Can Franklin Afford Another Executive Learning on the Job, like Kelly Hersch?

 

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

As the Franklin Common Council prepares to vote on Mayor John Nelson’s appointment of attorney Christina Lucchesi as the City’s next City Attorney, the selection is renewing a familiar debate at City Hall: Are Franklin’s executive positions increasingly being filled by candidates expected to grow into the role rather than meeting the City’s published preferred qualifications from the outset, concluding a recruitment process that City officials describe as “comprehensive” and “extensive.”?

Yet, as the Council prepares to act, significant questions remain regarding the recruitment process itself—including how finalists were evaluated, what compensation has been negotiated, and what records support the recommendation presented to elected officials.

On Wednesday, July 1, Franklin Community News submitted a formal public records request seeking documents related to the recruitment, including the names and résumés of finalists, interview evaluations, recommendation memoranda, employment agreements, and negotiated compensation.

Those records had not been released before publication.

Appointment Authority Established by City Ordinance

Under Franklin Municipal Code § 55-1, the City Attorney is selected by:

“Mayor, subject to confirmation by majority of all members of Council.”

That ordinance establishes the legal appointment process.

The Personnel Committee, while responsible for overseeing recruiting procedures and personnel policy, generally serves in an advisory capacity under § 10-12, unless specifically authorized by the Common Council to take final action on a particular matter.

A Recruitment Led by City Administration

Documents included in the Wednesday July 1, 2026 Council packet show that Director of Administration Kelly Hersh played a central role in the recruitment.

In a June 26 email sent to Mayor John Nelson, the Common Council, and current City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski, Hersh wrote:

“Following the interview process, we identified an outstanding candidate, Christina Lucchesi…”

She continued:

“I am pleased to share that we extended an offer of employment, which she has accepted.”

The same email invited Council members to attend an informal “meet and greet” before the formal confirmation vote.

The recommendation materials presented to the Council similarly state that:

“Mayor Nelson, City Administration, and Human Resources unanimously concluded that Christina M. Lucchesi was the candidate best qualified to serve as Franklin’s next City Attorney.”

The packet repeatedly praises Lucchesi’s legal background, professionalism, collaborative approach, and commitment to public service.

A Candidate with Broad Legal Experience

Lucchesi’s résumé reflects a diverse legal career spanning commercial transactions, bond financing, construction law, environmental law, intellectual property, contracts, labor matters, and real estate.

She has served as bond counsel, borrower’s counsel, and issuer’s counsel on more than $1 billion in public financing transactions, worked as an attorney with von Briesen & Roper, and currently maintains a private practice focusing on construction, business, and transactional law.

The Council packet highlights this experience while emphasizing her collaborative leadership style and commitment to municipal service.

Published Qualifications vs. Experience

The City’s published job description identifies several qualifications that are strongly preferred, including:

• At least ten years providing municipal or related legal services.
• Previous experience serving as a Wisconsin City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney.
• Experience with Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
• Municipal governance and public sector legal counsel.

At Thursday’s special meeting, Lucchesi openly acknowledged that she has not served as a municipal attorney and had only recently begun reviewing many of Franklin’s ongoing legal issues.

She explained that much of her practice has centered on contracts, negotiations, construction law, public finance, and business transactions.

Current City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski also noted during the meeting that he did not have municipal experience when he began serving Franklin decades ago, a point several participants raised to illustrate that municipal practice can be learned.

Importantly, the City’s job description also expressly provides that Franklin may consider equivalent education and experience when evaluating candidates.

What Was Missing From the Public Discussion

During Thursday’s approximately 50-minute public meeting, Council members questioned Lucchesi about:

• ethics,
• conflicts of interest,
• public records,
• closed session procedures,
• Facebook and social media,
• leadership philosophy,
• and succession planning.

However, several subjects received little or no public discussion, including:

• how many applicants applied,
• how many finalists were interviewed,
• how candidates were evaluated,
• whether interview scoring sheets were used,
• negotiated salary,
• employment contract,
• benefits,
• or why Lucchesi was selected over other finalists.

The Council packet similarly states that the City conducted an “extensive recruitment process” and “comprehensive review of applicants,” but does not provide details regarding the number of applicants or the evaluation process.

Public Records Request Filed

To better understand the recruitment process, Franklin Community News requested:

• the names and résumés of finalists;
• interview schedules and panel members;
• interview evaluation and scoring documents;
• recommendation memoranda;
• employment agreement and negotiated compensation;
• the number of applicants;
• recruitment postings;
• and records documenting the Mayor’s appointment.

The request also seeks any records authorizing the recruitment process and the policies governing recruitment for unclassified positions such as the City Attorney.

A Broader Governance Question

This appointment also comes against the backdrop of previous public debate surrounding executive appointments at City Hall.

Franklin Community News previously examined the hiring of Director of Administration Kelly Hersh, specifically "Learning on the Job", raising questions about the City’s application of its published qualifications and recruitment process.

The current City Attorney appointment presents a similar governance question—not whether Lucchesi possesses the legal ability to serve, but how Franklin evaluates candidates against its own published qualifications and how transparent that process is to the public.  Lucchesi is also a resident of Franklin, which raises many conflict of issue questions.

The documents released to date provide a detailed explanation of why City officials believe Lucchesi is the right choice. At the same time, many of the records that would allow residents to independently evaluate the recruitment process remain unavailable before the Common Council is scheduled to vote.

Tuesday’s Vote

The Franklin Common Council is expected to consider Resolution 2026-____ confirming Mayor Nelson’s appointment of Christina M. Lucchesi as City Attorney at its meeting Tuesday evening July 7 at 6:30pm.

Whether additional records are released before that vote may determine how fully the public and the Franklin Common Council can evaluate one of the City’s most significant executive appointments before the decision is made.

Editor’s Note

On July 1, 2026, Franklin Community News submitted a request under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law seeking records relating to the recruitment and appointment of the City Attorney. This article is based on publicly available meeting materials, the July 2 special meeting, City ordinances, and documents released as part of the July 7, 2026 Common Council agenda packet. Franklin Community News will update this story as additional records become available.

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/

SPECIAL MEETING SET THURSDAY AS COMMON COUNCIL TO MEET MAYOR’S CITY ATTORNEY APPOINTEE

 

FRANKLIN, Wis. — The Franklin Common Council will hold a special meeting Thursday morning to meet Mayor John Nelson’s nominee for City Attorney, Christina M. Lucchesi, ahead of a formal vote on her appointment scheduled for the July 7 Common Council meeting.

The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m, Thursday July 2 in the Administration Conference Room at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road. According to the published agenda, the purpose of the meeting is to provide council members with an opportunity to meet Lucchesi, gather information, and ask questions before considering her appointment. The agenda specifically states that no action will be taken during Thursday’s meeting.  

Extensive Municipal Law Background

Publicly available professional profiles indicate that Lucchesi brings more than 15 years of legal experience, including approximately 11 years as an attorney with von Briesen & Roper, S.C. before opening the Law Office of Christina M. Lucchesi in Franklin in 2025.

Her practice has included municipal law, environmental law, public finance, construction and contract law, real estate matters, and serving as bond counsel on public financing projects. According to her professional biography, she has advised municipalities, reviewed development agreements, negotiated contracts, and represented public entities in a variety of legal matters.

Her Franklin law office also provides legal services in estate planning, probate, trusts, real estate, contracts, and related legal matters.

Opportunity for Public Discussion

Although no vote will be taken Thursday, the meeting is expected to provide the first public opportunity for council members to discuss Lucchesi’s qualifications, experience, and philosophy regarding the role of the City Attorney before next week’s confirmation vote.

Among the topics that could reasonably be addressed are her experience advising municipal governments, her approach to Wisconsin’s Open Meetings and Public Records laws, and how she views the role of the City Attorney in serving the Common Council, the Mayor, and the City as a municipal corporation.

Managing Potential Conflicts

Because Lucchesi both maintains a private law practice and resides in Franklin, Thursday’s meeting may also provide an opportunity to discuss how potential conflicts of interest would be identified and managed.

Attorneys serving municipalities commonly maintain private practices, and simply living or practicing in the community does not create a conflict of interest. However, municipal attorneys are expected to comply with professional ethics rules governing conflicts of interest and, when appropriate, disclose or recuse themselves from matters involving current or former clients or other circumstances that could affect their impartiality.

Residents may also be interested in learning whether Lucchesi has previously represented Franklin residents, businesses, developers, or organizations that conduct business with the City, and what procedures would be followed should such matters come before the Common Council.

Appointment Process

Thursday’s meeting may also provide insight into the City’s selection process, including why Mayor John Nelson chose Lucchesi for the position and what qualities he believes make her the best candidate to serve as Franklin’s next City Attorney.

Franklin Community News will attend the meeting and report on the discussion ahead of the Council’s anticipated vote on July 7.

New Waterford Records Lawsuit Renews Scrutiny of Time Cards at the Center of Earlier Investigation

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

A new lawsuit filed this week by the Wisconsin Transparency Project is once again placing the Town of Waterford Police Department’s timekeeping records under judicial scrutiny—and, in doing so, has renewed attention on the very categories of records that investigators examined during the department’s high-profile internal investigation involving current Franklin Mayor John Nelson.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2026, Town of Waterford Supervisor Robert Ulander filed a public records lawsuit in Racine County Circuit Court seeking the release of police officer schedules and time cards through late 2025. According to the complaint, Ulander wants to review the records for discrepancies involving officer work schedules, payroll reporting, special-event assignments, and whether the Town was properly reimbursed for police services provided to the Village of Waterford.

Circuit Judge David W. Paulson promptly issued an order directing the Police Department to either produce the requested records or appear at a hearing on August 11, 2026, to explain why the records should remain withheld.

In announcing the lawsuit, Attorney Tom Kamenick, President and Founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project, said the request is about government accountability. 

“The Town Police Department claims a laundry list of bad things will happen if these records are released. But none of them happened when the Town released the same records in the past.”

Supervisor Robert Ulander said public oversight requires access to those records.

“Prior to this police chief, I was able to get these records without difficulty and used them to identify officers claiming time when they weren’t actually working, working special events the Town is not supposed to pay for, and performing duties different than what they were scheduled for without authorization.”

Ulander also said the records are necessary to ensure the Town is receiving appropriate reimbursement for police services provided to the Village of Waterford under the municipalities’ service agreement.

What the Court Filing Alleges

While Attorney Tom Kamenick’s news release announced the filing of the lawsuit, the petition filed in Racine County Circuit Court provides additional detail about why Town of Waterford Supervisor Robert Ulander believes the requested records are important.

According to the petition, Ulander had routinely obtained police department time cards and officer schedules before the Town hired a new police chief in the fall of 2025. He alleges those records enabled him to identify multiple discrepancies and potential violations of Town policy.  

Among the examples cited in the lawsuit, Ulander alleges he identified:

• Officers who were scheduled for road patrol but instead performed other duties without authorization;
• Officers who claimed compensation for time they allegedly were not working by comparing time cards with other available information, including video recordings and social media posts;
• Officers who claimed compensation for working “special events” that Town policy generally required event organizers—not taxpayers—to fund; and
• The need to determine whether the Village of Waterford, rather than Town taxpayers, properly reimbursed the Town for officers performing contracted police services.  

The petition also places the records request in the broader context of the Waterford Police Department’s recent history. It notes that after the department’s police chief unexpectedly resigned in January 2024, multiple officers resigned while under internal investigations into alleged misconduct, including allegations involving fraudulent timekeeping.  

The Police Department denied Ulander’s January 2026 records request, arguing that releasing schedules and timesheets could reveal staffing levels, deployment patterns, and periods when personnel were unavailable, potentially compromising officer safety and law enforcement operations.  

Ulander disagrees, arguing in his petition that Wisconsin’s Open Records Law establishes a strong presumption in favor of disclosure and that similar records had been released in the past without creating the harms now asserted by the Department. He further argues that the public has an enhanced interest in these records because of the Department’s history of timekeeping discrepancies and to ensure that the Town is properly reimbursed for services provided to the Village of Waterford.  

Judge Orders Police Department to Produce Records or Defend Its Denial

One day after the lawsuit was filed, Racine County Circuit Judge David W. Paulson issued an Alternative Writ of Mandamus, ordering the Town of Waterford Police Department to either immediately release the requested records or appear before the court on August 11, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. to show cause why the records should not be released.

The writ states that it appears Robert Ulander submitted a public records request on January 20, 2026, under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law and that the Police Department denied the request. Based on the petition and supporting declaration, the court directed the Department to either comply with the request or defend its decision in open court.  

An Alternative Writ of Mandamus is not a final ruling on the merits of the case. Rather, it is a procedural order requiring the responding government agency to either perform the act requested—in this case, producing the records—or explain to the court why it believes it has no legal obligation to do so. The Department must now either release the requested time cards and schedules or justify its denial at the August hearing.  

For Franklin Community News, the court’s action is significant because the records sought in this lawsuit—officer schedules, time cards, and payroll-related documents—are the same categories of records that investigators examined during the Town of Waterford’s administrative investigation involving then-Lieutenant John Nelson. During that investigation, Nelson acknowledged supervisory responsibilities involving payroll and scheduling, while investigators questioned him extensively regarding administrative hours, reimbursement reports, and timekeeping practices. Although the current lawsuit does not name Nelson or allege misconduct by him, it seeks access to the underlying records that were central to many of the questions raised during that earlier investigation, reinforcing the public’s continuing interest in transparency and accountability.

Why This Lawsuit Matters Beyond Waterford

At first glance, the lawsuit appears to be a straightforward dispute under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law.

But for those who have followed the events surrounding the Town of Waterford Police Department over the past several years, the request involves much more than access to employee schedules.

The lawsuit seeks many of the same categories of records—time cards, schedules, payroll documentation, and records related to compensated work—that investigators examined during the Town’s extensive internal investigation involving then-Lieutenant John Nelson, now serving as Mayor of Franklin.

Importantly, the current lawsuit does not accuse Mayor Nelson of wrongdoing, nor is he a party to the case. Instead, it seeks records from the same department where investigators previously questioned Nelson under oath about payroll administration, officer scheduling, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reimbursement reports, and administrative hours associated with the department’s boat patrol program.

That historical connection helps explain why today’s records dispute extends beyond a routine public-records request.

The Records Behind the Investigation

Franklin Community News obtained and reviewed the complete 361-page transcript of Nelson’s investigative interview.

The transcript reveals that investigators devoted substantial attention to:

• payroll administration;
• officer scheduling;
• timekeeping records;
• Wisconsin DNR reimbursement reports;
• administrative hours;
• grant-funded activities;
• overtime reporting; and
• supervisory approval of reimbursement documentation.  

During the interview, Nelson acknowledged that his responsibilities included payroll and scheduling.

“I would handle things from payroll, scheduling…”

That testimony is significant because the current lawsuit seeks access to the very types of records that fell within those supervisory responsibilities.

The Records Behind the Headlines

For many Wisconsin residents, the Waterford Police Department became synonymous with controversy.

Over the past several years, news reports documented internal investigations, employee complaints, officer resignations, litigation over public records, and ultimately the Town’s decision to dissolve its police department.

Today’s lawsuit does not revisit those events directly.

Instead, it asks a different question:

Should the public have access to the records that document how officers were scheduled, how their time was recorded, and how taxpayer-funded work was reported?

Those questions closely mirror issues examined during Waterford’s internal investigation involving then-Lieutenant John Nelson.

Franklin Community News reviewed the complete 361-page transcript of Nelson’s investigative interview, conducted as part of that investigation.

The interview reveals that investigators devoted substantial time to reviewing payroll administration, officer scheduling, boat patrol operations, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reimbursement reports, administrative hours, and supervisory approval of payroll-related records.  

Early in the interview, Nelson acknowledged that those responsibilities fell within his supervisory role.

“I would handle things from payroll, scheduling…”

That testimony is noteworthy because the records sought in the current lawsuit—time cards and schedules—are the same types of records investigators questioned him about during the administrative investigation.

Questions About Payroll and Administrative Hours

One of the most detailed portions of the investigative interview centered on Waterford’s annual DNR boat patrol reimbursement program.

Nelson explained that, as lieutenant, he was responsible for coordinating much of the program, including scheduling officers, overseeing buoy installation and removal, preparing monthly reports, and signing annual reimbursement documents submitted to the State of Wisconsin.  

Investigators then turned to what they described as a discrepancy between monthly reports and the year-end reimbursement request.

According to the investigators, the monthly reports reflected approximately 43.5 administrative hours, while the annual reimbursement submission reflected approximately 121 administrative hours—a difference of about 77.5 hours.  

Investigators questioned Nelson about how that difference occurred and whether additional administrative hours had been added before the final reimbursement request was submitted.

Nelson rejected the suggestion that he directed anyone to falsify records.

Instead, he repeatedly stated that his goal was to ensure the reports accurately reflected legitimate reimbursable work.

At one point, he explained that he wanted the reports to “jive” with the work that had actually been performed.  

He further stated that if legitimate administrative hours had not been included in the monthly reports, amended reports could have been submitted to correct the record.

Investigators responded that they had found no evidence that amended reports had been filed.

More Than a Payroll Review

The interview was not limited to accounting questions.

Investigators advised Nelson that they were examining a broad range of allegations concerning department operations and management.

According to the transcript, topics discussed during the interview included:

• payroll administration;
• officer scheduling;
• administrative reimbursement records;
• grant-funded hours;
• use of Town resources;
• campaign-related activity;
• workplace complaints;
• personnel management;
• alleged retaliation; and
• dissemination of confidential information.  

Throughout the interview, Nelson disputed many of the investigators’ assertions and frequently challenged the credibility and motivations of those who had made complaints.

Nelson’s Public Response

When investigative records later became public, Nelson forcefully denied the allegations in interviews with several Milwaukee media outlets.

In a separate interview with WISN 12 News, Nelson characterized the investigation as “100% a witch hunt” and “a fishing expedition” designed to discredit officers. WISN reported that Nelson retired before the administrative investigation concluded and that several other officers also resigned or retired before their investigations were completed.

Speaking with TMJ4 News, Nelson described the investigation as “ridiculous and baseless,”calling it an “absolute hit-job” and a “character assassination.” TMJ4 also reported that the investigation included allegations involving inaccurate time records and conducting Franklin mayoral business while on duty in Waterford, allegations Nelson denied.

Later, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on a separate public-integrity investigation involving Nelson in his capacity as Franklin mayor after the unsealing of a search warrant relating to alleged misuse of public resources. The newspaper reported that Nelson denied wrongdoing and had not been charged with a crime at the time of publication and FCN has confirmed there is an ongoing investigation being conducted by the WestAllis Police Department on behalf of the Milwaukee County District Attorney of Public Integrity.

Why Today’s Lawsuit Matters

Supervisor Robert Ulander’s lawsuit is not about relitigating the Waterford investigation.

Nor does it allege misconduct by Mayor Nelson.

Instead, it seeks disclosure of records that may help answer broader questions about how the department documented employee work hours, scheduled officers, assigned special-event duties, and accounted for taxpayer-funded labor.

Attorney Tom Kamenick argues those records have been released before and that the Town has not demonstrated why they should now be withheld.

Whether the court agrees will be decided later this summer.

But the lawsuit underscores a broader principle behind Wisconsin’s Public Records Law: meaningful public oversight often depends not on press releases or official statements, but on access to the underlying government records themselves.

FCN Analysis

For Franklin residents, this lawsuit has significance beyond Waterford.

Mayor John Nelson has consistently maintained that the Waterford investigation was politically motivated and without merit.

The new lawsuit does not challenge that position.

What it does challenge is whether records documenting officer schedules, timekeeping, and payroll administration should remain hidden from public review.

Those are the same categories of records investigators considered important enough to examine during their interview with Nelson. Whether those records ultimately support or undermine concerns about departmental practices is precisely the type of question Wisconsin’s Public Records Law is intended to help answer through public access to government records rather than speculation.

Coming Next in The Nelson Files: Part Two will examine investigators’ questions regarding campaign activity, use of public resources, and other topics discussed during Nelson’s recorded interview.

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/

Anonymous Public Records Request Preceded Election-Eve Release of Candidate’s Personnel Records

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

UPDATE: Campaign Finance Records Provide Additional Context

June 28, 2026

After publication of this article, Franklin Community News reviewed Kathleen Vincent’s Spring Pre-Election 2026 Campaign Finance Report, which provides additional publicly documented information regarding several individuals discussed in this investigation.

The report identifies Brennan Dineen Balestrieri as a paid campaign consultant, receiving payments of $600 on February 2, 2026, and $600 on February 27, 2026, for a total of $1,200 during the reporting period.

The same report also shows that Joe Russ contributed $250 to Vincent’s campaign. In addition, the campaign reported receiving in-kind contributions from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, including campaign software and consulting services.

These campaign finance disclosures establish that Balestrieri served as a paid consultant to Vincent’s campaign and that Russ was a financial supporter of the campaign during the period leading up to the April 6, 2026 election.

Separately, Milwaukee County records previously reviewed by Franklin Community News document that an anonymous public records request for Ryan Antczak’s personnel records designated changewisconsin@gmail.com as the email address to receive responsive records.

Franklin Community News has also identified publicly available online postings that associate changewisconsin@gmail.com with Brennan Dineen Balestrieri, including public volunteer-organizing posts for the Milwaukee Public Schools referendum and other public online postings in which the same email address was used as a contact address.

Campaign Finance Report Reflects Support from Current Milwaukee County Supervisors

Kathleen Vincent’s Spring Pre-Election 2026 Campaign Finance Report reflects campaign contributions from several of her colleagues on the Milwaukee County Board.

According to the report, the following current Milwaukee County Supervisors made monetary contributions to Vincent’s campaign:

• Juan Miguel Martinez — $250
• Shawn Rolland — $100
• Steven Shea — $100
• Marcelia Nicholson — $100
• Sky Capriolo — $75
• Caroline Gomez-Tom — $50
• Sheldon Wasserman — $50

The report also identifies contributions from other public officials and individuals active in government and public affairs, including:

• Aaron Lipski, Milwaukee Fire Chief — $250
• George Christenson, Milwaukee County Clerk — $50
• Joe Czarnezki, former Milwaukee County Supervisor — $50
• Denise Callaway, former media personality and communications consultant — $50
• Anthony Dodd - Former Assistant Superintendent of Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center - $50, 

These campaign finance disclosures are matters of public record and provide additional context regarding the campaign’s publicly reported supporters, consultants, and contributors.

Published June 26, 2026

Three days before voters elected a Milwaukee County Supervisor for District 11, portions of Ryan Antczak’s Milwaukee County personnel and Internal Affairs records suddenly appeared on Facebook.

The records were posted on April 3, 2026, by Joe Russ on the Facebook page Greendale Under the Bubble, where they quickly became the subject of hundreds of comments discussing Antczak’s candidacy.

A review of Milwaukee County records obtained by Franklin Community News reveals an unusual timeline beginning nearly seven weeks earlier with an anonymous public records request that specifically sought records relating to Antczak’s resignation from County employment.

The records answer some questions—but leave many others unresolved.

A Highly Targeted Public Records Request

According to Milwaukee County records, the County received a public records request on February 17, 2026.

Rather than requesting Ryan Antczak’s complete personnel file, the requester sought a narrowly tailored category of records:

“Employee Personnel Files related to hire/resignation especially investigations leading to resignation in lieu of termination.”

The request was submitted without identifying the requester’s name. However, Milwaukee County records indicate the requester directed that responsive records be transmitted electronically to the email address:

changewisconsin@gmail.com

Wisconsin law generally permits individuals to submit public records requests without identifying themselves.

What makes this request unusual is its specificity. The requester did not simply seek public employment records. Instead, the request referenced investigations allegedly leading to a resignation in lieu of termination.

At present, Franklin Community News has not determined how the requester knew to request that specific category of records.

Publicly Documented Relationships

As Franklin Community News continued reviewing publicly available records and social media posts, additional publicly documented relationships emerged among individuals connected to the events surrounding the release of Ryan Antczak’s personnel records.

Franklin Community News independently identified publicly available online postings associating the email address changewisconsin@gmail.com with Brennan Dineen Balestrieri.

Public Facebook posts show Brennan Dineen Balestrieri actively supporting Kathleen Vincent during her 2026 Milwaukee County Supervisor campaign. Following Vincent’s April 6 election victory, Balestrieri publicly congratulated her, writing that he was proud of her campaign and celebrating her victory with photographs from campaign events attended by supporters.

Separately, publicly available Facebook posts also document a longstanding public relationship between Kathleen Vincent and Joe Russ.

In a November 19, 2024 Facebook post published on her “Kathleen Wied-Vincent for Greendale School Board” page, Vincent publicly thanked Joe Russ for what she described as a “considerable donation” toward restoration of the Hauser Statue and surrounding sidewalks in downtown Greendale. The post included a photograph of Vincent and Russ together during the presentation.

Those public posts establish that both Brennan Dineen Balestrieri and Joe Russ publicly supported or interacted with Vincent before the April 2026 election. Standing alone, they do not establish any involvement by Vincent, Balestrieri, or Russ in Milwaukee County’s processing of the public records request or the subsequent release of Ryan Antczak’s personnel records.

However, the publicly documented relationships provide context for the timeline that followed.

Milwaukee County records indicate that an anonymous requester sought Ryan Antczak’s personnel and Internal Affairs records and designated changewisconsin@gmail.com as the email address for delivery of responsive records. Franklin Community News independently identified publicly available online postings associating that email address with Brennan Dineen Balestrieri.

Three days before the April 6 election, Joe Russ published portions of those personnel and Internal Affairs records on the Facebook page Greendale Under the Bubble, where they became the subject of extensive discussion regarding Antczak’s candidacy.

At present, Franklin Community News has not identified public records establishing how the records moved from the designated recipient identified in Milwaukee County’s records to Joe Russ before they appeared publicly on Facebook. That remains one of several questions Ryan Antczak continues to pursue through ongoing public records requests to Milwaukee County.

Brennan Balestrieri’s Political and Campaign Background

Publicly available professional information indicates that Brennan Dineen Balestrieri has been active in political consulting, campaign strategy, and communications for a number of years.

According to his publicly available professional profile, Balestrieri currently serves as Senior Advisor for Arney for Wisconsin and has been the Creative Director of Washburn Data, LLC since 2008, where he describes his responsibilities as including campaign management, strategic communications, media buying, fundraising, branding, website development, speech writing, policy research, and overall campaign strategy.

His profile identifies numerous political and judicial campaigns for which he reports providing campaign management or communications services, including candidates for municipal office, judicial office, and statewide political organizations. His listed experience includes work involving Wisconsin Supreme Court and Circuit Court candidates, Milwaukee Common Council races, school board elections, labor organizations, and other political campaigns.

Separately, publicly available Facebook posts show Balestrieri actively supporting Kathleen Vincent during her 2026 Milwaukee County Supervisor campaign. Following Vincent’s April 6 election victory, he publicly congratulated her and praised the campaign’s efforts.

Franklin Community News includes this information to provide background regarding Balestrieri’s publicly represented political experience and campaign involvement. This information, standing alone, does not establish any involvement in the submission of the public records request discussed elsewhere in this article.

Milwaukee County’s Notice

Milwaukee County prepared a Notice of Public Records Request advising Ryan Antczak that records had been requested and informing him of his statutory rights to seek judicial review before disclosure.

The notice, dated March 9, 2026, was mailed by certified mail.

According to United States Postal Service tracking records reviewed by Franklin Community News, the certified mailing was never delivered. Postal records indicate notices were left, reminders were issued, and the certified letter was ultimately returned to Milwaukee County as unclaimed.

Ryan Antczak has stated that he never actually received the notice.

Whether Milwaukee County fully complied with all procedural requirements governing the release of the records remains one of the issues Antczak continues to pursue through additional public records requests.

Records Surface Days Before the Election

On April 3, 2026—three days before the April 6 election—Joe Russ published portions of Antczak’s personnel and Internal Affairs records on the Facebook page Greendale Under the Bubble.

The records immediately became campaign discussion material.

Among the comments posted beneath the records, one individual asked Joe Russ:

“How did you get these Personal Files from the county?”

The commenter added:

“Hopefully, they were obtained legally.”

The Facebook discussion reviewed by Franklin Community News contains no direct explanation from Joe Russ describing how he obtained the records.

Brennan Dineen Balestrieri also participated in the discussion, responding to other commenters regarding Antczak’s candidacy, but the discussion reviewed by Franklin Community News does not contain a response explaining how the records were obtained.

Continuing Public Records Requests

Following the election, Antczak submitted multiple public records requests seeking to determine:

• who requested his records;
• how Milwaukee County processed the request;
• whether statutory notice requirements were followed;
• who approved release of the records;
• when the records were released;
• and to whom they were transmitted.

Milwaukee County Human Resources later confirmed that it had received a request for Antczak’s personnel records and forwarded responsive files to Milwaukee County’s centralized Open Records office.

Antczak continues to seek additional records documenting the request, review, approval, notice, and release process.

Documented Facts and Remaining Questions

The records reviewed by Franklin Community News establish several facts:

• Milwaukee County received a public records request on February 17, 2026.
• The request specifically sought investigative records relating to Antczak’s resignation from County employment.
• The requester directed Milwaukee County to transmit responsive records to changewisconsin@gmail.com.
• Milwaukee County prepared and mailed a statutory notice by certified mail.
• The certified mailing was ultimately returned to Milwaukee County as unclaimed.
• Portions of Antczak’s personnel records appeared publicly on Facebook on April 3, 2026—three days before the April 6 election.

Several questions, however, remain unanswered:

• How did the requester know to seek such a narrowly tailored category of employment records?
• What records document Milwaukee County’s review and approval of the release?
• When were the records transmitted to the designated email address?
• What documentation exists concerning the release of those records?
• How did the records later appear on Facebook during the closing days of the election?

Franklin Community News is not asserting answers to those questions. Rather, they are the subject of continuing public records requests submitted by Ryan Antczak to Milwaukee County.

As additional records become available, Franklin Community News will continue reporting on this developing story and will publish responses received from Milwaukee County or any individuals identified in this article who choose to comment.

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/

THE STEVE TAYLOR FILES: From Harassment Injunction to Obstruction Conviction

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

For years, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor has publicly dismissed criticism of his past legal troubles as political attacks, a smear campaign, or what he once called "tabloid trash."

Yet surviving police records obtained by FCN, (a 55 page police report) court-related documents, and contemporaneous newspaper accounts tell a far more complicated story.

What began in 1999 as a harassment injunction investigation involving Taylor and his former girlfriend ultimately evolved into allegations that another individual was encouraged to take responsibility for conduct under investigation. The matter later resulted in an obstruction conviction that became a public issue during Taylor's political career.

Today, much of the original court file no longer appears to be available due to the age of the case. However, the surviving La Crosse Police Department investigative file, contemporaneous reporting from the La Crosse Tribune, and later reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provide a detailed record of what occurred.

The Harassment Injunction

The case began after Taylor's former girlfriend, Jill Kroner, obtained a harassment injunction following the end of their relationship.

The injunction prohibited Taylor from contacting Kroner directly or indirectly. Court documents contained in the police file specifically ordered:

"No contact with petitioner Jill Kroner directly or through a third person."

The injunction remained in effect until July 7, 1999.

The One-Word Voicemail

On June 18, 1999, Kroner returned home and discovered a message on her family's answering machine.

In a written statement provided to police, Kroner described what happened.

"I came home to my parents' home, I picked up the phone to call my boyfriend to tell him I got home safely and found that there was a message on our voice mail system."

Kroner immediately believed she knew who left the message.

"The message sounded like a person whom I have had many arguments with for the past two years, Steve Taylor."

According to Kroner, the message contained only a single word:

"The message consisted of one word only, 'Poo-Kie,' which was a nickname he called me when we were together."

Kroner also told police:

"I have had many problems with Mr. Taylor during the past two years, especially around this time of year."

Because the injunction prohibited contact, police opened a criminal investigation.

The Arrest

Investigators interviewed Kroner, family members, and individuals who had spent time with Taylor during the evening in question.

Police examined Taylor's whereabouts and sought to determine whether he had access to a telephone at the time the call was made.

After reviewing witness statements and the injunction order, officers concluded there was probable cause that the injunction had been violated.

Taylor was arrested on June 19, 1999.

At the time, Taylor denied making the call.

Had the case ended there, it would likely have remained a relatively minor misdemeanor matter.

Instead, investigators soon began uncovering information that dramatically changed the direction of the case.

Enter Brian See

As investigators continued their review, another individual named Brian See became central to the investigation.

Initially, information surfaced suggesting that See might claim responsibility for the call.

However, subsequent interviews painted a very different picture.

According to taped statements documented by police, See described conversations involving Taylor and concerns regarding the political consequences of a conviction.

One statement attributed to Taylor became particularly significant.

According to See, Taylor expressed concern that:

"my political career is going to be screwed."

Investigators questioned See about whether discussions had occurred regarding someone else taking responsibility for the call.

When asked whether he believed references and suggestions made during conversations were directed toward him becoming the individual who would claim responsibility, See answered:

"Yeah. I believe that's why."

Investigators further asked whether Taylor's concern about his political future was connected to finding someone else to assume responsibility.

See again responded:

"Yeah."

The allegations transformed what had begun as a harassment injunction investigation into something much more serious.

Sergeant Mix's Findings

By September 1999, La Crosse Police Sergeant Robert Mix had completed an extensive review of witness statements, recorded interviews, and other evidence.

His conclusions were among the strongest language found anywhere in the investigative file.

After reviewing the evidence, Mix wrote:

"Mr. See is a credible witness with nothing to gain from making the above allegations."

Mix further noted:

"Mr. See is an acquaintance of Mr. Taylor's and in Mr. See's own words, they are friends but they do associate with each other."

Most significantly, Mix formally requested prosecutorial review for additional criminal charges.

His report stated:

"This officer would request that the District Attorney's office review the above information for possible charges against Mr. Taylor for solicitation of perjury and obstruction of justice."

Mix also requested review concerning:

"possible ethics violations."

Those findings marked a turning point in the investigation.

What began as a harassment injunction violation had evolved into allegations involving witness influence, obstruction, and attempts to redirect responsibility for the conduct under investigation.

The Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Records contained within the investigative file show that Taylor later entered into a deferred prosecution agreement relating to the harassment injunction violation.

The agreement required Taylor to:

• Complete community service.
• Undergo counseling.
• Complete a psychological evaluation.
• Participate in alcohol and drug assessment.
• Pay restitution and fees.
• Maintain strict compliance with the no-contact order involving Kroner and her family.

The agreement specifically provided that:

"no contact means no direct or indirect contact whether in person, by phone or by mail."

The deferred prosecution agreement resolved the underlying harassment-order charge but did not end the broader investigation.

The Obstruction Conviction

The allegations documented by Sergeant Mix eventually resulted in an obstruction case.

According to contemporaneous reporting by the La Crosse Tribune, Taylor was later found guilty by a jury of misdemeanor obstruction.

The Tribune reported that prosecutors alleged Taylor attempted to convince an acquaintance to take responsibility for the phone call made to his former girlfriend while Taylor was prohibited from contacting her by court order.

Following the verdict, La Crosse County Circuit Judge Dale Pasell imposed a fine and probation.

According to the Tribune, Judge Pasell stated that Taylor's conduct:

"smacks of a certain arrogance"

The newspaper reported that Taylor did not testify during the trial.

Following the conviction, Taylor publicly stated:

"Today was a very humbling experience. Obviously, I wish the outcome had been different."

He also stated:

"I'm sorry if something that I said or expressed was taken in the wrong way and resulted in this whole process."

Taylor maintained his innocence and indicated that he was considering an appeal.

The conviction later became an issue during Taylor's 2001 reelection campaign for the La Crosse Common Council.

Daniel Bice Revisits the Case

More than a decade later, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Daniel Bice revisited the matter while reporting on Taylor's political career.

Bice reported that Taylor had entered a deferred prosecution agreement related to the harassment injunction violation and was later convicted of misdemeanor obstruction after prosecutors alleged he encouraged an acquaintance to provide false information during the investigation.

Bice also reported that Taylor described the case as a political attack and claimed he had been "railroaded."

The Journal Sentinel article largely mirrored the findings documented years earlier in the police file and reported by the La Crosse Tribune.

A Different Public Image

The historical record stands in notable contrast to Taylor's current public image.

On June 15, 2026, Taylor publicly recognized National Crime Victims' Rights Week and stated that his office would continue to serve as a resource for people who have been:

"abused, stalked, harassed, and obsessed over."

The statement presented Taylor as an advocate for victims of harassment and stalking.

Yet surviving police records document a period in which Taylor was the subject of a harassment injunction investigation that later evolved into an obstruction case.

Whether readers view that contrast as evidence of personal growth, political reinvention, or an unresolved contradiction is ultimately their own conclusion.

What cannot be disputed is that both events are part of the public record.

Why FCN Is Investigating

Some readers have asked why Franklin Community News continues to investigate Steve Taylor.

The answer is simple.

Steve Taylor is not a private citizen.

He is an elected public official entrusted with public authority, public resources, and public decision-making.

FCN's investigation did not begin with a decades-old police report.

The investigation began after multiple individuals contacted FCN regarding concerns about Taylor's conduct as a public official. Those concerns included allegations involving political retaliation, misuse of public office, intimidation, interference in public matters, employment-related disputes, and the use of political influence for personal or political purposes.

As part of its ongoing investigation, FCN publicly requested information from individuals with firsthand knowledge, emails, text messages, public records, court filings, employment records, and other documentation relevant to Taylor's conduct.

The purpose of the investigation is not to relitigate old personal disputes.

Rather, it is to determine whether a pattern exists that helps the public understand how an elected official exercises power, responds to criticism, treats political opponents, and conducts himself both inside and outside public office.

Public accountability does not expire because records become difficult to locate.

Nor does it disappear because the events occurred decades ago.

Questions involving honesty, judgment, credibility, and the exercise of power remain relevant regardless of when they first arose.

Taylor's Position

Taylor has consistently denied wrongdoing.

In public statements, he has characterized the cases as politically motivated and has maintained that he was unfairly targeted by opponents.

Readers should consider both the documentary evidence and Taylor's response when evaluating the historical record.

FCN's role is not to determine guilt or innocence.

Its role is to review records, verify facts, gather evidence, present relevant information, and allow readers to make their own informed judgments.

Conclusion

The surviving records tell a story far different from the abbreviated descriptions often associated with Steve Taylor's legal history.

The files document an investigation that began with a one-word voicemail, expanded into allegations involving witness influence, and ultimately resulted in an obstruction conviction reported by contemporaneous news coverage.

Whether voters view those events as ancient history, evidence of poor judgment, or a matter bearing directly on public trust is ultimately their decision.

What cannot be disputed is that the investigation occurred, the records exist, and the questions raised by those events remain part of the public record.

For that reason alone, they remain worthy of public examination.

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/