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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Separate Organization Receiving City Support

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

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

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

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

Does Every City Official Need to Speak?

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

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

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

The direct question, however, is this:

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

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

An Exhaustive Development Presentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seniors Directed to Taxpayer-Supported Facebook Pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eichmann’s Page Presents Itself as Official

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

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

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

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

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

Eichmann’s Denial Is Also Removed

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

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

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

That response is no longer visible.

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

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

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

Removing Eichmann’s denial does not answer that question.

Seven Documented Comments Are Now Missing

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

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

• Three comments posted by Franklin Community News.

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Wisconsin Law Prohibit Deleting or Hiding the Comments?

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

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

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

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

• Conveys official government information.

• Documents governmental policies, procedures or activities.

• Is authorized by the government.

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

• Documents governmental decisions or actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Separate First Amendment Issue

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

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

The analysis is fact-specific.

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

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

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

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

Records That Should Be Preserved and Disclosed

Eichmann and the City should immediately preserve and disclose:

• The original Irish Cottage post.

• All comments and replies associated with it.

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

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

• The page’s administrative and moderation activity history.

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

• Any available Meta or Facebook page-access records.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor Publicly Blames a Franklin Resident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Worthwhile Program That Should Remain Focused on Seniors

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

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

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

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

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

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

FCN Will Refer the Matter to the Public Integrity Unit

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

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

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

The referral will specifically raise two additional issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Wisconsin Public Records Board: Records Management and Social Media

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

U.S. Supreme Court: Lindke v. Freed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

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

 

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

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

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

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

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

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

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

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

The docket states:

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

Irish Cottage requested an ex parte temporary restraining order.

Judge Morales granted the request.

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

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

But its timing is significant.

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

WHAT EXACTLY DID THE JUDGE STOP?

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

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

The precise language of that signed order matters.

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

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

WAS FRANKLIN REPRESENTED AT THE EMERGENCY HEARING?

Another significant question concerns the City's participation.

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

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

That does not necessarily establish that Franklin received no notice.

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

But several questions remain:

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

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

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

“MIKE MAISTELMAN IN COURT”

The docket contains another unusual detail.

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

It separately states:

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

The distinction matters.

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

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

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

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

MAISTELMAN RECENTLY REPRESENTED MAYOR JOHN NELSON

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

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

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

and requested dismissal of the nomination-paper challenge.

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

TAYLOR'S CAMPAIGN PAID MAISTELMAN'S FIRM

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

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

Official campaign-finance records provide an additional connection.

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

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

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

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

There is another interesting political dimension.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it provides additional context.

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

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

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

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

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

Why was Michael Maistelman there?

THE HALBROOKS CONNECTION MAY BE EVEN MORE RELEVANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the similarity in subject matter is difficult to ignore:

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

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

Halbrooks is identified as Irish Cottage's attorney.

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

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

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

FRANKLIN JUST WENT THROUGH ANOTHER MAJOR LICENSE CASE

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

On the Border provides an unusually recent comparison.

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

JUNE 2: FRANKLIN GRANTS ON THE BORDER'S LICENSES

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

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

Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann seconded the motion.

The vote was:

YES — Kresovic, Eichmann and Peccarelli

ABSTAIN — Kenney, Salous and Hasan

NO — None

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

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

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

Thus, on June 2:

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

Eichmann seconded it and voted yes.

EIGHT DAYS LATER, SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT CHANGED

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

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

Franklin responded quickly.

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

The matter proceeded to a formal hearing.

JULY 16: SIX HOURS OF TESTIMONY AND A REVOCATION

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

The proceeding lasted nearly six hours.

Law enforcement presented evidence.

The establishment was represented by counsel.

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

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

Alderman Nabil Salous seconded Eichmann's motion.

The vote was:

YES — Eichmann, Salous and Hasan

NO — Kresovic and Johnson

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

The voting history is notable.

June 2

Kresovic moved to grant the licenses.

Eichmann seconded the motion and voted yes.

July 16

Eichmann made the motion approving the findings supporting revocation.

Kresovic voted no.

That reversal should not be presented without its important context.

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

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

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

FRANKLIN KNOWS HOW TO BUILD A FORMAL LICENSING RECORD

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

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

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

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

That makes the comparison with Irish Cottage particularly important.

TWO LICENSE CASES. TWO DIFFERENT PATHS.

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

ON THE BORDER

Franklin granted the licenses.

Significant new information subsequently emerged.

The City initiated formal proceedings.

A lengthy evidentiary hearing was conducted.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted.

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

IRISH COTTAGE

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

The suspension was scheduled to begin September 1.

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

That same afternoon, Irish Cottage requested emergency judicial relief.

Judge Morales granted a temporary restraining order.

The court docket identifies Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage.

It separately records:

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

And the next hearing is scheduled for September 18.

WHAT DID IRISH COTTAGE SAY FRANKLIN DID WRONG?

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

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

The On the Border comparison nevertheless provides an important benchmark.

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

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

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

It does mean the process Franklin used deserves careful scrutiny.

QUESTIONS THAT NOW NEED ANSWERS

The September 18 hearing may provide some of them.

Until then, several questions remain unanswered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Mike Maistelman in Court.”

Maistelman recently represented Franklin Mayor John Nelson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It requires distinguishing what is known from what remains unanswered.

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

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

The answer may ultimately be entirely routine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

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

 

Ethics Complaint Targets Supervisor Steve Taylor’s County-Supported Facebook Page and Its Direct Link to Campaign Fundraising

Complaintants asks Milwaukee County Ethics Board to examine whether County staff, taxpayer-funded resources and a governmental social-media platform have been commingled with Taylor’s political campaign; verified-complaint process also requires a copy to be provided to the District Attorney

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A signed and notarized verified ethics complaint formally submitted on August 28, 2026 against Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve F. Taylor (D- Franklin/Oak Creek) raises a basic public-integrity question:

Where does Milwaukee County government end and Steve Taylor’s political campaign begin?

Richard Busalacchi, publisher of Franklin Community News, and FCN contributor Kevin Fischer signed and notarized the verified complaint and formally submitted it to the Milwaukee County Ethics Board on August 28, 2026. The complaint challenges Taylor’s use of a Facebook page titled “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor”—a page that identifies him as a “Government Official,” discusses Milwaukee County governmental business and, according to the complaint, receives support in connection with his County office.

The central allegation is not that Taylor is prohibited from campaigning, raising money, defending his record or criticizing Franklin Community News.

It is that the governmental-facing Facebook page directs the public straight into Taylor’s political campaign infrastructure—including a website that solicits campaign contributions.

That connection is at the heart of the complaint.

A Government Page That Leads to a Campaign Website

Taylor’s Facebook page does not present itself merely as a private personal page.

It is titled “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor.”

Facebook categorizes the page as:

“Government Official.”

And the page states:

“This page will be used to talk about matters facing Milwaukee County.”

The page is used to communicate about County programs, committee activity, public policy, budgets, capital projects, newsletters, press releases and Taylor’s work as an elected Milwaukee County supervisor.

According to the complaint, County staff also provide support associated with the page.

Yet the contact infrastructure displayed through the governmental-facing Facebook presence includes:

www.stevetaylor4milwaukeecounty.com

and

stevetaylor4milwaukeecounty@gmail.com

Neither is Taylor’s official Milwaukee County governmental website or County email address.

Since this article was published, Supervisor Taylor added an additional link directing followers to his Milwaukee County Web Page.

They are campaign contacts.

Follow the Link—and You Reach Campaign Fundraising

The website linked from Taylor’s governmental-facing Facebook page is an active political campaign website associated with Friends of Steve F. Taylor.

It includes Taylor’s campaign biography, political positions, campaign information, events and political communications.

It also solicits money.

The site provides a mailing address for campaign contributions and an electronic PayPal contribution mechanism.

The site carries the disclaimer:

“Authorized and Paid for by Friends of Steve F. Taylor, Jim Gilboy, Treasurer.”

The pathway identified in the ethics complaint is therefore unusually direct:

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

That does not automatically establish an ethics violation.

But it raises the question the Ethics Board is being asked to answer: Were County personnel, County work time, County equipment, County communications systems or other taxpayer-supported resources being used to maintain a governmental communications platform that benefits Taylor’s political campaign?

Finance Committee Leadership Raises the Stakes

The issue also comes at a time when Taylor holds one of the County Board’s most consequential leadership assignments: Chair of the Milwaukee County Finance Committee.

That position gives Taylor a prominent role in the oversight of county finances, budgeting and the stewardship of public resources. While serving as Finance Committee chair does not by itself determine whether an ethics violation occurred, it arguably heightens the public-interest significance of the questions raised by the complaint.

The complaint centers on whether an official-facing Facebook presence—one identifying Taylor as a “Government Official,” describing itself as a page addressing “matters facing Milwaukee County,” and displaying his Milwaukee County Board position—was improperly connected to a campaign fundraising website.

For an official entrusted with significant responsibility over taxpayer dollars, the distinction between public resources and private political activity should be especially clear.

The Ethics Board, not the complainant or Franklin Community News, will ultimately determine whether the circumstances constitute a violation. But Taylor’s position as Finance Committee chair makes the underlying question particularly significant: If county officials are expected to maintain a clear boundary between government and campaign activity, should the official responsible for leading the County Board’s Finance Committee be expected to model that distinction with particular care?.

Taylor Appears to Stand Alone Among County Supervisors

The complaint includes a comparative review conducted by Busalacchi of all 18 current Milwaukee County supervisors.

The review identified readily recognizable official or governmental-facing Facebook pages for 16 of the 18 supervisors.

Comparable official pages were not identified in the review for Supervisors Deanna Alexander and Willie Johnson Jr.

Among the 16 supervisors with identifiable governmental-facing Facebook pages, the review found something significant:

Taylor was the only supervisor observed using a campaign website and campaign-branded email address as the contact infrastructure associated with the governmental-facing Facebook page.

The other 15 used Milwaukee County email addresses, Milwaukee County webpages or other governmental contact information.

That comparison matters because it undercuts any suggestion that campaign contact information is simply an unavoidable or standard feature of Milwaukee County supervisors’ Facebook pages.

Taylor has official Milwaukee County contact information available to him.

Nevertheless, the page presented to the public as his governmental Facebook presence sends visitors to his campaign website and campaign email.

Milwaukee County Ethics Officials Have Already Addressed Campaign Content on County Social Media

The Taylor complaint also points to the Milwaukee County Ethics Board’s own previous guidance.

In its 2024 Annual Activities Report, the Ethics Board described a separate situation involving political campaign-related material appearing on a County-affiliated social-media account.

According to that report, the Ethics Board Executive Director and Board Chair reviewed the matter and concluded that the documented conduct “would potentially violate” Ethics Code provisions.

The report then states:

“The official was made aware and advised against posting any political campaign-related content on their County-affiliated social media accounts in the future. MCO §9.06(1).”

That prior matter did not involve Taylor and does not determine the outcome of his case.

But it is highly relevant.

Milwaukee County ethics officials have already recognized that campaign activity on a County-affiliated social-media account can potentially implicate the County Ethics Code.

The Taylor complaint also cites an October 6, 2025 Ethics Board formal opinion concerning the use of office or public funds, including provisions now raised in Taylor’s case.

Three Ethics Provisions Are at Issue

The complaint asks the Ethics Board to examine Taylor’s conduct under three principal provisions of the Milwaukee County Ethics Code.

MCGO § 9.05(2)(a) generally prohibits a County public official from using public office to obtain financial gain or something of substantial value for private benefit or for an associated organization.

Importantly, that section contains an exception allowing an elected official to use the title or prestige of office to obtain lawful campaign contributions.

The complaint expressly acknowledges that exception.

In other words, the allegation is not that Taylor violates the Ethics Code merely by calling himself a County supervisor while fundraising.

The issue is whether something more was involved: County-funded personnel, work time, equipment, information-technology systems, governmental communications or other public resources.

The complaint also invokes MCGO § 9.05(2)(c)(2), which prohibits using public office in a manner that produces or assists in producing a substantial direct or indirect benefit for the official or an associated organization.

Potential campaign benefits identified in the complaint include increased website traffic, campaign visibility, supporter engagement, campaign contacts, political goodwill, fundraising opportunities and financial contributions.

The complaint does not presume those benefits automatically satisfy the ordinance's “substantial benefit” standard. It asks the Ethics Board to make that determination after examining the facts.

Finally, the complaint cites MCGO § 9.06(1)(c) and (d), dealing with solicitation of campaign contributions and political campaign activity by County officials or employees at their place of employment while engaged in official duties.

That makes one factual question particularly important:

Who was actually administering Taylor’s Facebook page—and when?

County Staff and Technology Records Could Be Critical

The complaint asks the Ethics Board to determine whether Taylor, his legislative staff or other County employees possessed administrator, editor, moderator, manager or posting privileges for the Facebook page.

It also seeks review of whether County personnel:

created or drafted content;

edited, scheduled or published posts;

moderated comments;

performed Facebook-related work during compensated County time;

or used County computers, phones, networks, software, photographs, graphics, newsletters, press releases, email systems or other taxpayer-funded resources.

The complaint also asks for preservation of relevant technical records.

Those could include network information, device-access records, account-access records, County-assigned devices, dates and times and other records capable of showing whether activity involving Taylor’s Facebook page occurred through County systems.

The complaint appropriately recognizes that an IP address alone would not necessarily identify who made a particular post.

The more meaningful evidence would come from correlating dates, times, devices, accounts, employee assignments and Facebook administrative activity.

A separate Wisconsin public-records request is also being pursued seeking records concerning administration of the Facebook page, County employee involvement, campaign links, moderation activity and applicable social-media policies.

Then Came “More Fake Community News”

The issue took on another dimension on August 27 when Taylor used the same “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” Government Official Facebook page to publish a post titled:

“More Fake Community News.”

Taylor was responding to sharply critical FCN commentary concerning his performance in Milwaukee County government, including County spending, the Capital Improvements Committee and the proposed Investing in Justice Courthouse Complex.

Taylor has the right to respond to that criticism.

The ethics complaint does not argue otherwise.

But Taylor’s post went beyond a defense of his governmental record.

He characterized the writers as “sick,” referred to Fischer as a “two-time DUI champion,” suggested that Fischer appeared to be “back off the wagon,” described Busalacchi as “deranged” and “obsessed,” and discussed Busalacchi’s legal history.

The complaint expressly acknowledges that offensive, insulting or highly critical speech does not, standing alone, establish an Ethics Code violation.

The significance lies instead in the platform Taylor selected.

He had personal Facebook channels, political channels, campaign channels and independent community forums available to him.

Instead, he published the response through the same Facebook page presented to the public as the governmental page of Supervisor Steve F. Taylor.

A Critical Comment Then Appeared to Disappear

The complaint also documents what happened after Busalacchi responded to Taylor’s post.

Busalacchi posted a comment under the August 27 publication.

When Busalacchi viewed Taylor’s post through his own personal Facebook account, his comment remained visible.

But when the same Taylor post was viewed through a separate Facebook account, Busalacchi’s comment was not visible.

That pattern is consistent with a Facebook comment having been hidden or otherwise restricted.

The complaint does not allege that Taylor personally performed the moderation action because the screenshots alone do not establish which administrator acted.

Instead, the Ethics Board is being asked to determine who did it.

That raises additional questions:

Who had administrative control of the page?

Was it Taylor?

Was it a County employee?

Was the moderation performed during County work time?

Was County equipment or an official County account used?

And what Milwaukee County policy, if any, governed the decision to hide or restrict criticism on a governmental-facing page?

The complaint seeks preservation of moderation records, administrator activity, hidden or deleted content and related records so those questions can be answered from evidence rather than speculation.

The Filed Complaint Triggers a Specific County Process

The August 28 filing is not simply a letter asking the Ethics Board to look into something.

Milwaukee County General Ordinance § 9.09 establishes a specific procedure.

A verified complaint must be in writing and sworn. Busalacchi and Fischer submitted the complaint in signed and notarized form on August 28.

The Ethics Board is required to review it.

And importantly, County ordinance provides that a copy of the verified complaint must be provided to the Milwaukee County District Attorney.

That requirement should not be misunderstood.

It does not mean filing an ethics complaint establishes that Taylor committed a crime.

It does not mean the District Attorney has made any finding against him.

And it should not be described as a criminal referral resulting from a finding of misconduct.

Rather, providing the complaint to the District Attorney is a mandatory procedural step built into Milwaukee County’s verified-complaint process.

If the District Attorney asks the Ethics Board to delay its proceedings, the ordinance provides for the Ethics Board to hold off while the matter is reviewed.

Once released by the District Attorney, the Ethics Board may continue its review.

The ordinance also provides for notice to the subject, Ethics Board deliberation and ultimately a written decision.

A Familiar Question: Public Resources and Political Activity

There is also an unavoidable parallel to another public-integrity matter already familiar to Franklin residents.

A separate matter involving Franklin Mayor John Nelson is currently being investigated by an Assistant District Attorney.

That investigation involves different officials, different facts and different legal provisions.

Nothing in the Nelson investigation establishes wrongdoing by Taylor, and nothing alleged against Taylor establishes misconduct by Nelson.

But the underlying public-integrity question is similar.

In the Nelson matter, investigators have been examining allegations concerning whether taxpayer-funded personnel or governmental resources were used in connection with political activity.

The Taylor complaint asks whether County-funded personnel and resources were used to support a governmental Facebook platform that directs the public into Taylor’s campaign infrastructure.

Put more simply:

Nelson matter: Were public personnel or resources used for political purposes?

Taylor matter: Were County personnel or resources used to maintain a governmental communications platform that benefits and directs users to a political campaign?

The cases are not identical.

But the boundary being examined is the same one:

Taxpayer-supported government resources should remain distinguishable from campaign resources.

There is also an important procedural connection.

Because the Taylor complaint was filed as a verified complaint under Milwaukee County's ordinance, a copy must be provided to the Milwaukee County District Attorney—the same office currently handling the Nelson-related public-integrity matter.

Again, that does not mean prosecutors will reach the same conclusions or even pursue the matters in the same manner.

But it means the question of public resources and political activity will also be placed before the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office through the ordinance’s verified-complaint procedure.

A More Direct Parallel to the Nelson Investigation

The Taylor complaint also echoes a public-resource issue already under active investigation in Franklin.

In December 2025, Franklin Community News obtained an unsealed search warrant showing that a previously filed ethics complaint involving Franklin Mayor John Nelson had been incorporated into a criminal investigation. The warrant stated that West Allis Police began investigating allegations that a City-retained public-relations consultant had been used to perform work benefiting Nelson’s political campaign. FC News Wisconsin

The warrant also documented that the City contractor billed Franklin for social-media services, including management of the mayor’s Facebook page, while investigators examined Facebook activity and whether taxpayer-funded services were allegedly being used for political purposes. A Milwaukee County judge found probable cause to believe the records sought could constitute evidence of misconduct in public office under Wis. Stat. § 946.12(2). No criminal charge had been filed at the time of that reporting, and the probable-cause finding was not a determination of guilt. FC News Wisconsin

The Taylor complaint involves different facts and a different governmental entity, but the factual question is notably similar:

Were publicly funded personnel, services or communications resources being used in a way that benefited an elected official’s political campaign?

In the Nelson matter, investigators examined a City-paid communications contractor and Facebook activity.

In the Taylor matter, the Ethics Board is being asked to determine whether County staff, County work time, County equipment, County technology or other public resources supported a governmental Facebook page that directly links users to Taylor’s campaign website and campaign contribution mechanisms.

That does not mean the two matters will have the same outcome. It does mean the boundary between taxpayer-funded communications and campaign activity is already an issue Milwaukee County prosecutors have treated seriously enough to investigate through records, Facebook evidence and a search warrant.

The Central Issue Is Bigger Than Taylor’s Fight With FCN

Taylor and Franklin Community News have had a contentious relationship.

That makes it easy to view the ethics complaint as simply another round in an increasingly personal dispute.

That would miss the larger issue.

Taylor is free to criticize FCN.

FCN is free to criticize Taylor.

Taylor is free to operate a campaign.

He is free to solicit lawful campaign contributions.

And he is free to defend his governmental record vigorously.

The Ethics Board question is narrower—and more important:

Can a County-supported governmental communications platform, potentially maintained with County staff and taxpayer-funded resources, simultaneously function as a gateway into an elected official's campaign and fundraising operation?

The comparative evidence makes the question more difficult to dismiss.

Of the 16 Milwaukee County supervisors whose identifiable governmental-facing Facebook pages were located in Busalacchi’s review, Taylor was the only one observed using campaign website and campaign-email infrastructure instead of governmental contact infrastructure.

And Milwaukee County’s own Ethics Board has previously warned against political campaign-related content on County-affiliated social-media accounts.

The filed complaint does not ask the public to assume Taylor violated the law.

It asks the Milwaukee County Ethics Board to obtain the records, identify who was operating the page, determine what taxpayer resources were being used and apply the County Ethics Code to the facts.

That is ultimately the question:

Was Milwaukee County government being used to support Steve Taylor’s political campaign—or were the two properly kept separate?

The records should provide the answer.

FCN will provide the full complaint after it has been provided to Supervisor Taylor.

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/