Nelson, Taylor, Eichmann, Konstantakis, and Pyzyk: New Images Reveal Interconnected Political Web Across Four Cities

A web of political, judicial, and municipal connections emerges through public images spanning Franklin, South Milwaukee, Hales Corners, and Greenfield.

By Dr. Richard Busaalcchi- Franklin Community News

In November, Franklin Community News published an article detailing how an October 2024 Disorderly Conduct citation—issued minutes after a failed remand attempt—raised questions about political influence, evidence handling, and municipal case transfers.

The citation, which stemmed from a political blog article containing no threats or harassment, was originally filed in Franklin but later transferred to South Milwaukee Municipal Court due to conflicts involving Franklin’s elected officials.

At the November 20, 2025 hearing in South Milwaukee, an attorney from the law firm Wesolowski, Reidenbach & Sajdak (WRS) appeared without a formal appointment and acted as a prosecutor. WRS simultaneously represents Franklin, South Milwaukee, and Hales Corners—the three municipalities connected to the complaint, transfer, and adjudication of that citation.

The attorney who appeared as prosecutor, Roger Pyzyk, is also a sitting Greenfield Municipal Judge — a dual role that raises additional concerns about judicial neutrality when combined with his employment at the WRS law firm.

The unusual combination of a surprise prosecutor, undisclosed witnesses, missing defense motions, and a multi-municipal law firm raised broader questions about structural conflicts of interest within the interconnected local government network.

Franklin’s Use of a Special Prosecutor and the Legal Requirement for Council Approval

Public records, court statements, and municipal filings reviewed by Franklin Community News reveal that an attorney from the law firm Wesolowski, Reidenbach & Sajdak (WRS) appeared in South Milwaukee Municipal Court on November 20, 2025, identifying himself as a “special prosecutor” for the Disorderly Conduct citation originally issued by the Franklin Police Department.

No Public Record of Council Authorization

Under Wisconsin municipal governance law, a city cannot hire outside legal counsel—or commit taxpayer funds for professional services—without a vote of the Common Council. This authority is defined in:

• Wis. Stat. § 62.11(5) (Council authority over all expenditures and contracts)

• Wis. Stat. § 800.12 (Appointment of municipal prosecutors)

According to the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, which provides guidance to local governments:

“Neither the mayor nor the city attorney may retain special counsel without prior approval of the common council.”

Franklin Community News has not found any record of:

• A Council motion,

• A Council vote,

• A contract,

• A retainer,

• Or a public agenda item authorizing the City of Franklin to engage a special prosecutor for this citation.

Taxpayer Funds and Legal Representation

Special prosecutors—whether appointed formally or informally—are compensated through municipal funds.

If Franklin engaged WRS or any attorney to prosecute the citation, the cost would be borne by Franklin taxpayers, and such expenditures require:

1. Public budgeting or allocation, and

2. Explicit approval by the Common Council.

To date, Franklin Community News has not identified:

• A published budget line item for special prosecutorial services,

• An amendment authorizing expenditure,

• Or a Council-approved contract for outside prosecution.

Overlap With City Attorney’s Law Firm

The attorney who appeared as prosecutor is affiliated with WRS—the same firm that:

• Represents the City of Franklin,

• Represents the City of South Milwaukee,

• Represents the Village of Hales Corners,

• And employs a municipal judge who later appeared in the prosecution.

This overlap underscores the importance of formal Council review and approval, because a municipality’s legal counsel cannot unilaterally appoint outside attorneys without public authorization.

Why Council Approval Matters

Council approval is required to ensure:

• Transparency in municipal spending

• Public accountability for legal costs

• Compliance with state statutes

• Avoidance of conflicts of interest

• Proper oversight when legal authority is delegated

Without Council action, a special prosecutor would have no public authorization and no budgeted compensation, raising questions about:

• Who directed the engagement

• How services were funded

• And whether municipal authority was exceeded

Franklin Community News requested clarification from the City of Franklin and will publish updates as more information becomes available.

Today, Franklin Community News is publishing new information that expands those concerns:

a comprehensive photographic record—Exhibit A—that documents years of political, ceremonial, and social alignment among the very officials who intersected around the citation.

These images do not show wrongdoing on their own. But when viewed together, they illustrate an unusually tight network of political relationships among:

• Franklin Mayor John Nelson

• Franklin Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann

• Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor

• Franklin Municipal Judge Georgia Konstantakis

• Greenfield Municipal Judge Roger Pyzyk (also an attorney at WRS)

• Other municipal actors connected through shared events, endorsements, and swearing-in ceremonies

The public photographs, collected from open sources and community postings, raise legitimate questions about judicial neutrality, prosecutorial independence, and the appearance of fairness in Franklin-area municipal courts.

Exhibit A: A Visual Timeline of Political Alignment

EXHIBIT A Source: “Evidence Illustrating Appearance of Impropriety and Structural Conflict in Municipal Case Assignment” 

Franklin Community News examined the four-page image set and identified clear patterns:

1. Political Support and Campaign Participation

A March 2025 photo shows Mayor Nelson and Alderwoman Eichmann attending a campaign fundraiser for Georgia Konstantakis as she sought the Franklin Municipal Judge position.

Eichmann and Nelson at Konstantakis fundraiser at Root River Lanes on March 15, 2025

(Exhibit A, p.4) 

On the same page, Greenfield Municipal Judge Roger Pyzyk publicly endorses her election in a printed letter.

April 2, 2025 - Konstantakis election endorsement by Pyzyk

2. Mutual Elevation Through Swearing-In Ceremonies

Exhibit A captures a rapid sequence of back-to-back civic ceremonies:

(Exhibit A, p.5)

• Konstantakis swearing in Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor

April 15, 2025 - Milwaukee County Courthouse - Konstantakis swearing in Steve

Taylor as Milwaukee County Supervisor

• Judge Pyzyk swearing in Konstantakis as Franklin’s Municipal Judge

  (Exhibit A, p.5)

  

April 26, 2025 - Pyzyk installs Konstantakis as Franklin Municipal Judge

• Mayor Nelson speaking at Konstantakis’s installation ceremony

  

April 26, 2025 - Franklin City Hall, Nelson speaking at Konstantakis Swearing in

 Ceremony, Pyzyk in background swearing in Konstantakis

(Exhibit A, p.6)

• Taylor appearing at yet another installation event

  

April 26, 2025 - Taylor at Konstantakis swearing in ceremony

with2026 Aldermanic Candidate Daielle Kinney

(Exhibit A, p.4)

This pattern of reciprocal participation reinforces the political and civic closeness among the group.

3. Chamber of Commerce and Public Events

A new photograph from November 20, 2025, shows Nelson, Taylor, Eichmann, and Judge Konstantakis together at a South Suburban Chamber event at Blum Coffee.

November 20, 2025 - Taylor, Nelson, Eichmann and Konstantakis

At a South Suburban Chamber event at Blum Coffee.

(Exhibit A, p.4) 

The same individuals appear across campaign events, official ceremonies, and community gatherings.

Why These Political Relationships Matter Now

These images take on new significance in light of what occurred around the handling of the October 2024 Disorderly Conduct citation:

• The citation originated in Franklin (where these officials hold power).

• The case was transferred to South Milwaukee (a city represented by the same law firm).

• The presiding judge sits in Hales Corners (also represented by the same law firm).

• A Greenfield judge and WRS attorney appeared as prosecutor.

• The complainants were Franklin officials who appear throughout Exhibit A.

None of this demonstrates illegal conduct.

But from a governance and public-trust perspective, the structural overlap is undeniable:

• The same political network

• The same social circles

• The same municipal law firm

• The same local officials

The same judicial and prosecutorial figures all intersected around one municipal citation brought against a journalist who had criticized these officials publicly.

That level of interconnectedness, especially when viewed through the lens of Exhibit A, raises valid concerns about the appearance of impartiality—a standard required not only by ethics rules but by Wisconsin’s Judicial Code.

UPDATE - Judge’s Initiated Text Message Adds New Questions About Procedural Transparency

Shortly after the article was published, Franklin Municipal Judge Georgia Konstantakis contacted me directly by text message, stating that my reporting was “false” and demanding that her name be removed from the post. In response, I asked a single, neutral question regarding how the municipal citation had been transferred from Franklin Municipal Court to South Milwaukee Municipal Court — a question related solely to the judicial procedure required under Wisconsin Statutes and the Chief Judge’s administrative rules.

Judge Konstantakis declined to answer, stating that she “cannot discuss City of Franklin business,” even though the transfer of a recused municipal case is judicial business, not city business, and judges are routinely permitted to explain general court procedures. When asked again to describe the process used for transfer — not anything about the merits or specifics of the case — she refused and ended the conversation with:

“Stop texting me. You have no idea how the judicial system works.”

The significance is not the tone of the exchange, but what her refusal suggests:

• A judge may always explain general, non-case-specific procedure, including recusal and reassignment rules.

• Her characterization of judicial procedure as “City business” is incorrect under Wisconsin law.

• Her reluctance to explain even the basic statutory procedure for case transfer raises questions about whether proper transfer protocols were followed under Wis. Stat. § 800.05.

• Because she initiated the dialogue by challenging the accuracy of the reporting, her refusal to clarify a simple administrative question speaks directly to the transparency concerns raised in this article.

For these reasons, the matter has been formally referred to the Chief Judge of District 1 for administrative review and clarification.

What Franklin Residents Deserve

Local government cannot function on relationships alone—it must operate on public trust.

Even if no wrongdoing occurred, the appearance of conflicts can damage confidence in:

• Judicial fairness

• Prosecutorial neutrality

• Municipal independence

• The integrity of case transfers

• The legitimacy of municipal enforcement decisions

As Franklin Community News continues to investigate, Exhibit A provides a critical visual context for understanding how political networks shape the environment in which municipal cases are handled.

PUBLISHER’S EDITORIAL: The Greater Good Belongs to the People — Not the Inner Circle

By Richard A. Busalacchi

Publisher, Franklin Community News

When I started Franklin Community News, I never imagined I would one day become the subject of my own reporting. I never expected that writing about local government — or analyzing a political phrase like “for the greater good” — would result in police reports, municipal prosecutors, withheld documents, and elected officials appearing together in a courtroom over a blog post.

But here we are.

And after everything I’ve seen, everything I’ve documented, and everything that has unfolded in plain view, it’s time to speak honestly about what is happening in Franklin.

There is an inner circle in this city — a political orbit where the same officials attend fundraisers together, endorse each other, swear each other in, celebrate each other’s campaigns, and appear in the same courtroom when a critic becomes inconvenient.

The photos tell the story.

The filings tell the story.

The behavior tells the story.

This is not about one citation.

This is about a system.

A system where elected officials call police about political commentary.

A system where a police report can be withheld for eight months yet quietly circulated among political allies.

A system where a municipal judge from another city arrives unannounced to act as a “special prosecutor” — despite no Council approval, no contract, and no transparency.

A system where the same law firm represents every municipality involved in the complaint, the transfer, and the adjudication.

And a system where political power protects itself first and asks questions later.

Let me be direct:

A justice system that operates inside a political clique cannot claim impartiality.

A government that tries to criminalize criticism cannot claim legitimacy.

A network of officials who appear together in political events and court proceedings cannot claim independence.

If all of this can be set in motion because a journalist wrote something they didn’t like, what does that say about the health of local democracy?

If criticism becomes “disorderly conduct,” what happens to residents who don’t have a newspaper to defend them?

If the “inner circle” can coordinate responses across municipalities, judges, and prosecutors, who watches the watchers?

This isn’t just my problem.

It’s Franklin’s problem.

Because this is how communities lose their voice.

This is how power consolidates.

This is how truth becomes optional.

For the record: I did not ask for this fight.

But I am not walking away from it.

Not when the First Amendment is at stake.

Not when public records are withheld or selectively shared.

Not when a municipal citation is issued minutes after a failed remand attempt.

Not when judges, prosecutors, and elected officials all appear at the same events and inside the same courtroom in a case involving a critic.

Not when the “greater good” is being defined by the people who benefit from controlling it.

The real greater good is simple:

Transparency.

Accountability.

Independence.

The Constitution.

A justice system that belongs to the people, not to a network of insiders.

Franklin is better than this.

Franklin voters are smarter than this.

And Franklin residents deserve institutions that do not buckle the moment they are questioned.

The greater good has never belonged to the inner circle.

It belongs to the community.

And as long as I publish Franklin Community News, I will make sure the community is heard.

“The greater good isn’t a slogan — it’s a responsibility.  The truth is the foundation on which democracy stands.”

🕯️ 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.

© 2025 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Mayor Nelson’s $20,000 Glossy Mailer Claims $1.1 Billion Growth — Actual Math Shows $47 Million.

A Taxpayer-Funded, Election-Timed Mailer Filled With False Numbers — Released While Franklin Declared a Budget Crisis

by Dr. Richard Busalacchi – Franklin Community News

A glossy, professionally designed “Economic Development Update” mailed to every household in Franklin during the week of November 27 has raised serious concerns about spending, accuracy, transparency, and political intent.

The mailer was sent just four days before the December 1 opening of nomination papers for the mayoral election — and it is the first citywide economic-development mailing Franklin has issued in at least a decade.

A full FCN investigation confirms the following:

• The mailer and brochure likely cost $15,000–$20,000+ in taxpayer money.

• The numbers inside the brochure are mathematically incorrect and wildly inflated.

• Multiple projects featured were actually launched under former Mayor Steve Olson.

• The city’s Finance Committee simultaneously ordered all departments, including Police, Fire, and DPW, to prepare for 5% operating cuts due to a lack of funding.

• Despite this, the Mayor chose to spend scarce public money on a glossy, election-timed publication.

The contradictions — and the inaccuracies — demand deeper scrutiny.

The Real Cost: $15,000–$20,000+ in Taxpayer Funds

A single postcard mailed to every home in Franklin is expensive. When you add glossy printing, design, coordination, and staff labor, the numbers climb quickly.

A. Postage Cost (USPS EDDM): $3,985.34

Mailing 16,135 postcards to every address in ZIP 53132 costs nearly $4,000 in postage alone.

B. Printing & Mailing Preparation: $6,679.04

An industry-standard quote for a 6.25” × 9” glossy EDDM card includes:

• Printing: $1,327.07

• Mailing services (bundling, preparing USPS route trays, paperwork): $4,479.09

• Shipping: $872.88

Subtotal: $6,679.04

C. Staff Time: $3,000–$7,500

The 8-page brochure was:

• professionally designed,

• photo-heavy,

• curated,

• edited,

• attributed to the Mayor,

• reviewed by staff and department heads,

• and coordinated across multiple departments.

City staff time is taxpayer-funded labor.

A conservative estimate puts labor costs at $3,000–$7,500.

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $13,664.38–$18,164.38

Realistically:

➡ The true cost to taxpayers was likely $15,000–$20,000+.

All during a financial crisis.

Franklin Has Never Done This Before

Longtime officials and former administrators confirm:

Franklin has not mailed a citywide economic-development postcard in at least 10 years.

Former Mayor Steve Olson said that during his tenure:

• Economic updates were done through a State of the City presentation.

• A PowerPoint version of the presentation was posted on the city website and social media.

• No postcards were mailed.

• No printing contracts were issued.

• No paid design work was done.

• No postage was used.

• No glossy brochures were sent to homes.

Olson’s approach was simple, transparent, and low-cost.

Nelson’s approach is the opposite: expensive, glossy, unprecedented, election-timed.

The Brochure’s Headline Claim Is False — The Math Doesn’t Add Up

Page 2 of the brochure makes a bold claim:

Click on Image to View Brochure

“Adding $1.1B in Value in Two Years” – Assessed Value Growth 2022–24

Directly beneath that headline, the brochure lists the following increases:

• Residential: +$811,591

• Commercial: +$249,425

• Manufacturing: +$30,125,500

• Other Units: +$16,620,100

• Total: +$1,107,761.4

But adding these four categories produces this total:

811,591  

249,425  

30,125,500  

16,620,100  

--------------------

47,806,616(actual total) 

Claimed total: $1.1 billion

The claimed total is exaggerated by more than $1 billion — a 23-times inflation.

Even the “total” printed on the page — $1,107,761.4 — has no mathematical relationship to the component numbers.

This is not a typo.

This is the headline claim in a taxpayer-funded mailing.

And it is wrong.

4. Taking Credit for Projects Started Under Olson

Many of the developments highlighted as recent “wins” actually began years earlier under former Mayor Olson’s administration, including:

• Ballpark Commons expansions

• Yaskawa development

• Carma Labs growth

• Business Park expansions

• Industrial and manufacturing relocations

• RISE Commercial District groundwork

The brochure repackages multi-year projects as recent accomplishments under Nelson.

This is misleading at best — and dishonest at worst.

TID 10: The Brochure Admits Offering Modine $1.6 Million

The brochure states:

“The City of Franklin has offered $1.6 million in TIF to support the development.”

This refers to TID 10 (Modine) — and its inclusion in a campaign-style brochure raises questions about whether major financial commitments are being marketed for political benefit rather than presented transparently at public budget sessions.

Meanwhile, the Finance Committee Ordered 5% Cuts Across All Departments

On October 1, 2025, the Finance Committee voted to require every department, including:

• Police

• Fire

• Public Works (DPW)

to prepare 5% operating budget reductions, citing a “significant lack of funding operationally.”

While no specific positions were publicly identified for elimination, the directive clearly put public safety and essential services on the table.

Yet during this same period of claimed austerity, the Mayor approved an unprecedented, glossy, inaccurate taxpayer-funded publication costing tens of thousands.

This raises an unavoidable question:

**If the city can’t afford to support core services, how can it afford election-timed political marketing?**

Why Now? Why This? Why in an Election Year?

Citywide economic mailers have never been a Franklin practice.

This one appears only now — right before an election, at a moment of political vulnerability, and tied to deeply misleading economic claims.

The involvement and influence of Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor, long known for behind-the-scenes maneuvering in Franklin politics, heightens concerns about coordination, timing, and intent.

This publication walks like campaign literature, talks like campaign literature, and reads like campaign literature.

Except taxpayers paid for it.

Potential Violations of Wisconsin Campaign-Finance Law, Ethics Law, and Misuse of Office

The timing, content, and taxpayer-funded nature of the mailer raise significant legal concerns. Several Wisconsin statutes and ethics rules appear to be implicated by the creation, production, and distribution of this glossy, election-timed political-style mailing.

Even though Wisconsin law contains no formal deadline for releasing taxpayer-funded communications, timing alone can make a publication illegal if it appears intended to influence an election. The election-week timing of this mailer places it squarely in the range of prohibited political activity under Wis. Stat. § 11.1203.”

Below are the relevant laws and how this situation may violate them.

A. Wisconsin Statute § 11.1203(1) — Use of Public Funds for a “Political Purpose”

Wisconsin law is explicit:

“No person may use the funds of a state or local governmental unit to engage in activities for a political purpose.”

— Wis. Stat. § 11.1203(1)

Under § 11.0101(16), a “political purpose” includes actions intended to influence voting, including:

• Promoting an incumbent officeholder,

• Highlighting accomplishments for electoral benefit,

• Distributing communications timed to affect an election.

The Franklin mailer contains:

• A first-person promotional letter from the mayor,

• Photographs of himself at events,

• A list of “accomplishments,”

• A bold and inaccurate economic headline,

• Selective, overwhelmingly positive messaging,

• Timing four days before nomination papers opened,

• Taxpayer-funded production and distribution,

• The first and only citywide economic mailing in over a decade.

These elements collectively satisfy the definition of a political purpose, making the use of taxpayer funds a likely violation of § 11.1203.

B. Wisconsin Statute § 946.12 — Misconduct in Public Office

Wisconsin law criminalizes using public office for personal or campaign benefit.

Per Wis. Stat. § 946.12, a public officer commits misconduct if he:

• Exercises official functions in a way that he knows is improper,

• Uses public funds or resources to obtain a dishonest advantage,

• Engages in conduct that violates public trust,

• Acts in a manner that benefits himself at the expense of the public.

Approving, coordinating, and distributing a taxpayer-funded, election-timed, promotional mailer could fit squarely within these definitions — especially given:

• The false economic numbers,

• The inflated claims,

• The timing days before re-election paperwork,

• And the unprecedented nature of this mailer not used by any prior mayor.

Using public resources in this way can constitute an abuse of office for private political gain.

C. Wisconsin Ethics Commission Rules — Use of Government Resources for Campaigning

The Wisconsin Ethics Commission consistently warns local officials that government resources may not be used to influence an election.

This includes:

• Staff labor,

• City equipment,

• City facilities,

• Public communication channels,

• Graphic design services,

• Printing and postage funded by the government.

The commission specifically cites:

“Communications that highlight an elected official’s achievements near an election may constitute prohibited political activity if taxpayer resources were used.”

This is exactly the scenario Franklin now faces.

The brochure:

• Highlights achievements,

• Showcases the mayor personally,

• Is timed immediately before the election,

• Uses city staff,

• Uses city design resources (or hired contractors),

• Uses taxpayer-funded printing and postage,

• Presents false and misleading information,

• And had no precedent in at least 10 years of city governance.

This is a textbook example of prohibited government-funded political communication.

D. Wisconsin Statute § 19.45(2) — Code of Ethics for Local Officials

The state’s ethics code prohibits public officials from:

Using their office or public resources in a way that results in a private benefit not available to others.

A taxpayer-funded, glossy, promotional mailer containing personal political messaging — timed to influence the mayor’s re-election prospects — is a private electoral benefit paid for by the city’s taxpayers.

This raises clear ethics concerns under § 19.45(2).

E. Wisconsin Statute § 19.59 — Local Government Ethics

Local officials may not:

• Use city resources for campaign purposes,

• Grant themselves an advantage not enjoyed by other candidates,

• Use taxpayer money to promote themselves,

• Participate in official actions that substantially affect their personal political interests.

Approving and distributing a city-funded political-style promotional mailer violates both the spirit and letter of these ethics rules.

F. Pattern Consistent With Coordinated Political Influence

In light of long-standing concerns about Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor’s behind-the-scenes political involvement in Franklin affairs, this mailer raises additional questions about:

• Who directed or influenced its creation,

• Whether the timing was coordinated,

• Whether political insiders had a hand in crafting messaging,

• And whether public resources were misused under political pressure or strategy.

While further investigation is warranted, the pattern aligns with coordinated political advantage, not neutral public communication.

Legal Summary

Based on the publicly documented facts, the Franklin mailer raises strong and credible grounds for potential violation of:

✔ Wis. Stat. § 11.1203(1)

(Use of public funds for a political purpose)

✔ Wis. Stat. § 946.12

(Misconduct in public office)

✔ Wis. Stat. §§ 19.45(2) and 19.59

(Local government ethics and misuse of office)

✔ Wisconsin Ethics Commission campaign-activity prohibitions

(Prohibited use of government resources near elections)

✔ General principles of public trust and office integrity

Given the timing, the unprecedented nature of the mailer, the inaccurate economic claims, and the use of taxpayer resources, the conduct at issue is not merely questionable — it may be unlawful.

Conclusion: Franklin Deserves Leadership That Acts “For the Greater Good” — Not for Political Gain

Franklin residents have been told the city is in a financial crisis so severe that all departments — including critical emergency services — must find 5% cuts.

And yet, at this very moment, the Mayor invested $15,000–$20,000+ of public funds into a glossy, professionally designed, unprecedented mailer containing false numbers, credit-stealing, and selective messaging timed directly before the election.

That is not transparency.

That is not responsible leadership.

That is not public service.

It is political self-promotion paid for by the people of Franklin.

In a community that values integrity, honesty, and open government, residents have every right to demand:

• accurate reporting,

• transparent budgeting,

• independence from political influencers,

• and leadership that serves the public — not itself.

Franklin deserves leadership that tells the truth, uses resources responsibly, and acts with integrity.

Franklin deserves leadership that works for the greater good — not for political advantage.

🕯️ 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.

© 2025 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.