Wednesday, July 22, 2026

Milwaukee County Courthouse Referendum Receives Finance Committee Hearing

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A proposal that would give Milwaukee County voters the opportunity to weigh in on one of the largest public construction projects in County history is now scheduled for consideration by the County Board's Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee is scheduled to consider the proposed referendum at its meeting on Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 203-R of the Milwaukee County Courthouse, 901 N. 9th Street, Milwaukee. The meeting will provide the first public opportunity for committee members to debate whether Milwaukee County voters should be given the opportunity to decide the question on the November ballot.

Supervisor Justin Bielinski's File No. 26-533 would place a contingent referendum on the November 3, 2026 ballot asking voters whether Milwaukee County should authorize up to $858 million in additional construction-phase funding for the proposed Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex Project. The overall project is currently estimated to cost approximately $896.6 million, with approximately $38.6 million already authorized for planning, design, and consulting services.

The proposed referendum would not itself authorize borrowing, approve construction contracts, or issue bonds. Instead, it would ask Milwaukee County voters whether they support moving forward with the construction phase of the project. Any future appropriations, contracts, or financing would still require approval by the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors.

According to the resolution, the nearly century-old Safety Building faces more than $75 million in deferred maintenance, does not meet current Wisconsin Supreme Court standards for court facilities, and presents significant operational and security challenges. County officials have argued that replacing the building is necessary to modernize Milwaukee County's criminal justice system.

A Project With Long-Term Financial Implications

The proposed resolution acknowledges that a project of this magnitude would likely require substantial long-term borrowing.

It further states that financing the project "may place upward pressure on the property tax levy" and recognizes that significant borrowing could affect Milwaukee County's ability to fund other infrastructure priorities, including parks, roads, bridges, transit, and public facilities.

The resolution also notes that Milwaukee County's 2026 Capital Budget requested $120.1 million in general obligation bonding authority, while only $56.8 million was available under the County's bonding cap, leaving $63.3 million in requested borrowing authority unfunded.

Transparency Should Not Depend on the Type of Government

Across Wisconsin, taxpayers are routinely asked to approve major capital construction projects before their local governments undertake significant long-term borrowing.

School districts regularly place referenda before voters to finance new schools, additions, and major renovations. Likewise, Wisconsin Technical College districts generally must obtain voter approval for capital expenditures exceeding $1.5 million, subject to statutory exceptions.

These referenda are typically accompanied by detailed financial information explaining:

The amount to be borrowed.
The estimated impact on property taxes.
The purpose of the project.
The long-term financial obligations.

Milwaukee County's proposed Courthouse Complex project is different.

Although the project carries an estimated total cost of $896.6 million, there is no general statutory requirement that Milwaukee County obtain voter approval before proceeding.

Supervisor Justin Bielinski's proposal would voluntarily ask voters whether Milwaukee County should authorize up to $858 million in additional construction funding before the County commits to the project.

The Missing Piece: What Will It Cost You?

Perhaps the most important question for Milwaukee County homeowners has yet to be publicly answered.

How much will this project increase my property taxes?

Despite hundreds of pages of reports, planning documents, and presentations, Milwaukee County has not publicly released an estimate showing how the proposed construction funding would affect the annual property tax bill for the average homeowner.

That information matters.

Taxpayers understand that the courthouse project itself is estimated to cost $896.6 million, with up to $858 million in additional construction funding still under consideration. But construction costs are only part of the financial picture.

If approved, much of the project is expected to be financed through long-term borrowing. That means taxpayers would ultimately repay not only the principal borrowed but also interest over many years. The total repayment obligation will depend on future borrowing amounts, interest rates, repayment schedules, and any state or other outside funding ultimately received.

Before Milwaukee County commits to borrowing on this scale—or before voters are asked to express their opinion—many taxpayers may reasonably expect answers to several basic questions:

How much will the project increase the annual property tax bill for a home assessed at $250,000?
What about a $400,000 home?
What about a $600,000 home?
How much debt will Milwaukee County issue?
What will taxpayers ultimately repay over the life of the bonds, including interest?
How much state funding has been secured, and how much is merely anticipated?
What other capital projects may be delayed because of this borrowing?

These are not arguments for or against the courthouse project.

They are questions of fiscal transparency.

The Cost of the Referendum

Ironically, the referendum itself would cost approximately $18,000—a fraction of one percent of the nearly $897 million project.

Supporters argue that spending $18,000 to allow taxpayers to weigh in on one of the largest financial decisions in County history is a modest investment in transparency and public participation

Other County Priorities

The proposed resolution also acknowledges that borrowing for the courthouse project could affect Milwaukee County's ability to finance other important public investments.

Among the priorities that could compete for limited borrowing capacity are:

Parks and park facilities.
County roads and bridges.
Transit infrastructure.
Other County buildings and facilities.
Future capital maintenance needs.

Milwaukee County's own 2026 Capital Budget demonstrates those competing demands. According to the resolution, the County received $120.1 million in requested general obligation borrowing for capital projects, but only $56.8 million was approved under the County's bonding cap, leaving $63.3 million in requested borrowing authority unfunded.

The Voice of the People

The proposed resolution notes that the eastern façade of the Milwaukee County Courthouse bears the Latin inscription:

"Vox populi, vox Dei" — "The voice of the people is the voice of God."

Whether the referendum ultimately reaches the November ballot now appears uncertain.

Regardless of where one stands on the courthouse project itself, the broader issue remains.

Should Milwaukee County taxpayers be given the same opportunity that voters in many Wisconsin school districts and technical college districts receive—to review the financial information, understand the potential tax impact, and cast a vote before their government commits to hundreds of millions of dollars in long-term borrowing?

That is the question now before Milwaukee County—not simply whether to build a new courthouse, but how transparent the County should be with the taxpayers who will ultimately pay for it.

Finance Committee Meeting Scheduled Thursday

The Finance Committee's consideration of the resolution represents the next step in determining whether Milwaukee County residents will have the opportunity to vote on the proposal this November.

Members of the public who wish to observe the discussion or provide testimony should review the meeting agenda and public participation procedures through Milwaukee County.

Finance Committee Meeting

📅 Thursday, July 23, 2026
🕘 9:00 a.m.
📍 Room 203-R
Milwaukee County Courthouse
901 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

At issue is whether Milwaukee County voters should have the opportunity to decide if the County should proceed with up to $858 million in additional construction-phase funding for a courthouse project now estimated at approximately $896.6 million.

Editorial: For the Greater Good, Let the People Decide

There are times when leadership is measured not by the decisions that are made, but by whether the public is allowed to participate in making them.

For weeks, Milwaukee County's proposed courthouse referendum sat without a hearing because it was not placed on the Finance Committee agenda.

As Chairman of the Finance Committee, Supervisor Steve Taylor determines what comes before the committee for consideration. Had the proposal never been scheduled, Milwaukee County taxpayers could have been denied the opportunity to vote this November on one of the largest public construction projects in County history.

Fortunately, the proposal has now been placed on the agenda.

That is good news—not because the referendum is guaranteed to pass, but because the public deserves the opportunity to hear the debate and, if approved by the County Board, ultimately cast a ballot.

The issue has never been whether Milwaukee County needs modern court facilities.

Reasonable people can agree that the nearly century-old Safety Building presents significant challenges.

The issue is whether taxpayers deserve a voice before Milwaukee County commits to up to $858 million in additional construction funding for a project approaching $900 million.

Even more importantly, taxpayers deserve to know what the project will actually cost them.

Not the construction estimate.

Not the architect's estimate.

Not the project's price tag.

Their property tax bill.

If Milwaukee County can estimate construction costs to the nearest million dollars, it should also be able to estimate what a homeowner with a $250,000, $400,000, or $600,000 home can expect to pay if long-term borrowing is approved.

That information should not be an afterthought.

It should be available before any referendum is held and certainly before elected officials commit taxpayers to decades of debt service.

Supervisor Steve Taylor has often defended controversial decisions with the phrase:

"It is for the Greater Good."

Franklin Community News agrees.

Transparency is for the greater good.

Providing taxpayers with honest financial projections is for the greater good.

Allowing public debate is for the greater good.

Giving Milwaukee County residents the opportunity to vote on one of the largest financial commitments in County history is for the greater good.

The Finance Committee's decision to finally place this proposal on its agenda is a welcome step.

But taxpayers should expect more than simply a hearing.

They deserve complete financial transparency.

They deserve to know how much this project could increase their property taxes—not just next year, but over the life of the bonds.

And they deserve elected officials who trust them enough to let them decide.

"Vox populi, vox Dei" — The voice of the people is the voice of God.

If those words mean anything, Milwaukee County should embrace them—not merely carve them into stone.

The greater good begins with trusting the people.

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/

Friday, July 17, 2026

FRANKLIN REVOKES ON THE BORDER’S LICENSES

Common Council votes 3-2 following a nearly six-hour evidentiary hearing, concluding that substantial evidence supported each of the five allegations against the establishment.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

After nearly six hours of testimony, legal arguments, documentary evidence, and deliberation, the Franklin Common Council voted 3-2 Thursday evening to revoke the alcohol beverage licenses and public entertainment license held by On the Border Gentlemen’s Club, concluding that substantial evidence demonstrated the establishment had become a disorderly house where prostitution, drug activity, violence, and repeated violations of city ordinances had occurred.

The decision followed what City Attorney Jesse Wesolowski repeatedly described as a quasi-judicial proceeding, requiring Council members to act not as policymakers, but as impartial fact-finders weighing sworn testimony and evidence.

For Franklin, the hearing represented one of the most significant license revocation proceedings in recent memory.

A Split Vote

Following the adoption of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Common Council voted 3-2 to revoke On the Border’s licenses.

Voting in favor of revocation were Alderman Salus, Alderman Hassan, and Alderwoman Eichmann. Voting against revocation were Alderwoman Kresovic and Alderman Johnson.

Alderwoman Kenney recused herself from the proceedings because of a conflict of interest and did not participate in the hearing, deliberations, or final vote.

The narrow margin reflected differing views among the five participating Council members regarding whether the City’s evidence justified the extraordinary remedy of permanently revoking the establishment’s operating privileges.

Although the Council’s deliberations occurred in closed session, members returned to open session to publicly announce detailed findings supporting each of the five counts alleged in the City’s complaint before casting the final roll-call vote. By adopting those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Council concluded that substantial evidence supported each allegation and ordered the revocation of the establishment’s Class “B” intoxicating liquor license, Class “B” fermented malt beverage license, Entertainment and Amusement License, and Cigarette Sold by Machine License.

For On the Border, the 3-2 vote brought months of uncertainty to a close. Whether the matter ends there, however, may ultimately depend on whether the business seeks judicial review of the Council’s decision.

An Unusual Hearing

Unlike a routine Common Council meeting, Thursday’s proceedings resembled a courtroom.

Witnesses testified under oath.

Attorneys conducted direct and cross-examinations.

Hundreds of pages of exhibits were admitted into evidence.

Council members heard legal arguments before retiring into closed session to deliberate before returning to open session to announce their decision.

Throughout the hearing, City Attorney Wesolowski repeatedly reminded Council members that their decision could not be based simply upon pending criminal charges involving club employees.

Instead, Wisconsin law required them to determine whether the evidence presented demonstrated violations sufficient to justify revocation of the licenses.

A Multi-Year Investigation

The City’s case centered on testimony from Franklin Police detectives and command staff describing what they characterized as a lengthy investigation involving local, state and federal law enforcement.

According to police testimony, the investigation included:

interviews with dancers, former employees, patrons and confidential witnesses;
cooperation with the FBI during a human trafficking investigation;
surveillance of activity occurring inside the establishment;
narcotics investigations;
prostitution investigations;
execution of search warrants;
numerous police reports spanning several years.

Detectives testified they concluded prostitution was occurring inside VIP rooms, illegal drug activity was taking place inside the establishment, and management either knew or should have known about the activity.

Police Describe Extraordinary Demands on Department Resources

One of the recurring themes throughout the hearing involved the amount of police resources devoted to the business.

Officers testified that On the Border generated significantly more police activity than other licensed establishments within Franklin.

Police described repeated responses involving:

narcotics investigations;
overdoses;
disturbances;
assaults;
prostitution investigations;
suspicious activity;
welfare checks.

Command staff testified that investigations involving the club consumed substantial investigative resources over an extended period.

Allegations Extended Beyond Prostitution

Although much public attention has focused on prostitution allegations, the City’s evidence addressed a much broader range of alleged misconduct.

According to testimony presented Thursday, investigators documented evidence involving:

prostitution;
cocaine trafficking;
fentanyl-related incidents;
overdoses;
assaults involving employees;
alcohol sales to intoxicated patrons;
disorderly conduct;
repeated police intervention.

The City argued these incidents demonstrated a continuing pattern inconsistent with maintaining licensed premises under Franklin ordinances.

Defense Challenges City’s Evidence

Representing On the Border, Attorney Steven Levine aggressively challenged nearly every aspect of the City’s case.

During cross-examination, Levine questioned investigators regarding:

whether officers personally witnessed prostitution;
reliance upon witness interviews;
anonymous complaints;
credibility of confidential witnesses;
whether owners Jerry and Mary Hay personally participated in criminal conduct;
management policies prohibiting illegal activity;
whether police statistics fairly compared On the Border to other businesses.

Levine also questioned whether many of the alleged criminal incidents involved patrons rather than employees and argued the City was attempting to hold ownership responsible for conduct occurring without their knowledge.

Ownership Denies Knowledge

Defense witnesses testified that ownership prohibited prostitution and criminal conduct.

Evidence was presented describing:

employee policies;
surveillance cameras;
management oversight;
cooperation with law enforcement;
termination of employees suspected of misconduct.

The defense argued isolated criminal acts committed by individual employees should not justify revoking licenses held by the business itself.

Council Weighs the Evidence

After hearing testimony, attorneys presented closing arguments before the Council entered closed session.

When the Council returned to open session, members announced findings concluding there was substantial evidence supporting multiple violations alleged by the City.

Among the findings adopted were conclusions that substantial evidence supported allegations involving:

prostitution occurring at the licensed premises;
illegal drug activity;
physical assaults by employees;
sales of alcohol to intoxicated persons;
operation of a disorderly house;
repeated violations demonstrating the premises had become detrimental to public safety.

The Council’s findings were based upon the administrative standard applicable to license revocation proceedings—not proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.

What Happens Next?

Thursday’s vote does not necessarily represent the final chapter.

Businesses whose licenses are revoked generally have the ability to seek judicial review of municipal decisions.

Should an appeal be filed, a reviewing court would examine the administrative record developed during Thursday’s hearing, including:

witness testimony;
documentary exhibits;
procedural fairness;
legal standards applied;
whether substantial evidence supported the Council’s findings.

For that reason, the transcript of Thursday’s hearing may ultimately become as important as the vote itself.

A Landmark Franklin Proceeding

Regardless of whether additional litigation follows, Thursday’s hearing will likely stand as one of the most consequential liquor-license proceedings ever conducted before the Franklin Common Council.

Unlike many municipal license matters resolved through negotiated agreements or uncontested proceedings, this case produced a detailed evidentiary record spanning years of investigations, extensive police testimony, vigorous legal advocacy, and formal findings of fact.

Whether viewed as a necessary exercise of the City’s police powers or an aggressive use of municipal licensing authority, the proceedings established a comprehensive administrative record that is likely to shape any future judicial review.

For Franklin residents, Thursday’s decision marked not merely the revocation of licenses, but the conclusion of an extensive public hearing examining the responsibilities of licensed establishments, the role of law enforcement, and the authority of local government to protect public safety through its licensing powers.

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/

Thursday, July 16, 2026

ONE CITY. TWO LICENSE HEARINGS. ONE STANDARD.

As Franklin Considers the Future of On the Border, the City Must Apply the Same Principles of Due Process, Accountability, and Public Confidence

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Tonight, the Franklin Common Council will conduct one of the most consequential licensing proceedings in Franklin's recent history.

Unlike a zoning decision, development proposal, or routine legislative vote, the Common Council will act in a quasi-judicial capacity, hearing evidence and determining whether On the Border should retain the licenses necessary to continue operating its business. The City's complaint seeks suspension, revocation, or nonrenewal of the establishment's liquor, entertainment, and cigarette licenses based upon allegations developed during a multi-year Franklin Police Department investigation.

The allegations are serious.

So too is the Council's responsibility.

Tonight's hearing is about more than one business. It is about whether Franklin applies its licensing laws consistently, fairly, and in a manner that maintains public confidence.

A Standard Franklin Community News Has Always Supported

Franklin Community News has consistently maintained that liquor licenses are privileges—not rights.

When businesses fail to comply with the law or place public safety at risk, the City has both the authority and the responsibility to act.

Earlier this year, FCN supported the Common Council's decision to suspend the liquor license of the Irish Cottage Pub following allegations that alcohol served at the establishment contributed to a fatal drunk-driving crash. FCN believes the councils actions did not go far enough.

Following a public hearing, the Common Council voted 5-1 to impose a 30-day suspension of the Irish Cottage's liquor license.

At the time, FCN wrote that public safety demanded accountability and that Franklin officials should act decisively when licensed establishments fail to uphold their responsibilities.

That position has not changed.

If the evidence supports suspension or revocation of On the Border's licenses, the Common Council should act accordingly.

If the evidence does not support the City's complaint, the Council should reject it.

The outcome should be determined by the evidence—not by politics, personalities, or relationships.

Why Tonight's Hearing Is Different

The complaint against On the Border alleges far more than a single isolated incident.

According to the sworn complaint filed by the Franklin Police Department, the City alleges years of unlawful activity occurring at the business, including:

Prostitution;
Human trafficking;
Drug activity;
Employee misconduct;
Service of alcohol to intoxicated patrons; and
Operating a disorderly establishment.

The complaint further identifies approximately 91 police calls for service involving the establishment between 2018 and 2026.

Whether those allegations are ultimately sustained is precisely what tonight's hearing is intended to determine.

Who Owns On the Border?

According to the City's complaint, On the Border operates under H, B & H, LLC, which has owned and operated the Franklin establishment since approximately 1996.

Members of the Hay family have long been publicly associated with ownership of the business.

They have also participated in local politics through lawful campaign contributions.

Campaign Finance Records

Franklin Community News has reviewed official campaign finance reports documenting contributions made by members of the Hay family.

According to the Friends of John Nelson 2024 Campaign Finance Report:

Daniel Hay contributed $735.
Mary Hay contributed $735.

Both contributions were made to Mayor John Nelson's campaign committee.

More recently, according to Steve Taylor's Continuing Campaign Finance Report, filed on July 15, 2026:

Gerald Hay contributed $300 to Taylor's campaign for Milwaukee County Supervisor on March 26, 2026.

These contributions were lawful and publicly reported.

A Longtime Community Presence

The Hay family's involvement in Franklin extends beyond campaign contributions.

For many years, On the Border has been an annual sponsor of the Franklin Civic Celebration Fourth of July Festival, one of the City's largest community events.

Franklin Community News also previously reported that Mayor John Nelson's campaign signs were displayed outside On the Border during the 2026 mayoral election campaign.

These facts do not establish wrongdoing.

Nor do they suggest that any campaign contribution or community sponsorship improperly influenced any elected official.

They do, however, provide important context regarding the longstanding relationship between the business and the Franklin community.

Consistency Matters

The comparison between the Irish Cottage and On the Border is not intended to suggest the two cases are identical.

They are not.

The underlying allegations are very different.

The legal issues are different.

The factual records are different.

But one principle should remain constant.

Should The City should apply the same standards to every license holder?

If the Irish Cottage received a 30-day suspension following allegations connected to a fatal drunk-driving crash, residents may reasonably ask what sanction—if any—is appropriate if the allegations contained in the City's complaint against On the Border are ultimately proven.

Likewise, if the City fails to prove those allegations, the licenses should not be suspended or revoked simply because of the public attention surrounding the case.

The identity of the license holder should never determine the outcome.

The evidence should.

The Question of Public Confidence

Tonight's hearing differs from an ordinary Common Council meeting.

The Council is not acting as policymakers.

It is acting as the decision-maker in a proceeding that directly affects the legal rights of a specific license holder.

That distinction matters.

Campaign contributions are common in local elections.

Business owners regularly support candidates.

Elected officials routinely vote on issues affecting campaign contributors.

However, quasi-judicial proceedings demand a heightened commitment to impartiality.

Franklin Community News is not alleging that Mayor John Nelson, or any member of the Common Council, has acted improperly.

Nor is FCN suggesting that campaign contributions automatically require recusal under Wisconsin law.

Nevertheless, when elected officials are asked to determine the future of a business owned by individuals who have contributed to local political campaigns—and when that business has maintained longstanding relationships within the community through sponsorships and civic involvement—it is reasonable for residents to ask whether participation by those officials could affect public confidence in the fairness of the proceeding.

Whether recusal is appropriate is ultimately a question for each elected official to consider under applicable law and ethical standards.

The Bigger Picture

The issue before the Common Council tonight is not simply whether On the Border retains its licenses.

It is whether Franklin demonstrates that its licensing process is:

Fair.
Consistent.
Transparent.
Based solely upon the evidence presented.

Those principles protect everyone.

They protect businesses.

They protect the public.

And they protect the integrity of local government.

Regardless of tonight's outcome, Franklin residents deserve confidence that the decision was reached through a process that is as impartial as it is lawful.

Because in the end, the strength of local government is measured not only by the decisions it makes—but by the public's confidence in how those decisions are made.

Meeting Information

The Franklin Common Council will conduct the On the Border license hearing tonight, July 16, 2026, beginning at 6:30 p.m. at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road, Franklin. The agenda includes an opportunity for public comment for individuals who wish to address the Common Council before deliberations begin. Residents who are unable to attend in person may watch the proceedings live through the City of Franklin's YouTube livestream, allowing the public to follow one of the most significant licensing hearings in recent City history as it unfolds.

Editor's Note

The campaign contributions referenced in this article are taken from official campaign finance reports reviewed by Franklin Community News. The festival sponsorships referenced are based on publicly available sponsorship records. Franklin Community News is not alleging that any campaign contribution or sponsorship was unlawful or improperly influenced any official action. The allegations contained in the City's complaint against On the Border remain allegations unless and until they are sustained through the licensing proceeding or otherwise adjudicated.

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/

Wednesday, July 8, 2026

𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗔𝗛 𝗗𝗨𝗚𝗔𝗡 - 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗝𝗨𝗗𝗚𝗘 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗗𝗘𝗙𝗘𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗡𝗧

Former Milwaukee County Judge Receives $5,000 Fine in Federal Case; Wisconsin Appeal Continues in Case She Presided Over

By Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

"The interest of the community is that the Court gives orders... that the public understands that the Court will enforce injunction orders... For the confidence of the community that when the court says something, they mean it."

— Judge Hannah Dugan, November 22, 2024

Those were the words of then-Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan as she sentenced me to 75 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction, rejecting a joint recommendation from both the prosecution and defense that I receive probation. I ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit, but the conviction and sentence continue to be challenged through Wisconsin's appellate courts.

Today, Judge Dugan returned to court—not as the judge imposing sentence, but as the defendant.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sentenced Dugan to a $5,000 fine and imposed no prison sentence following her federal conviction. In explaining the sentence, Judge Adelman cited Dugan's decades of public service, lack of prior criminal history, and concluded that incarceration was unnecessary under the circumstances. News reports indicate the court viewed her conduct as a significant departure from an otherwise law-abiding life.

Although the two cases are legally unrelated, the juxtaposition is striking. One courtroom involved Judge Dugan explaining why incarceration was necessary to preserve respect for court orders. The other involved Judge Adelman concluding that a financial penalty—not incarceration—was the appropriate punishment for a former judge.

A Case That Is Still Active

My criminal conviction remains under review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in State of Wisconsin v. Richard Alan Busalacchi, Case No. 2026AP001341-CR.

The appeal challenges both my conviction and the sentence imposed by Judge Dugan.

In addition, my attorney, Kevin Scott, has confirmed that he intends to file a motion in Milwaukee County Circuit Court seeking to vacate the underlying harassment injunction and stay its enforcement pending further proceedings. That motion presents legal issues separate from those currently before the Court of Appeals.

Judge Dugan's Sentencing Philosophy

On November 22, 2024, Judge Hannah Dugan rejected a joint recommendation from both the prosecution and defense that Busalacchi receive probation.

Instead, she imposed a sentence of 75 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction.

Busalacchi ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit.

During sentencing, Judge Dugan repeatedly emphasized that the integrity of the judicial system depended upon enforcement of court orders.

She stated:

"The seriousness of the offense is that we have an injunction in place, and it's violated."

She continued:

"The public understands that the Court will enforce injunction orders... when the court says something, they mean it."

Judge Dugan also expressed concern that failing to enforce injunctions would undermine public confidence in the courts.

"We have too many people that don't get injunctions because they think they're not worth anything... that's not in the interest of the community."

Although the court acknowledged that I had no prior criminal record, decades of public service, significant volunteer experience, and a long employment history, Judge Dugan concluded that incarceration—not probation—was the appropriate sentence.

Two Sentencing Hearings

Nearly twenty months later, Judge Dugan appeared before a federal judge for sentencing in her own criminal case.

Judge Adelman imposed a $5,000 fine and no prison time. According to reports from the sentencing hearing, the court relied on several mitigating considerations, including Dugan's lifetime of public service and lack of criminal history.

Both sentencing hearings involved courts weighing punishment, deterrence, public confidence in the judicial system, and the personal history of the defendant.

The outcomes, however, were different.

Richard Busalacchi	Hannah Dugan
Judge: Hannah Dugan	Judge: Lynn Adelman
Sentence imposed: 75 days House of Correction	Sentence imposed: $5,000 fine
Time actually served: 35 days (good-time credit)	No incarceration
Joint recommendation: Probation (rejected)	Court imposed a non-custodial sentence
Appeal pending	Federal judgment entered

The Timeline

May 1, 2023

Fourteen days before the injunction hearing, Franklin Mayor John Nelson submitted a written request to the Greendale Police Department seeking police reports, CAD notes, booking photographs, and other records relating to me dating back to January 1, 2022. The request is dated May 1, 2023.

May 15, 2023

The harassment injunction was issued.

Subsequent Events

A verified John Doe petition later filed by Busalacchi alleges that the restraining-order process, criminal prosecution, and sentencing were influenced by a coordinated effort involving several public officials acting under color of law. The petition seeks appointment of a special prosecutor and a John Doe investigation. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.

July 2024

During a sworn deposition in a separate matter, Mayor Nelson acknowledged assisting in obtaining the underlying injunction and testified that he later contacted Milwaukee Area Technical College regarding Busalacchi's employment.

Nelson also acknowledged meeting with Busalacchi and arranging a meeting with the Franklin Police Chief. The parties dispute the purpose and significance of those discussions.

November 22, 2024

Judge Hannah Dugan imposed a 75-day House of Correction sentence after rejecting the parties' recommendation for probation. Busalacchi ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit.

Following the Sentencing

The John Doe materials include a contemporaneous text message in which the sender recounts that Franklin Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann allegedly stated that Steve Taylor had "worked it out (timed it with Chisholm) so Rich would be locked up over Christmas." The message is included among the materials supporting the John Doe petition. The allegations reflected in that message have not been adjudicated.

2026

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reopened Busalacchi's appeal.

Attorney Kevin Scott has confirmed that he intends to seek an order vacating the underlying injunction and staying its enforcement.

The verified John Doe petition remains pending.

The Public Debate Continues

As Judge Dugan awaited federal sentencing, discussion of Busalacchi's case continued publicly.

On July 7, 2026, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor posted on the Franklin WI Political Debate Facebook page referring to Busalacchi as a "convicted criminal who was a resident of MY county jail." Franklin Community News has preserved a screenshot of the post.

Taylor's statement came while Busalacchi's conviction remains on appeal and while additional legal proceedings challenging the underlying injunction are being prepared.

Taylor is among the public officials identified in Busalacchi's verified John Doe petition. Taylor has denied wrongdoing, and the allegations contained in the petition have not been adjudicated.

A Sworn Affidavit Raises Additional Questions

The verified John Doe petition is supported by multiple exhibits, including a sworn affidavit from an individual who describes conversations and observations involving public officials before and after the injunction proceedings. The affidavit was submitted to support the petition's request for a judicial investigation under Wis. Stat. § 968.26. The statements contained in the affidavit are allegations submitted in support of that request and have not been adjudicated.

According to the affidavit, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor allegedly discussed efforts related to the underlying injunction and subsequent criminal proceedings. The affidavit also alleges that Milwaukee County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent was present during certain conversations and describes statements concerning contacts with the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office and other public officials.

The affidavit further recounts an incident in which the affiant reports that Judge Hannah Dugan was asked by Vincent about the pending case and allegedly declined to discuss it because she was the presiding judge.

Those statements are among the materials supporting the pending John Doe petition, which asks a court to determine whether further investigation is warranted. No court has made findings regarding those allegations.

Sworn Deposition Testimony

Among the records now available is sworn deposition testimony given by Franklin Mayor John Nelson during a separate Waterford Police Department investigation.

During that testimony, Nelson acknowledged under oath that he assisted in obtaining the underlying harassment injunction.

When asked whether he helped obtain it, Nelson testified:

"I helped her obtain it against him."

Nelson also acknowledged contacting Milwaukee Area Technical College regarding Busalacchi's employment after receiving an email from Busalacchi's MATC account.

Later in the deposition, Nelson acknowledged meeting with Busalacchi and arranging a meeting with the Franklin Police Chief. The parties dispute the purpose and significance of those discussions.

The Questions That Remain

The issues surrounding my case have not been resolved.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals will determine the legal issues raised in my appeal.

The Circuit Court will ultimately determine the merits of Attorney Kevin Scott's anticipated motion to vacate the injunction and stay its enforcement.

Separately, the verified John Doe petition asks whether additional investigation is warranted into allegations that public officials misused governmental authority during the events leading to the injunction, prosecution, and sentencing. Those allegations remain unadjudicated.

Judge Hannah Dugan's federal conviction neither proves nor disproves those allegations, nor does it determine the outcome of my appeal.

What today's sentencing does provide is an opportunity to reflect on the principles Judge Dugan herself articulated from the bench.

When she sentenced me, she emphasized that public confidence in the courts depends upon accountability and respect for judicial orders.

Those same principles apply to everyone entrusted with the administration of justice.

A Reflection on Judicial Accountability

When Judge Dugan sentenced me, she emphasized that the community must have confidence that courts enforce their orders and that "when the court says something, they mean it."

Judge Adelman, sentencing Dugan in federal court, concluded that the purposes of sentencing were satisfied without imprisonment and imposed a financial penalty instead.

The two proceedings reached different outcomes, but both underscore an enduring principle:

Public confidence in the justice system depends on accountability, transparency, and the consistent application of the rule of law.

Editor's Note

Richard A. Busalacchi is the publisher of Franklin Community News and the defendant-appellant in Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case No. 2026AP001341-CR. His appeal remains pending. The allegations described in the verified John Doe petition are contained in a court filing seeking further investigation and have not been adjudicated by any court. Former Judge Hannah Dugan's federal criminal case is unrelated to Busalacchi's appeal, except that she presided over his criminal sentencing.

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/