountywi.gov	(414) 278-4263
18	Deanna Alexander	Deanna.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/

TAYLOR LEADS 4–3 VOTE THAT DERAILS COURTHOUSE REFERENDUM

Finance chairman says elected officials—not voters—should decide whether Milwaukee County proceeds with $858 million in proposed construction funding

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

MILWAUKEE — Finance Committee Chairman Steve Taylor successfully led a narrow 4–3 vote Thursday to lay over a proposal that would have allowed Milwaukee County voters to decide whether the County should proceed with approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding for a new courthouse complex.

The committee's action effectively eliminated any realistic opportunity for the advisory referendum to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Because election officials must receive ballot language well before the November election, delaying the resolution until an unspecified future date left little practical time for it to advance through both the Finance Committee and the full County Board before statutory deadlines.

During nearly an hour of debate, Taylor repeatedly argued that the decision should remain with elected officials rather than the taxpayers who will ultimately finance the project.

"This is a representative government. We're elected to make the decision," Taylor told fellow supervisors.

Taylor also predicted Milwaukee County voters would reject the proposal if it appeared on the ballot.

"I'm telling you right now, if this goes to referendum, absolutely the voters will reject it because they don't have the information."

He continued:

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

Taylor's position ultimately prevailed.

What the Resolution Would Have Done

The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Justin Bielinski, would not have authorized construction, approved borrowing, or issued debt.

Instead, it sought an advisory referendum asking Milwaukee County voters whether they supported proceeding with approximately $858 million in construction funding before the County Board considered future appropriations and financing.

Although advisory only, supporters argued the referendum would have provided elected officials with a direct measure of public opinion before committing to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in Milwaukee County history.

Opponents maintained that weighing complex financing decisions is precisely why County Supervisors are elected.

A Procedural Vote with Major Consequences

Following debate, Vice Chair Shawn Rolland moved to lay the referendum resolution over to the call of the chair.

Bielinski opposed delaying the proposal, arguing that election deadlines required immediate action if the advisory question was to appear on the November ballot. He also noted that November elections historically attract substantially higher voter turnout than spring elections, providing what he believed would be a more representative expression of public opinion.

The motion passed 4–3, making it highly unlikely Milwaukee County voters will have an opportunity to consider the referendum this November.

How the Committee Voted

Voting to Lay the Referendum Over

• Steve Taylor (Chair)
• Shawn Rolland (Vice Chair)
• Willie Johnson Jr.
• Felesia Martin

Voting Against the Layover

• Juan Miguel Martinez
• Justin Bielinski
• Anne O'Connor

The vote did not determine whether Milwaukee County will build a new courthouse.

Instead, it determined whether Milwaukee County taxpayers would have an opportunity to weigh in before the County Board considers construction-phase funding.

Representative Government—or Direct Public Approval?

The debate ultimately centered on two competing views of public governance.

Taylor argued that County Supervisors are elected specifically to make difficult financial decisions involving complex public projects.

He warned that voters could not realistically be educated on a project of this magnitude before Election Day and predicted a referendum campaign would be driven by rhetoric rather than facts.

Supporters of the referendum reached the opposite conclusion.

They argued Wisconsin voters routinely decide complicated fiscal questions involving school construction, technical college borrowing, constitutional amendments, and local borrowing referenda.

If voters are trusted to decide those questions, they argued, Milwaukee County taxpayers should likewise be trusted to decide whether the County should proceed with nearly $858 million in proposed courthouse construction funding.

Why Should Milwaukee County Be Different?

Supporters of the referendum argued Milwaukee County taxpayers should be afforded the same opportunity routinely provided to voters across Wisconsin when governments undertake major public construction projects.

Throughout Wisconsin, school districts regularly ask voters to approve borrowing for new schools, additions, and major renovations before issuing long-term debt.

Technical College districts likewise seek voter approval for major capital borrowing authorized under Wisconsin law.

Supporters argued the proposed courthouse project is no different.

With an estimated total project cost approaching $897 million, including approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding, they contend Milwaukee County taxpayers should likewise have the opportunity to decide whether the County should move forward before future borrowing is authorized.

Taylor rejected that premise.

He maintained Milwaukee County operates under a representative form of government and that elected County Supervisors—not voters—should make the decision.

Borrowing Capacity, Competing Priorities, and Property Taxes

The discussion also highlighted Milwaukee County's broader financial picture.

County officials have acknowledged annual capital requests already exceed the County's self-imposed bonding limits, requiring policymakers to prioritize projects and defer others.

Supporters of the referendum argued committing approximately $858 million in construction funding inevitably affects the County's future borrowing capacity and its ability to fund other priorities, including:

• Parks
• Roads and bridges
• Public safety facilities
• Transit infrastructure
• Senior centers
• Recreational facilities
• Deferred maintenance throughout Milwaukee County

Throughout Thursday's meeting, supervisors discussed inflation, construction costs, deferred maintenance, financing strategies, and the cost of delaying the courthouse project.

One important question, however, remained unanswered:

What will the project cost the average Milwaukee County homeowner in additional property taxes?

To date, Milwaukee County has not publicly released an estimate identifying the projected annual property tax impact associated with financing approximately $858 million in construction costs.

Without that information, taxpayers remain unable to fully evaluate one of the project's most significant financial implications before the County Board considers future borrowing.

For supporters of the referendum, that omission reinforced the argument that taxpayers should have a direct voice before construction funding proceeds.

Why Wasn't the Building Simply Maintained?

One question largely absent from Thursday's Finance Committee debate was why Milwaukee County is pursuing a complete replacement of the Public Safety Building rather than continuing repairs or undertaking a major renovation.

The answer lies in decades of aging infrastructure, years of deferred capital investment, and conclusions reached after nearly a decade of formal study.

The Public Safety Building opened in 1929 and has served as Milwaukee County's primary criminal courthouse for nearly a century.

Over the years, County officials continued making repairs and replacing individual building systems as funding allowed, but larger modernization projects were repeatedly deferred as competing budget priorities limited available capital.

Recognizing those challenges, Milwaukee County established the Courthouse Advisory Group in 2016 to evaluate the future of the courthouse complex.

After reviewing multiple alternatives, the advisory group recommended replacing the Public Safety Building rather than attempting a comprehensive renovation.

That recommendation was reaffirmed in subsequent studies, including a 2018 Wisconsin Policy Forum review, and ultimately became the foundation for today's Investing in Justice initiative.

County assessments estimate the Public Safety Building alone now faces more than $75 million in deferred maintenance and system replacement needs, while deferred maintenance across the broader courthouse campus exceeds $334 million.

County officials also report spending approximately $500,000 annually responding to emergency repairs. Judges and courthouse staff have described recurring elevator failures, flooding, plumbing problems, electrical outages, and aging mechanical systems requiring continual emergency repairs simply to maintain daily court operations.

Previous planning studies concluded that bringing the nearly century-old building into compliance with modern building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, courtroom security standards, and contemporary operational needs would be less practical and less cost-effective than constructing a replacement facility.

As a result, Milwaukee County elected to pursue the Investing in Justice project, which calls for demolishing the existing Public Safety Building while preserving and renovating the adjacent Historic Milwaukee County Courthouse. During construction, court operations would temporarily relocate to renovated courthouse space and leased downtown "swing space" before moving into the new courthouse upon completion.

The Debate Isn't Whether a Courthouse Is Needed

Importantly, Thursday's debate was not over whether Milwaukee County requires a modern criminal courthouse.

County officials, judges, and many members of the County Board generally agree the existing Public Safety Building has reached the end of its useful life.

Instead, the disagreement centers on how the project should be financed, whether Milwaukee County should proceed with approximately $858 million in construction funding, and whether taxpayers should have the opportunity to vote before the County Board commits to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in county history.

Supporters of Bielinski's advisory referendum argue replacement may be necessary but taxpayers deserve a direct voice before the County incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in additional borrowing.

County Executive David Crowley's administration, however, has warned that delaying construction could increase project costs by approximately $4 million per month because of inflation while emergency repairs to the aging facility continue.

How the $897 Million Project Is Structured

While much of Thursday's debate focused on approximately $858 million in construction funding, the total Investing in Justice project is currently estimated at approximately $897 million.

According to Milwaukee County, the project includes:

• $38.6 million already appropriated for planning, design, engineering, and pre-construction activities.
• Approximately $858 million for demolition of the existing Public Safety Building, construction of the new criminal courthouse, a secure connection to the Criminal Justice Facility, and related site improvements.
• Funding for temporary downtown "swing space" leases and renovations to the Historic Milwaukee County Courthouse so court operations can continue during construction.

The County plans to vacate the Public Safety Building before demolition begins, temporarily relocating many court functions until the new courthouse is completed.

County's Proposed Financing Strategy

County officials have stated they intend to offset a significant portion of the project's cost through recently enacted state funding changes and long-term borrowing rather than relying exclusively on increased local property taxes.

Even so, supervisors continue debating how the remaining construction costs should be financed and what impact future borrowing could have on Milwaukee County's long-term fiscal capacity.

Supporters of the referendum argue that before the County commits to construction borrowing, taxpayers deserve to understand both the financing plan and its long-term implications.

If Voters Cannot Be Informed, What Is the County Paying $546,475 to Communicate?

Taylor's comments also raised another question surrounding the courthouse project.

If County officials believe voters lack sufficient information to make an informed decision, what is Milwaukee County receiving in return for nearly $550,000 already committed to communications and advocacy?

County contract records show Milwaukee County entered into a $546,475 professional services agreement with Mueller Communications for communication and advocacy services related to the Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex project.

The agreement—identified as Contract No. 3049—is described as:

"Fee Revision 4 to the 2024 Professional Services Agreement for Communication and Advocacy WC0276 Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex."

County records show the full $546,475 has been encumbered under the contract.

Following Thursday's meeting, Bielinski criticized the expenditure, writing:

"At a time when County pools like McCarty are sitting closed, in part because of needed repairs that cost less than $10,000, County Executive David Crowley is spending $546,475 in taxpayer money for a communications consultant to advocate in favor of the $897 million courthouse project.

This is an insult to the hardworking people of Milwaukee County—many of whom are already struggling to afford basic needs—whose property taxes are already rising due to the state's refusal to properly fund public education."

Taylor argued voters could not realistically be educated before a referendum.

The existence of a nearly $550,000 communications contract has therefore become part of the broader public discussion, prompting questions from critics about how those communication efforts are intended to inform taxpayers and whether the County has adequately explained the project's financial impact, including its potential effect on future property taxes.

What's Next?

Although the advisory referendum now appears effectively off the November ballot, the courthouse project itself continues moving forward.

County officials are expected to continue advancing the Investing in Justice project and present future construction-phase funding proposals to the Milwaukee County Board for consideration.

Thursday's vote did not decide whether Milwaukee County will build a new courthouse.

It decided who should have the opportunity to weigh in before the County moves forward with approximately $858 million in construction funding.

For Chairman Steve Taylor and the committee majority, that responsibility belongs to elected officials.

For supporters of the referendum, it belongs to the taxpayers who may ultimately finance one of the largest public construction projects in Milwaukee County history.

Whether Milwaukee County should be treated differently than Wisconsin communities that routinely ask voters to approve major public borrowing remains one of the central policy questions left unresolved by Thursday's 4–3 committee vote.

𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 | 𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗩𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗬𝗟𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦𝗡'𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗜𝗗𝗘
Milwaukee County is considering moving forward with approximately $858 million in courthouse construction funding.

Should the taxpayers who will ultimately help pay for it have a voice?
During last week's Finance Committee meeting, Chairman Steve Taylor argued they should not.

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

He also stated that voters "don't have the information" and predicted a referendum would become "all rhetoric."

EDITORIAL

In today's editorial, Franklin Community News examines those statements, asks whether taxpayers deserve the opportunity to vote on one of the largest public construction projects in Milwaukee County history, and provides contact information for every Milwaukee County Supervisor so you can make your voice heard before the July 30 County Board meeting.

Whether you support a new courthouse or oppose it, one question remains:
Should taxpayers have the opportunity to vote before Milwaukee County commits approximately $858 million in construction funding?

Read the editorial, review the facts, and then contact your County Supervisor.
Representative government works best when elected officials trust—and listen to—the people they represent.

Read the editorial here.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

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

 

FRANKLIN APPROVES UP TO $10 MILLION IN NEW BORROWING

Questions Raised Over Taxpayer Impact, Budget Planning, and Administrative Experience

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

The Franklin Common Council has authorized the City to borrow up to $10 million through the issuance of General Obligation Promissory Notes, a decision that could have long-term financial implications for taxpayers while raising broader questions about the City's budgeting practices and administrative leadership.

The borrowing resolution, approved during the Council's July 21 meeting, follows months of Council approvals for capital projects that, according to multiple fiscal notes presented throughout the year, did not have appropriated funding within the City's adopted 2026 budget. During the meeting, City officials explained that approximately $8.15 million in previously approved projects now require financing, with additional projects potentially bringing the borrowing closer to the authorized $10 million.

Borrowing Before Budgeting?

Throughout the meeting, Council members questioned whether they had sufficient financial information before authorizing the borrowing. Particular concern was expressed regarding the lack of detailed projections showing the effect the additional debt could have on future property taxes.

Although city officials discussed the need to move forward with delayed infrastructure improvements and explained that postponing projects often increases costs due to inflation and construction escalation, several Council members questioned whether taxpayers should first receive a clearer picture of the long-term financial impact.

The discussion highlighted a broader policy question facing Franklin:

Should major capital projects receive approval before a funding source has been identified?

That question becomes increasingly important as municipalities across Wisconsin continue to balance aging infrastructure, rising construction costs, and growing pressure on local property taxpayers.

The Taxpayer Question

For many residents, the most significant unanswered question remains straightforward:

What will this borrowing cost?

While the resolution authorizes borrowing of up to $10 million, no estimate of the potential property tax impact was presented during the Council's public discussion before the vote. Taxpayers were not provided with projections showing how debt service may affect future municipal tax levies or what the borrowing could mean for the average homeowner.

As Franklin continues preparing future budgets while addressing ongoing capital needs, those answers will become increasingly important.

Leadership During a Period of Transition

The borrowing authorization also comes during a period of significant transition within Franklin's senior administrative leadership.

Since 2023, Mayor John Nelson has assembled a new executive leadership team responsible for overseeing the City's administration and finances.

Director of Administration Kelly Hersh was appointed shortly after Mayor Nelson took office. Rather than selecting one of two finalists identified through a professional executive search conducted by Public Administration Associates, the Mayor discontinued the search process and appointed Hersh directly.

Prior to her appointment, Hersh had not served as a municipal City Administrator or Chief Administrative Officer. Her background consisted primarily of communications, community advocacy, and political involvement within Franklin, including serving as a prominent supporter during Mayor Nelson's campaign.

Director of Finance and Treasurer Danielle Brown brought municipal finance experience from
her previous role as Deputy Treasurer for the Village of Waterford and possesses strong academic credentials, including an MBA and accounting degrees. However, Franklin represented her first appointment as the chief financial officer of a municipality.

Neither observation should be interpreted as criticism of either official's dedication or work ethic. Rather, the appointments reflect a leadership team relatively new to their respective executive roles as the City undertakes increasingly significant financial decisions involving long-term borrowing, capital planning, and budget management.

Experience Versus Opportunity

Municipal governments across Wisconsin regularly appoint talented professionals into leadership positions for the first time. Experience must begin somewhere.

Nevertheless, the Franklin appointments have generated continuing public discussion because they occurred after substantial turnover in City Hall and because several appointments departed from more traditional municipal career paths.

As the City prepares to borrow up to $10 million while simultaneously confronting future budget pressures, residents may reasonably ask whether Franklin has assembled the depth of executive municipal management experience necessary to navigate increasingly complex financial decisions.

Those questions are not personal—they are questions of governance and stewardship.

More Than a Borrowing Resolution

The Council's vote represents more than authorization to issue debt.

It raises broader questions regarding long-term financial planning, transparency, and accountability:

• Should projects be approved before funding has been identified?

• Should taxpayers receive projected tax impacts before borrowing is authorized?

• Should the Council require a comprehensive debt analysis before future borrowing?

• How much additional debt can Franklin responsibly assume while maintaining essential city services?

Those are questions that deserve continued public discussion well beyond a single Council meeting.

Franklin Community News will continue examining the City's capital planning process, debt obligations, and administrative decision-making in the weeks ahead.

WHO IS MANAGING FRANKLIN'S FINANCES? - EDITORIAL

As the City Prepares to Borrow Up to $10 Million and Projects a 4%–4.5% Increase in the City's Property Tax Levy, Taxpayers Have a Right to Know Who Is Making the Recommendations

When the Franklin Common Council voted to authorize up to $10 million in new borrowing, much of the public discussion centered on aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and financing options.

Yet another question deserves equal attention:

Who is managing Franklin's finances?

That question has become increasingly relevant after city officials advised that financing approximately $10 million in capital projects could result in an estimated 4% to 4.5% increase in the City's portion of the property tax levy beginning with the 2027 budget, depending upon final borrowing costs and future budget decisions.

For homeowners already facing rising costs from inflation, insurance, utilities, and other taxing jurisdictions, even a modest municipal tax increase is significant.

As Franklin prepares for one of its largest recent borrowing authorizations, taxpayers deserve to understand the experience and backgrounds of the officials responsible for recommending the City's financial strategy.

Who Oversees Franklin's Finances?

While the Common Council ultimately approves budgets and borrowing, much of the analysis and recommendations originate with the City's administrative leadership.

Those responsibilities primarily rest with:

• Mayor John Nelson

• Director of Administration Kelly Hersh

• Director of Finance and Treasurer Danielle Brown

Together, these officials oversee budget preparation, capital improvement planning, debt financing, financial forecasting, and recommendations presented to the Common Council.

Director of Administration: Kelly Hersh

Kelly Hersh became Franklin's Director of Administration shortly after Mayor John Nelson assumed office in 2023.

Her appointment attracted attention because of both the position's importance and the hiring process itself.

Prior to filling the position, the City retained Public Administration Associates (PAA)—a nationally recognized executive search firm—to recruit qualified candidates for Franklin's chief administrative officer position.

That recruitment reportedly cost taxpayers approximately $9,500 and produced finalists for consideration.

Rather than selecting from those finalists, Mayor Nelson discontinued the search process and appointed Hersh directly.

Before becoming Director of Administration, Hersh had not served as a municipal City Administrator, Village Administrator, or Chief Administrative Officer.

Her background consisted primarily of communications, community advocacy, and political involvement in Franklin, including:

• Founding director of Franklin Community Advocates.

• Participation in litigation involving the proposed Strauss Brands development.

• Filing a Wisconsin Ethics Commission complaint concerning a Franklin alderperson.

• Serving as a prominent supporter and campaign ally of Mayor John Nelson during his successful mayoral campaign.

Publicly available information indicates Hersh holds a Bachelor of Arts in Communications.

The City's recruitment materials reportedly expressed a preference for candidates possessing graduate-level education together with substantial municipal executive management experience.

Supporters have argued that leadership ability, communication skills, and knowledge of Franklin's community were more important than traditional municipal administrative experience.

Critics have questioned whether bypassing a professional executive search produced the most qualified candidate to oversee a city with an annual budget exceeding tens of millions of dollars.

Director of Finance and Treasurer: Danielle Brown

Franklin's Director of Finance entered City Hall with experience in municipal finance.

Prior to joining Franklin, Danielle Brown served as Deputy Treasurer for the Village of Waterford, managing treasury operations, tax collections, municipal accounting, and financial administration.

She also possesses impressive academic credentials, including:

• Master of Business Administration (MBA)

• Bachelor of Science in Accounting

• Associate Degree in Accounting

Franklin represented Brown's first appointment as the chief financial officer of a municipality.

That distinction is important.

While deputy treasurer experience provides an excellent foundation in municipal finance, the Director of Finance assumes significantly broader responsibilities, including:

• Preparing the City's annual budget.

• Advising the Common Council on financial policy.

• Managing debt issuance.

• Developing capital financing strategies.

• Preparing long-range financial forecasts.

• Monitoring the City's overall fiscal condition.

Brown now serves as the City's principal financial advisor during one of the most significant borrowing discussions in recent years.

Experience Versus Opportunity

Every successful City Administrator and Finance Director accepted a first leadership position at some point in their careers.

The issue is not whether either official is intelligent, hardworking, or committed to public service.

Rather, taxpayers may reasonably ask whether Franklin should place greater emphasis on demonstrated executive municipal management experience when filling its highest administrative positions—particularly as the City recommends borrowing up to $10 million while projecting an increase of approximately 4% to 4.5% in the City's property tax levy.

That is a legitimate question of governance—not a personal criticism of any individual.

Transparency Builds Public Trust

Major borrowing decisions affect taxpayers long after elected officials and administrators leave office.

Debt issued today will be repaid over many years through future municipal budgets supported by Franklin property owners.

Those decisions require more than balancing current needs.

They require:

• Long-term financial planning.

• Comprehensive debt affordability analysis.

• Accurate revenue forecasting.

• Property tax impact projections.

• Transparent communication with both elected officials and the public.

As Franklin moves toward adoption of its 2027 budget, taxpayers deserve more than a borrowing authorization.

They deserve a clear explanation of how the recommendations were developed, what alternatives were considered, how the borrowing will affect future property taxes, and why city leadership believes this represents the best long-term financial strategy.

The Bottom Line

Franklin's recent borrowing authorization is about more than issuing debt.

It is about confidence in the process.

When residents are asked to support higher property taxes, they have every right to understand not only what decisions are being made, but who is making them and the experience they bring to those decisions.

Municipal government depends upon public trust.

Transparency, accountability, and informed public discussion are essential to maintaining that trust.

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/