Franklin Police Department Seeks WILEAG Accreditation, Invites Residents to Community Listening Session

Franklin Police Department Seeks WILEAG Accreditation, Invites Residents to Community Listening Session

Accreditation process examines policies, accountability, complaint procedures, supervision, recordkeeping and whether professional standards are followed in practice

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The Franklin Police Department is pursuing professional accreditation through the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Accreditation Group (WILEAG), a process that measures Wisconsin law-enforcement agencies against established professional standards covering a wide range of police operations.

As part of the accreditation effort, Franklin has scheduled an Accreditation Community Listening Session for Wednesday, September 16, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the Franklin Municipal Court Room, 9455 W. Loomis Road.

The session is open to the public and provides residents an opportunity to learn more about the accreditation process and offer comments as the Department works toward accreditation.

For residents, the process raises a basic question that goes beyond whether a police department has policies on paper:

What does it actually mean for a police department to be accredited?

What Is WILEAG Accreditation?

The Wisconsin Law Enforcement Accreditation Group is a Wisconsin-based law-enforcement accreditation organization.

WILEAG's full accreditation program uses its Sixth Edition Standards, which address numerous aspects of law-enforcement administration and operations.

The process is intended to establish professional benchmarks for participating agencies and provide a method for evaluating whether an agency meets those standards.

Importantly, accreditation is not simply an examination of whether a department has adopted written policies.

WILEAG describes accreditation as a process in which an agency is evaluated on the existence of and its compliance with prescribed standards.

An agency seeking full accreditation adopts and implements the applicable standards and then undertakes an extensive self-assessment. The process ultimately includes an on-site assessment, with findings and recommendations presented to WILEAG's governing body.

That means accreditation involves two related questions:

Does the Department have policies that satisfy the standards?

And:

Can the Department demonstrate that those policies and standards are actually being followed?

Franklin's Accreditation Effort Is Being Supported by Federal Funding

Franklin's pursuit of accreditation represents a significant organizational undertaking.

Federal grant information previously reviewed by Franklin Community News identifies approximately $240,330 in federal funding supporting a Franklin Police Department accreditation project running from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2027.

The project is intended to support the Department's accreditation work and broader efforts involving professional best practices, technology, staffing, transparency, officer safety, liability reduction and operational improvements.

Franklin has also established an Accreditation Coordinator position responsible for working with command staff on accreditation requirements, documentation, policy development, compliance, audits and interaction with accrediting organizations.

The investment of federal resources and Department personnel makes the accreditation process more than an honorary designation.

The Department is undertaking a process intended to demonstrate that its policies and practices satisfy recognized professional standards.

What Does WILEAG Examine?

WILEAG's standards cover a broad range of law-enforcement functions.

They address areas including organizational authority, accountability and supervision; constitutional and legal requirements; use of police discretion; complaint and internal-affairs procedures; community engagement; communications; records and reporting; and other operational responsibilities.

Some standards establish specific requirements, while others require agencies to develop written directives governing particular law-enforcement activities.

For residents, one of the most important aspects of accreditation is that the process is intended to examine compliance, not simply the existence of policies.

A department may have a policy governing a particular activity. Accreditation asks whether the agency can demonstrate that its practices conform to the applicable standard.

Citizen Complaint Handling Is Part of Accreditation

One area addressed directly by WILEAG standards is how a law-enforcement agency receives, investigates, documents and reviews complaints involving the agency or its employees.

The standards address more than simply having a process for accepting complaints.

They include requirements concerning the investigation of complaints, responsibility for the internal-affairs function, notification of complainants, maintenance of complaint records and periodic review of complaints for patterns or trends.

Those requirements reflect an important distinction in accreditation:

Having a compliant written policy and demonstrating compliance with that policy are not necessarily the same thing.

For Franklin, the accreditation process provides an opportunity to examine how the Department's complaint system operates in practice.

Relevant questions include how complaints are classified, who is responsible for investigating them, when a matter is handled by a supervisor or through an internal-affairs process, how complainants are informed of outcomes and how complaint records are maintained.

Another question is whether the Department's records allow reviewers to follow a complaint from beginning to end—from receipt and classification through investigation, supervisory review and final disposition.

Those are institutional questions applicable to any law-enforcement agency seeking professional accreditation, regardless of who makes a complaint or how an individual case ultimately ends.

Accountability and Supervision Are Also Part of the Standards

WILEAG standards also address accountability within a police organization.

That includes accountability when authority is delegated and responsibility of supervisors for employees working under their supervision.

Those requirements matter because law enforcement necessarily involves substantial professional judgment.

Detectives decide which investigative steps are appropriate. Officers exercise discretion in responding to calls. Supervisors review reports and make decisions about whether additional work is necessary. Command personnel establish policies and allocate responsibilities.

Accreditation provides a framework for determining whether those responsibilities are clearly defined and appropriately supervised.

The relevant question is not whether every police decision produces an outcome everyone agrees with.

It is whether the Department can demonstrate that authority is exercised within established policies and that appropriate accountability and supervisory review exist.

Police Discretion Is Specifically Addressed

Police officers make discretionary decisions every day.

A reported incident may result in no enforcement action, a warning, a municipal citation, an arrest or referral to prosecutors depending on the circumstances and applicable law.

Different facts can legitimately produce different outcomes.

WILEAG standards addressing the use of discretion therefore focus attention on the policies governing those decisions and the limitations placed upon officers' discretionary authority.

For an accredited agency, the important question is whether discretionary decisions are made within an established professional framework rather than arbitrarily.

That can include examining the Department's policies, reports and supervisory review processes to determine whether enforcement decisions can be adequately documented and explained.

Accreditation Also Addresses Bias-Based Policing

WILEAG standards also prohibit bias-based policing.

The applicable standard addresses law-enforcement decisions based improperly upon specified characteristics, including race, national origin, religion, disability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age and political affiliation, among others.

The inclusion of political affiliation is noteworthy because public confidence in law enforcement depends in part on the expectation that police authority will be exercised independently of political considerations.

That does not mean disagreements involving elected officials automatically become accreditation issues.

It does mean an accredited police department should have policies and practices designed to ensure that law-enforcement decisions remain professionally and impartially based.

Records Matter Because Compliance Has to Be Demonstrated

Recordkeeping may sound less significant than patrol operations or criminal investigations, but it plays an important role in accreditation.

WILEAG standards address information capture, reports and supervisory review.

Those records can provide the evidence necessary to determine what occurred after a citizen contacted the Department, how an incident was classified, what actions officers took, what reports were generated and what supervisory review occurred.

That documentation also allows an accreditation assessment to examine something that cannot necessarily be determined simply by reading a policy manual:

Was the policy actually followed?

What Happens During Accreditation?

An agency seeking accreditation does considerable work before receiving the designation.

The Department must evaluate its policies against the applicable standards, address deficiencies, assemble documentation demonstrating compliance and prepare for assessment.

An outside assessment provides an additional level of review.

The assessment process is important because accreditation would have considerably less meaning if an agency simply certified its own compliance without independent examination.

Ultimately, WILEAG's governing body considers the assessment findings and recommendations in determining accreditation.

Why Should Residents Care?

For most residents, accreditation may sound like an administrative process occurring largely inside the Police Department.

Its implications are broader.

Police departments exercise substantial governmental authority. Residents rely on officers to respond to emergencies, investigate crimes, enforce laws, exercise discretion fairly and treat members of the community professionally.

Professional accreditation provides one mechanism for measuring whether the systems supporting those responsibilities meet established standards.

It can also provide an opportunity for a department to identify weaknesses, improve policies, strengthen documentation and establish more consistent practices.

Accreditation should therefore be viewed not simply as an award to obtain, but as an ongoing process of professional accountability and organizational improvement.

September 16 Listening Session Gives Residents an Opportunity to Participate

Franklin residents will have an opportunity to learn more and participate when the Department holds its Accreditation Community Listening Session on Wednesday, September 16, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

The session will be held in the Franklin Municipal Court Room, 9455 W. Loomis Road.

Residents do not need to have had a negative interaction with police to have an interest in the process.

Questions about officer training, supervision, complaint procedures, community relations, records, transparency, use of discretion and departmental accountability all relate to the broader issue of what residents should expect from a professionally accredited law-enforcement agency.

The accreditation process ultimately presents Franklin with an opportunity to answer an important question:

Can the Franklin Police Department demonstrate—not only through its written policies, but through its actual practices and records—that it consistently meets the professional standards required for accreditation?

For Franklin residents, the September 16 listening session provides an opportunity to learn how the Department intends to answer that question.

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/

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/