PART 3 OF 3 — INVESTIGATIVE SERIES FOLLOW THE HOTEL-TAX MONEY

 

PART 3 OF 3 — INVESTIGATIVE SERIES
FOLLOW THE HOTEL-TAX MONEY

Franklin Authorized Up to $1.5 Million for a ROC Ventures Tourism Partnership. The Promised Tourism Center Never Opened. What Did Taxpayers Get in Return?

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

In February 2020, the Franklin Tourism Commission authorized one of its largest and longest tourism commitments: up to $150,000 per year for ten years — potentially $1.5 million — for shared tourism activities with ROC Ventures, developer of Ballpark Commons.

The arrangement ultimately became intertwined with the naming of the Milwaukee Milkmen stadium as Franklin Field, the creation of Engage Franklin, and a promised Tourism/Visitors Center at Ballpark Commons.

Six years later, Franklin Community News' review of Tourism Commission minutes, agreements, federal tax filings, Wisconsin room-tax reports and Common Council records raises a straightforward question:

What measurable tourism benefits did Franklin receive for the investment?

The question is especially relevant because one of the most visible components of the original arrangement — a public Tourism/Visitors Center at Ballpark Commons — never opened.

The $150,000-a-year naming-rights arrangement, however, continued.

THE $1.5 MILLION DECISION BEGAN IN FEBRUARY 2020

The public record establishes when the financial commitment began.

At the February 19, 2020 Tourism Commission meeting, Vice Chair Shaun Marefka presented a proposed partnership with ROC Ventures. The concept included creating a tourism entity, sharing an employee under Tourism Commission authority, renaming the stadium to reflect Franklin and potentially renaming the broader Ballpark Commons development.

Chair Amy Schermetzler moved, with Mark Wylie supporting, to authorize spending up to $150,000 annually under a ten-year contract for “shared tourism-based activities with ROC Ventures.”

The motion carried. 

Only three of the Commission's five regular members were marked present: Schermetzler, Marefka and Wylie.

At the maximum authorized amount, the potential commitment totaled:

$1.5 million over ten years.

The approved minutes reviewed by FCN do not record projections for hotel-room nights, overnight visitors, additional room-tax collections or another measurable lodging-performance benchmark supporting the commitment.

That does not establish that no such analysis existed outside the minutes. But FCN has not identified it in the approval record reviewed for this article.

WISCONSIN LAW CONNECTS ROOM-TAX SPENDING TO OVERNIGHT TOURISM

Wisconsin law provides an important benchmark for evaluating how room-tax revenue is used.

Under Wis. Stat. §66.0615, “tourism promotion and tourism development” includes qualifying marketing projects, transient-tourist informational services and certain tangible municipal development.

But the statutory definition also requires qualifying activities to be significantly used by transient tourists and reasonably likely to generate paid overnight stays at qualifying lodging establishments.

The statute does not require every tourism expenditure to generate enough additional room-tax revenue to pay for itself. Nor does the absence of a hotel-room projection in meeting minutes establish that an expenditure violated state law.

It does, however, raise a reasonable accountability question:

What information did commissioners rely upon in determining that a potential $1.5 million ROC Ventures partnership satisfied the state's tourism standard?

WHAT COMMISSIONERS WERE ORIGINALLY TOLD THEY WERE BUYING

The original arrangement was broader than simply paying to put the name “Franklin Field” on a baseball stadium.

By May 20, 2020, Tourism Commission minutes described a proposed Visitors Center at Ballpark Commons, co-managed by ROC Ventures and the Tourism Commission.

The proposal contemplated a full-time employee dedicated to citywide tourism support for Franklin tourism businesses, along with tourism marketing, promotion and events.

ROC would provide space.

The Tourism Commission would invest approximately $150,000 annually.

And ROC Ventures would forego selling the stadium naming rights so the stadium and Ballpark Commons could instead carry Franklin-oriented names. 

That distinction is important.

The original proposition wasn't simply:

$150,000 for a stadium name.

It was presented as a broader tourism partnership.

FROM A PRIVATE NAMING SPONSOR TO FRANKLIN FIELD

The history preceding Franklin's involvement provides additional context.

The stadium originally carried the Routine Field name through a private naming-rights arrangement involving Routine Baseball. That relationship later deteriorated and became the subject of litigation.

After the Routine name disappeared, ROC Ventures publicly indicated that another naming-rights partner would be sought.

Then came Franklin.

By June 3, 2020, Tourism Commission minutes referred to the Commission's “$150,000 annual commitment to ROC Ventures.”

Commissioners also discussed what would happen if declining room-tax collections were insufficient to make that payment.

And the Commission formally voted to name the stadium:

Franklin Field.

One week later, commissioners approved Engage Franklin as the identity for a tourism initiative “in partnership with ROC Ventures” and approved Franklin Field signage. 

THE TOURISM CENTER WAS MORE THAN A PROMISE

The proposed Tourism/Visitors Center was not merely an early talking point.

The final Naming Rights Agreement, effective July 1, 2020, contained a provision titled “Lobby Tourism Center.”

It provided that during the agreement's term the Franklin Tourism Commission “shall have a Tourism Center” in the lobby of the ROC Ventures office building at Ballpark Commons.

The Tourism Commission was responsible for the center's design, construction, installation, maintenance and operating expenses. Engage Franklin staff were to have access to a dedicated desk, telephone, internet service, conference space and other amenities.

The City subsequently promoted the Visitors Center publicly.

In August 2020, Franklin's newsletter described Engage Franklin as a partnership involving the Tourism Commission and ROC Ventures and told residents that a Visitors Center was being created where visitors could obtain information about Franklin attractions, lodging and restaurants.

The Commission later reviewed conceptual designs for the facility.

The Engage Franklin Tourism Director's job responsibilities also included supervising and stocking the Visitors Center and responding to requests for visitor information.

Yet in March 2021, City materials were still describing it as the:

“planned Visitors Center.”

And the public Tourism/Visitors Center contemplated by the agreement never opened at Ballpark Commons.

THE COMMON COUNCIL WAS TOLD ABOUT THE VISITORS CENTER

The Visitors Center was not known only to Tourism Commission members.

In March 2021, the Tourism Commission came before the Franklin Common Council seeking permission for Engage Franklin to use the City's trademark and logo.

Materials presented to the Council described Engage Franklin's activities as including “creation of a Visitors Center,” along with advertising, public relations, placemaking and destination marketing of businesses throughout Franklin.

The Common Council therefore had direct notice that a Visitors Center was part of the developing Engage Franklin tourism initiative.

FCN's review of subsequent annual-report materials has not located a report specifically informing the Common Council that the Visitors Center contemplated in the original tourism arrangement had never been established.

Meanwhile, the Franklin Field arrangement continued.

THE TOURISM CENTER DIDN'T OPEN. THE $150,000 PAYMENT CONTINUED.

By November 2022, the Tourism Commission was discussing the future of Engage Franklin.

Commissioners and representatives of Engage Franklin and ROC Ventures discussed future:

funding, deliverables, metrics and agreement structure.

At that same meeting, the Tourism Commission approved another:

$150,000 annual Franklin Field naming-rights invoice.

The sequence raises an obvious question.

If the original arrangement contemplated a Tourism Center, tourism staffing and other tourism services — and the center never opened — what remaining deliverables were being measured against the continuing $150,000 annual expenditure?

THE THREE-YEAR CHECKPOINT

The original February 2020 authorization contemplated a renewal option after year three. 

The final Naming Rights Agreement likewise contemplated a review around the three-year period to determine whether the arrangement was working and whether renegotiation was necessary.

And by 2023, the Commission was reconsidering the relationship.

Commissioners obtained outside tourism research recommending data-driven decision-making and continued negotiations involving both Engage Franklin and the Franklin Field agreement.

The Commission also sought a future Engage Franklin governing structure containing directors independent of ROC Ventures.

That does not establish that the earlier structure was improper. It does show that independence, deliverables and measurable performance had become explicit considerations as the relationship evolved.

What FCN has not located in the records reviewed is a three-year performance report identifying the number of paid overnight stays attributable to the Franklin Field arrangement or explaining what happened to the never-opened Tourism Center.

THE RELATIONSHIP WAS RESTRUCTURED

In September 2023, the Tourism Commission approved a new Tourism Entity Agreement with Engage Franklin.

The agreement transformed Engage Franklin into Franklin's contracted destination marketing organization and substantially changed the flow of room-tax revenue.

Beginning January 1, 2024, the Tourism Commission was required to transfer 75% of the room-tax money allocated to it by the City to Engage Franklin. Engage Franklin was required to spend the room-tax funds it received under the agreement on tourism promotion and development.

The agreement also contemplated assignment of the Franklin Field Naming Rights Agreement to Engage Franklin, subject to an amendment, while maintaining a maximum annual naming-rights expenditure of $150,000.

It established quarterly financial reporting, an annual independent accounting review and annual budget planning.

Importantly, however, while the Tourism Commission could review and make recommendations concerning Engage Franklin's annual budget, the agreement did not give the Commission approval authority over that budget.

THE COMMON COUNCIL HAS VISIBILITY — BUT DOESN'T APPROVE EACH EXPENDITURE

The Tourism Commission makes the spending decisions involving room-tax money allocated to it. The Franklin Common Council does not appear to approve each Tourism Commission expenditure.

But the Commission does not operate entirely outside elected City government.

Tourism Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Common Council.

Franklin also requires the Commission to submit an annual report to the Common Council itemizing expenditures and proposing its budget for the following year.

In recent years, those reports have been informational presentations rather than requests for Council approval.

By 2024, Council members were being told that the Tourism Commission had contracted with Engage Franklin to conduct tourism marketing and provide tourism services.

And in November 2025, Engage Franklin President Laura Nelson was scheduled to report directly to the Common Council concerning Engage Franklin's tourism-marketing activities.

That creates two distinct levels of accountability:

The Tourism Commission makes the tourism-spending decisions.

The Common Council receives recurring information about those expenditures and has an opportunity to question how public tourism dollars are performing.

PUBLIC ROOM-TAX MONEY BEGINS FLOWING THROUGH ENGAGE FRANKLIN

Franklin's official Wisconsin room-tax reports show how substantial those transfers became.

In 2024, Franklin collected:

$563,922 in room tax.

The City reported $204,936 distributed to Engage Franklin and $207,086 to the Tourism Commission. 

The $204,936 reported by the City as going to Engage Franklin exactly matches the $204,936 in contributions and grants reported by Engage Franklin on its 2024 federal Form 990.

Engage Franklin's total 2024 revenue was approximately:

$309,134 consisting of $204,936 in contributions and grants, $104,137 in program-service revenue and $61 in investment income.

Its total expenses were approximately:

$291,189.

WHAT WERE THE $154,000 IN “PROGRAM SPONSOR FEES”?

One expense on Engage Franklin's 2024 federal tax filing deserves further explanation.

Engage Franklin reported:

$154,000 in “Program Sponsor Fees.”

That figure is close to the maximum $150,000 annual Franklin Field naming-rights expenditure.

But FCN has not established that the $154,000 consisted of the Franklin Field payment, and the similarity in amounts alone is not sufficient to draw that conclusion.

The underlying expenditure records should answer the question:

Who received the $154,000 and what did Engage Franklin purchase?

AN $83,229 BOARD-MEMBER-RELATED LOAN

Engage Franklin's 2024 Form 990 also reports an $83,229 outstanding loan associated with board member Joe Zimmerman.

The filing describes the purpose as:

“STARTUP COSTS.”

The accompanying explanation states that the board member lent money to Engage Franklin through a company in which he holds an ownership interest, describes the transaction as arm's-length and says repayment is expected when adequate cash becomes available. 

Zimmerman is associated with ROC Ventures, although the tax filing language reviewed by FCN does not identify which Zimmerman-owned company provided this particular loan.

The existence of the loan does not establish wrongdoing.

But several basic questions remain:

Which company provided the money?

What expenses constituted the $83,229 in startup costs?

What are the repayment terms?

What conflict-of-interest procedures were followed?

And what revenue will ultimately be used to repay it?

ROOM-TAX FUNDING TO ENGAGE FRANKLIN JUMPS 66%

The flow of public room-tax money increased substantially in 2025.

Franklin's official state report shows:

Total room tax collected: $649,016

Distributed to Engage Franklin: $340,335

Distributed to the Tourism Commission: $155,501

Engage Franklin's reported distribution therefore increased from $204,936 in 2024 to $340,335 in 2025.

That's an increase of:

$135,399 — approximately 66%.

Over the same period, Franklin's total room-tax collections increased from $563,922 to $649,016 — approximately 15%.

The differing growth rates do not by themselves indicate anything improper. The contractual distribution structure and timing of payments can affect year-to-year amounts.

But as the public funding grows, so does the importance of transparent reporting about exactly where the money goes and what results it produces.

THE STATE REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF BUSINESS CONNECTIONS

Wisconsin's room-tax reporting requirements provide another layer of transparency.

Municipalities must identify members of the Tourism Commission and governing body of a tourism entity receiving room-tax revenue, along with businesses those individuals own, operate or work for.

Franklin's 2024 report identified both James Pekar and Joe Zimmerman with ROC Ventures among Engage Franklin's governing-body disclosures.

The 2025 report identified Joe Zimmerman — ROC Ventures.

Other Engage Franklin board members were associated with Franklin hotels, restaurants and other businesses.

Those relationships do not establish improper conduct. Indeed, participation by tourism-industry representatives is an expected part of destination marketing.

But the disclosures underscore the importance of the conflict-of-interest and independent-governance safeguards contained in Engage Franklin's agreements and policies.

FRANKLIN LATER EMBRACED “HOTEL STAY NIGHTS” AS A MEASURE

Perhaps the most revealing comparison comes from the Tourism Commission's own later practices.

By 2024, the Commission was telling the Common Council that its tourism grant program supported projects that:

“create hotel stay nights.”

And in December 2025, when the Commission considered a substantial tourism grant request from Polonia Sport Club, the applicant was expected to return with room-night calculations.

That is a reasonable standard.

Hotel room taxes exist because people stay overnight in hotels. Wisconsin law itself connects qualifying tourism promotion and development with activities reasonably likely to generate paid overnight stays.

But that creates an unavoidable comparison.

In February 2020, the Commission authorized:

Up to $1.5 million

for the ROC Ventures tourism partnership.

The approved minutes reviewed by FCN contain no corresponding hotel-room-night calculation. 

Years later, considerably smaller tourism applicants were being asked to demonstrate room nights.

If hotel stays are the benchmark for other tourism investments, what was the measurable overnight-stay return from Franklin's $150,000-a-year arrangement?

WHAT DID THE COMMON COUNCIL KNOW — AND WHAT DID IT ASK?

This question extends beyond the Tourism Commission.

The Common Council did not make the original February 2020 spending decision.

But elected officials subsequently received annual reports concerning Tourism Commission activities, expenditures and budgets.

The Council was also specifically told about the Visitors Center.

In March 2021, when the Tourism Commission sought permission for Engage Franklin to use the City's trademark and logo, materials presented to the Common Council described Engage Franklin's planned activities as including creation of a Visitors Center, advertising, public relations, placemaking and destination marketing.

The Visitors Center never opened.

FCN's review has not located a subsequent annual report specifically telling the Council that this component of the original arrangement was never established.

Nor has FCN located a report presented to the Council quantifying paid overnight stays attributable specifically to the continuing Franklin Field naming-rights expenditure.

That does not make the Common Council responsible for the Tourism Commission's individual spending decisions.

It does raise a legitimate oversight question:

As annual reports came before Franklin's elected officials, what questions were asked about whether one of the Tourism Commission's largest long-term commitments was producing measurable tourism results?

THE $150,000 STRUCTURE SURVIVED THE TRANSITION

The naming-rights arrangement didn't disappear when Engage Franklin became Franklin's DMO.

The Tourism Entity Agreement expressly contemplated transferring the rights and responsibilities of the Franklin Field Naming Rights Agreement to Engage Franklin.

On March 25, 2024, the Tourism Commission met in closed session concerning the agreement involving the Commission, Milwaukee Milkmen Baseball LLC, ROC Ventures LLC and Engage Franklin.

After returning to open session, commissioners approved the amendment.

The $150,000 maximum annual naming-rights structure continued under the reconfigured tourism system.

The Tourism Center did not.

THIS IS A QUESTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY — NOT A FINDING OF ILLEGALITY

FCN's review does not establish that purchasing stadium naming rights is inherently an unlawful use of Wisconsin room-tax revenue.

Wisconsin law expressly recognizes qualifying tourism marketing projects, and the Franklin Field arrangement includes advertising, signage and promotional assets that could serve a legitimate tourism-marketing purpose.

Nor does FCN's review establish that ROC Ventures, Engage Franklin, the Tourism Commission or City officials acted unlawfully.

The issue is more fundamental:

performance, transparency and accountability.

Franklin's Tourism Commission is entrusted with public hotel-tax revenue for a specific tourism purpose.

Its own later practices emphasize generating hotel stay nights.

The public therefore has a legitimate interest in knowing what measurable overnight-tourism results followed one of the Commission's largest and longest financial commitments.

QUESTIONS THAT STILL DESERVE ANSWERS

After reviewing Tourism Commission minutes, agreements, Common Council records, federal tax filings and state room-tax reports, FCN believes several questions remain unanswered:

1. What hotel-room-night or overnight-tourism analysis supported the February 2020 authorization of up to $150,000 annually for ten years with ROC Ventures?

2. Why was the Tourism Center expressly contemplated in the 2020 arrangement never established?

3. When the arrangement reached its three-year review period, what measurable performance results were evaluated before it continued?

4. How many paid overnight hotel stays can reasonably be attributed to the Franklin Field naming-rights and promotional package?

5. What specifically comprised Engage Franklin's $154,000 in “Program Sponsor Fees” reported in 2024, and did any portion represent the Franklin Field naming-rights payment?

6. Which company provided the $83,229 startup loan associated with Joe Zimmerman, what were its terms and what source of funds is expected to repay it?

7. What specifically did Engage Franklin purchase with the $340,335 in Franklin room-tax money reported as distributed to the organization in 2025?

8. What performance information regarding Franklin Field and Engage Franklin has been presented to the Common Council beyond overall room-tax collections and general tourism activities?

The last spending question should be answerable from existing public records.

Franklin's official 2025 state room-tax report specifically identifies an attachment titled:

“2025 Engage Franklin Expenditures Over $1,000.pdf.”

Those expenditures should provide taxpayers with a clearer picture of where the money went.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The story that began in 2020 was bigger than a baseball stadium name.

Franklin's Tourism Commission authorized up to $1.5 million for a broad tourism partnership with ROC Ventures.

Residents were subsequently told the initiative would include Engage Franklin, dedicated tourism staffing, destination marketing and a Visitors Center at Ballpark Commons.

The Tourism Center was written into the arrangement.

It never opened.

The $150,000-a-year Franklin Field structure continued.

The tourism system was eventually restructured, and Engage Franklin became Franklin's contracted destination marketing organization.

Public room-tax distributions to Engage Franklin grew from $204,936 in 2024 to $340,335 in 2025. 

None of that, standing alone, proves the expenditure was improper.

But after six years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual public tourism funding, Franklin taxpayers, hotel operators and elected officials should be able to answer a simple question:

What did Franklin get for the money?

And when the statutory purpose of the funding is tied to overnight tourism, there should be another answer available as well:

How many heads did the investment actually put in beds?

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/

Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann Named in Supplemental Request to Public-Integrity Investigation

Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann Named in Supplemental Request to Public-Integrity Investigation

FCN asks investigators to examine taxpayer-funded support for Eichmann’s official-facing Facebook page, identify who restricted public comments and determine whether the underlying records were preserved

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

West Allis Police are conducting the still-ongoing investigation at the request of an assistant district attorney assigned to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit. The investigation began after an ethics complaint alleged that Mayor John Nelson and Director of Administration Kelly Hersh used City-funded public-relations services provided by Mary Christine in connection with Nelson’s political interests. A subsequently unsealed search warrant sought records that a circuit court judge found may constitute evidence of misconduct in public office under Wis. Stat. § 946.12(2). No charges have been announced, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made.

FCN is asking that Michelle Eichmann’s (Alderwoman and Franklin Common Council President) Facebook page, its management and the disappearance of public comments be examined in connection with the ongoing investigation involving Franklin Mayor John Nelson, Director of Administration Kelly Hersh and City-contracted marketing and public-relations consultant Mary Christine.

The submission does not allege that investigators have determined Eichmann committed a crime. It asks investigators to establish:

• Who controlled or had privileged access to Eichmann’s page;

• Whether taxpayer-funded services were provided to it;

• Whether Christine possessed or exercised administrator or other privileged access;

• Who caused particular public comments to become unavailable;

• Whether commenting was restricted or disabled;

• Whether the unavailable comments and moderation records were preserved; and

• Whether taxpayer-funded resources were used to suppress criticism or protect an elected official’s personal or political messaging.

The central question is whether a Facebook page presenting itself as an official constituent-information channel was operated exclusively by Eichmann or was supported by Franklin’s taxpayer-funded communications operation—and whether public criticism was subsequently restricted on that page.

Is Eichmann’s Facebook Page a Government Page?

Whether Eichmann’s page is legally considered a government page cannot be determined solely from its Facebook category or name.

It may not be formally owned by the City of Franklin. Nevertheless, the page has numerous characteristics of an official government-facing communications channel.

The page:

• Is titled “Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann”;

• Is classified by Facebook as a “Government Official” page;

• Identifies Eichmann by her elected title;

• Describes itself as an informational page for District 2 constituents;

• Lists Franklin City Hall, 9229 West Loomis Road, as its address;

• Uses Eichmann’s official meichmann@franklinwi.gov email address;

• Publishes information about Franklin government business; and

• Discusses matters on which Eichmann votes or otherwise acts as an alderwoman.

Eichmann also directed approximately 140 attendees at the September 2 Franklin Senior Citizens, Inc. luncheon to use her page and Nelson’s page to obtain official Franklin information.

Those facts do not necessarily make every post on the page an official government communication. They do, however, make it difficult to characterize the entire page as merely personal.

The distinction is particularly important when the post at issue concerns an official City licensing decision and Eichmann uses the page to discuss how she voted or may vote as an alderwoman.

Previously Visible Exchange Is Now Unavailable

One screenshot retained by FCN establishes that Jacqueline Lutz Nelson, Mayor Nelson’s former wife, previously posted the following comment on Eichmann’s Irish Cottage thread:

“Ok michelle, no license will watch how you vote. It’s already known.”

Eichmann responded through the Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann page:

“Ok Jackieeee, Considering how I voted the first time, so tell me how I am going to vote? Do you watch and listen to the meetings or just stare at your ex husband the whole time?”

That exchange subsequently became unavailable to the general public.

Other comments and replies also became unavailable. Some concerned whether Eichmann had hidden comments, whether she could moderate the page however she wished and whether taxpayer-funded resources had been used to support or administer the page.

FCN does not possess screenshots of every missing exchange and is not claiming that Eichmann personally removed all of them.

The available screenshots nevertheless establish that specific material previously appeared and that the post later displayed more comments than could be viewed publicly.

Comment Counter Supports Further Examination

In a subsequent screenshot, the Irish Cottage post displayed a total of 18 comments, while only approximately 14 comments and replies were publicly visible.

Facebook’s comment counter is not conclusive forensic evidence. The platform does not guarantee that the displayed number will update immediately or that every comment included in the total will be visible to every viewer.

The continuing discrepancy is nevertheless significant.

If Jacqueline Nelson had permanently deleted her own parent comment, that comment and any replies dependent upon it would ordinarily be expected to disappear from the post’s total after Facebook recalculated the count.

Hiding operates differently. When a page administrator hides a comment, the material is not necessarily deleted from Facebook. It may remain visible to the original commenter, certain connected users and page administrators while becoming unavailable to most members of the public. Because the comment remains stored, it may continue to be included in the post’s displayed engagement or comment total.

The display of 18 comments while only approximately 14 could be viewed is therefore consistent with comments having been hidden, filtered, collapsed or otherwise restricted rather than permanently deleted.

It does not conclusively prove that Eichmann hid the comments. Facebook ranking and filtering, blocked-user relationships, collapsed replies, delayed counter updates and actions taken by the original commenters can also affect what an individual viewer sees.

Only Meta’s page-access, activity and moderation records can establish:

• Whether each comment was hidden, deleted, filtered or restricted;

• Whether a parent comment was removed by its original author;

• Whether Facebook automatically restricted the material;

• Which account performed each moderation action; and

• When each action occurred.

That distinction is why FCN asked investigators to obtain the underlying records rather than draw a final conclusion from the visible counter alone.

City Officials Discussed Using Christine on Their Pages

The supplemental submission connects the new information to public statements made during the November 4, 2025 Franklin Common Council meeting.

During a discussion of Christine’s taxpayer-funded public-relations services, former Alderwoman Courtney Day raised concerns about the City relying on Nelson’s Facebook page to distribute official information.

Day described the arrangement as “simply using the mayor’s Facebook page” and warned that once social media is used for government communications, its content may become a public record.

Day also said she was unaware of any system being used to preserve or back up Nelson’s Facebook posts. She raised additional concerns about editing, ghostwriting and the possibility of a contractor inadvertently publishing under an elected official’s identity.

Christine explained why official information had been placed on Nelson’s page:

“That’s the reason why we went with the mayor’s page.”

Nelson told council members that Christine’s services were also available to them:

“Any of you at any point in time can communicate with Mary. If that wasn’t made clear earlier, it should have been. From the beginning, it should have been.”

During the same discussion, Eichmann called Christine “our PR person” and emphasized that the Common Council oversaw her work:

“At the end of the day, you’re working for us.”

Eichmann also stated:

“I want to run my own alder page. I work very hard on that and keeping residents, mainly my constituents in District 2, updated.”

Eichmann’s statement may support her position that she personally controls the page. It does not answer whether Christine or another City-paid person was ever granted administrator, editor, moderator, task or posting access.

That question should be answered through Meta’s page-access history—not through assumptions by either side.

Nelson Confirmed Access to Elected Officials’ Pages

The issue arose again during the November 11, 2025 Milwaukee County Intergovernmental Cooperation Council meeting.

Nelson explained that Franklin elected officials maintained their own Facebook pages because the City’s domain did not support them:

“Every one of us elected have our own Facebook page because Franklin’s domain doesn’t support it, so it’s our own page.”

He then described Franklin’s part-time public-relations contractor, whose annual compensation was not to exceed $25,000, as having:

“Access to those of us that have allowed her to post things, as well as make announcements on our normal City of Franklin page.”

That statement confirms that at least some Franklin elected officials provided Christine with access to their individually branded Facebook pages.

It does not identify every elected official who provided access. It also does not establish that Christine had access to Eichmann’s page or that Christine performed any of the moderation actions now at issue.

Those are among the questions FCN has asked investigators to determine.

Why the New Information Relates to the Existing Investigation

The broader investigation concerns the possible use of Franklin’s taxpayer-funded public-relations arrangement to benefit or protect particular elected officials rather than being confined to legitimate municipal communications.

FCN previously reported on that investigation in:

• Franklin Mayor John Nelson Under Investigation

• FCN Obtains Warrant Detailing Alleged Misuse of City Resources

The new information may help establish the actual scope of Christine’s access and work.

If Christine had privileged access to Eichmann’s page, that would be relevant even if she did not create the Irish Cottage post or remove any comments. It would document another connection between a City-paid contractor and an elected official’s individually branded communications platform.

If Christine had no access and Eichmann acted entirely on her own, that would significantly change the analysis. It could still leave constitutional and public-records questions, but it would weaken any claim that the particular moderation actions involved the City’s public-relations contractor.

Investigators should be able to distinguish between those possibilities through objective records.

First Amendment Questions

Public officials do not surrender their own First Amendment rights merely because they hold office. They may maintain personal social-media accounts and control participation on genuinely personal pages.

The analysis changes when an official uses a page to exercise governmental authority or conduct official business.

In Lindke v. Freed, the United States Supreme Court held that a public official’s social-media conduct is attributable to the government when the official:

1. Possessed actual authority to speak for the government concerning the particular matter; and

2. Purported to exercise that authority in the relevant social-media post.

The analysis is therefore post-specific.

The Irish Cottage post concerned a City licensing proceeding. Eichmann’s response directly invoked how she had voted or would vote as an alderwoman. The page also uses her elected title, official City email address and City Hall address and describes itself as a source of information for her constituents.

Those circumstances provide a legitimate basis to examine whether Eichmann was acting in an official capacity in connection with that post.

If the post constituted government action, selectively hiding comments because they criticized Eichmann or challenged her statements could present a First Amendment viewpoint-discrimination issue.

That is different from establishing a neutral, prospective policy under which comments are disabled for everyone. FCN has asked investigators to determine whether particular comments or speakers were selectively restricted after the page had been opened for public discussion.

A potential First Amendment violation would ordinarily present a civil constitutional issue. It does not automatically constitute a Wisconsin criminal offense. It may nevertheless provide relevant evidence concerning how official authority or taxpayer-funded communications resources were used.

Public Records Do Not Depend on the Platform

The public-records question is separate from whether comments must remain publicly visible on Facebook.

Wisconsin’s public-records law generally focuses on the content and governmental purpose of a record—not whether it is stored on a government server, private telephone or individually controlled social-media account.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice Public Records Compliance Guide explains that the content of material, rather than its medium, format or location, determines whether it is a public record. Government-business information maintained on an elected official’s privately operated website may qualify as a public record.

Records produced or collected by a government contractor while performing contracted work may also be subject to disclosure under Wis. Stat. § 19.36(3).

Potential public records associated with Eichmann’s page could include:

• Posts concerning City business;

• Public comments and Eichmann’s responses;

• Hidden or deleted-comment records;

• Meta moderation and activity logs;

• Administrator and page-access records;

• Messages submitted through the page;

• Draft posts supplied by City officials or contractors;

• Communications about what should be posted or removed; and

• Christine’s records created while performing taxpayer-funded work.

Public-records law does not necessarily require every Facebook comment to remain continuously visible. Hiding a comment is also not automatically the same as destroying the underlying record.

The relevant questions are whether the record was preserved, whether it could be produced in response to a records request and whether anyone destroyed or concealed it after receiving notice that preservation was required.

FCN informed investigators that Eichmann had been warned by email, before the comments became unavailable, that communications concerning government business could be subject to Wisconsin’s public-records and preservation requirements.

Potential Conduct by Eichmann

The supplemental submission specifically asks investigators to examine Eichmann’s own actions rather than limiting the inquiry to Christine.

Investigators were asked to determine whether Eichmann:

• Personally hid, deleted or restricted any comments;

• Disabled or locked commenting on the post;

• Changed the page’s moderation settings;

• Directed Christine or another person to moderate the post;

• Knew that another administrator was removing or restricting comments;

• Used taxpayer-funded assistance to manage criticism directed at her;

• Failed to preserve comments or moderation records concerning City business; or

• Communicated with Nelson, Hersh, Christine or another City official about FCN, Jacqueline Nelson or the removal of comments.

If Eichmann personally performed the moderation actions, that would not eliminate the potential First Amendment or public-records issues. Nor would it make Christine irrelevant to the broader investigation. Evidence that Christine posted content, prepared material, monitored the page or possessed administrator, contributor, moderator or other privileged access at any time would establish that Eichmann’s page was included within, or received services from, Franklin’s taxpayer-funded communications operation—even if Christine had no involvement with the specific Irish Cottage post. Such evidence would not, by itself, establish that Christine knew about or participated in hiding the comments. Meta’s page-access and activity records are necessary to determine each person’s actual role.

Conversely, even if Christine did not author the post or moderate its comments, evidence that she possessed privileged access would remain relevant to establishing the extent to which taxpayer-funded services were integrated into elected officials’ individually branded pages.

What FCN Asked Investigators to Preserve

FCN requested preservation and examination of:

• Eichmann’s complete Meta activity log;

• The page’s hidden and deleted-comment history;

• Records identifying comments removed by their original authors;

• The page’s administrator and task-access history;

• The identity and permission level of every person with privileged access;

• Records showing who performed each moderation action;

• The page’s comment and moderation settings;

• Records showing whether commenting was disabled or locked;

• Communications among Eichmann, Nelson, Hersh, Christine and other City personnel;

• Communications concerning FCN or Jacqueline Lutz Nelson;

• Drafts or posting instructions provided by Christine;

• Christine’s invoices and work-product descriptions;

• City records identifying which elected officials granted Christine access; and

• Any archival system used to preserve elected officials’ social-media content.

FCN also asked investigators to determine whether public resources were used to suppress criticism, retaliate against a critic or protect an elected official’s personal or political interests.

The Records Should Provide the Answer

The available screenshots raise legitimate questions, but they do not provide every answer.

The comment counter supports further investigation, but it does not conclusively prove who removed or hid anything. Eichmann’s control of the page does not prove that she personally performed each moderation action. Christine’s possible access would not prove that she used it.

Likewise, a commenter could have removed a parent comment, Facebook could have filtered the material or an automatic moderation setting could have affected its visibility.

The appropriate next step is to preserve and examine the records that can establish:

• Who had access;

• Who took each action;

• When the action occurred;

• Whether a comment was hidden or permanently deleted;

• Whether the commenter or a page administrator caused its removal;

• Whether the underlying records were retained; and

• Whether anyone communicated about restricting the comments.

FCN has asked that this information be treated as an additional investigative lead—not as a predetermined conclusion.

The issue is larger than a disagreement over Facebook etiquette. It concerns whether an official-facing constituent page received taxpayer-funded support, whether public criticism was selectively restricted and whether records documenting those actions were properly preserved.

Those questions should be answered by the evidence.  Lt. Gold confirmed that he received the Supplemental Request.

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 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]