Complaint Ties Multiple Citations, Police Action, and Council Agenda to Critics of Mayor Nelson

A Fire & Police Commission filing and public records raise questions about selective enforcement, taxpayer cost, and a new City Council action targeting Franklin Community News.

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

FRANKLIN, Wis. — A formal complaint filed with the Franklin Fire & Police Commission is now tying together a series of municipal actions that include multiple disorderly conduct citations issued to different Franklin residents after criticism of Mayor John Nelson, significant taxpayer-funded legal costs, and a newly proposed City Council action targeting a local news publisher.

The complaint, filed January 31, 2026, follows earlier reporting by Franklin Community News documenting that at least four Franklin residents were cited under municipal disorderly conduct or related ordinances after publicly criticizing Mayor Nelson or City leadership, while elected officials who criticized residents or disparaged critics did not face comparable enforcement.

The filing consolidates police reports, prosecutorial correspondence, public records, and prior reporting to request Fire & Police Commission review of whether enforcement and investigative decisions were applied neutrally or influenced by political considerations.

Multiple Residents Cited After Criticism of Mayor

As previously reported by Franklin Community News, municipal disorderly conduct citations
were issued in separate incidents involving multiple residents, including Richard Busalacchi, Doug Malinovich, Bob Swendrowski, and Marcus Christi, each following public criticism of Mayor John Nelson or City leadership.

The cited conduct varied in form—ranging from social media posts and voicemails to written or public commentary—but shared a common feature: political speech critical of elected officials. In multiple cases, police initially documented no direct threat or criminal conduct before enforcement actions were pursued.

By contrast, elected officials who publicly criticized residents, questioned their motives, or characterized critics in public forums did not face comparable municipal enforcement.

The Fire & Police Commission complaint incorporates these examples as evidence of a broader pattern, arguing that enforcement decisions appear correlated with who was being criticized, rather than an objective assessment of public safety concerns.

Sidebar: Municipal Citations Following Criticism of Mayor Nelson

Municipal Enforcement Actions Referenced in Complaint and Prior Reporting

• Richard Busalacchi — October 2024

  Citation: Municipal Disorderly Conduct (§183.49)

  Context: Social media post critical of Mayor and City officials; police initially found no threat.

• Doug Malinovich — 2024

  Citation: Municipal Disorderly Conduct

  Context: Public or written political criticism of City leadership.

• Bob Swendrowski — 2024–2025

  Citation: Municipal Disorderly Conduct or related ordinance

  Context: Voicemail or written criticism directed at City officials.

• Marcus Christi — 2025

  Citation: Municipal Disorderly Conduct

  Context: Public commentary critical of Mayor Nelson or City governance.

Source: Municipal citation records and Franklin Community News reporting.

From Pattern Reporting to Formal Oversight Complaint

The Fire & Police Commission complaint does not ask the Commission to adjudicate criminal guilt or civil liability. Instead, it requests review of whether Franklin Police Department personnel complied with obligations of independence, neutrality, consistency, transparency, and public trust.

According to the filing, police engagement involving the complainant escalated after public criticism of elected officials, despite officers initially documenting no direct threat or criminal conduct.

Early Police Engagement After Mayoral Identification

The complaint cites video evidence from February 22, 2024, showing Mayor Nelson identifying one of the cited residents to a police officer inside City Hall before a Common Council meeting. Within minutes, the officer approached the resident and cautioned him about his remarks, despite no disruption having occurred and before any public comment was made.

After the meeting, the resident attempted to file a harassment complaint with the Franklin Police Department but was told the department would not accept a complaint from him.

Escalation After Officers Found No Threat

Police reports from October 13, 2024 document that officers initially acknowledged protected speech, identified no direct threat, and treated a complaint as advisory rather than criminal. One elected official initially declined to be listed as a victim.

According to supplemental police narratives, enforcement escalated only after Mayor Nelson contacted officers and is quoted as suggesting pursuit of disorderly conduct and bail jumping charges. Following that communication, elected officials who had initially declined victim status agreed to be listed, despite continued acknowledgment that no threats existed.

Prosecutorial Declination, Then Municipal Enforcement

The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office declined to issue criminal charges related to the October 2024 incident. Despite that declination, a municipal disorderly conduct citation was later issued.

A victim impact statement seeking punishment was submitted before any municipal citation existed, and the citation itself was issued after a court hearing, raising concerns about foreknowledge and predetermination of enforcement.

Taxpayer Costs Far Exceed Forfeiture Amounts

Earlier reporting documented that the City of Franklin devoted thousands of taxpayer dollars to pursue a single $376 municipal forfeiture. Open records showed more than $1,500 in attorney billing alone, excluding police labor and administrative costs.

The Fire & Police Commission complaint references these records to argue that similar public resources were expended across multiple enforcement actions arising from political speech rather than documented public safety threats.

Selective Investigation and Monitoring

The complaint raises concerns about investigative practices by Detective Brian Zalewski, including monitoring recorded jail phone calls and communicating information derived from those calls to prosecuting authorities despite no resulting charges.

At the same time, allegations involving elected officials were declined or not investigated. The complaint characterizes this disparity as evidence of selective or pretextual investigative conduct.

Timeline: Four Residents, Four Citations

2024–2025: Municipal Enforcement Following Public Criticism

• February–April 2024

  Franklin Community News publishes reporting critical of Mayor Nelson and police conduct.

• Mid-2024

  Doug Malinovich cited for municipal disorderly conduct following political criticism.

• Late-2024

  Richard Busalacchi cited after social media criticism; police initially found no threat.

• 2024–2025

  Bob Swendrowski cited following critical voicemail or written communications.

• 2025

  Marcus Christi cited under municipal disorderly conduct ordinance after public commentary.

• January 31, 2026

  Formal Fire & Police Commission complaint filed alleging selective enforcement and political influence.

Source: Municipal records and Franklin Community News reporting.

Council Agenda Targets Publisher After Critical Reporting

As the complaint was filed, the Franklin Common Council also scheduled an agenda item authorizing Mayor Nelson to issue a cease-and-desist order against the publisher of Franklin Community News for alleged “unlicensed use” of the City’s trademark.

In a written objection requested for inclusion in the public record, the publisher disputes the factual and legal basis for the claim, stating that FCNewsWI uses a distinct logo and explicitly identifies itself as Franklin’s “OFFICIAL UNOFFICIAL” news source. The objection argues that trademark law may not be used as a pretext to suppress unfavorable political reporting and raises First Amendment concerns.

Awaiting Commission Action

The Fire & Police Commission has not publicly indicated whether it will open a formal investigation. The complaint asks the Commission to review enforcement decisions, investigative practices, records handling, and whether corrective action, policy changes, or discipline are warranted.

Editorial: When Power Can’t Handle Criticism, Democracy Suffers

Franklin Community News exists for a simple reason: to report on the actions of those in power when others won’t.

That purpose is now under direct attack.

Over the past two years, a troubling and increasingly clear pattern has emerged in Franklin. Residents who publicly criticize Mayor John Nelson or City leadership find themselves subjected to police engagement, municipal citations, costly enforcement actions, and now — most alarmingly — a proposed City Council action aimed directly at the publisher of this news outlet.

This is not coincidence. It is retaliation dressed up as governance.

Policing Critics Instead of Protecting the Public

As documented in police reports, court records, public records, and now a formal complaint filed with the Franklin Fire & Police Commission, multiple Franklin residents have received municipal disorderly conduct citations after criticizing the Mayor or City leadership.

In several of these cases, police initially documented no direct threat, acknowledged the speech as protected, and treated the interaction as advisory rather than criminal. Enforcement escalated only after political intervention. Prosecutors declined criminal charges. Yet municipal citations were pursued anyway — at taxpayer expense.

This is not public safety. This is selective enforcement.

When elected officials who publicly disparage residents face no enforcement at all, while critics are cited, the issue is no longer about conduct. It is about who is speaking — and who they are speaking about.

The Cost of Retaliation Falls on Taxpayers

One of those municipal citations resulted in a $376 forfeiture. Open records show that the City spent thousands of taxpayer dollars in attorney time alone to pursue it, not including police labor, administrative costs, or prosecutorial involvement.

That is not fiscal responsibility. That is punishment by process.

And it has happened more than once.

Now the Target Is the Press

The latest escalation is perhaps the most troubling. The Franklin Common Council is being asked to authorize Mayor Nelson to issue a cease-and-desist order against Franklin Community News for alleged “unlicensed use” of a City trademark.

The problem? FCN does not use the City of Franklin’s trademark.

Its logo is distinct. Its branding is clear. It openly identifies itself as Franklin’s “OFFICIAL UNOFFICIAL” news source — a transparent, satirical phrase that no reasonable reader could confuse with an official City publication.

What this agenda item actually accomplishes is something else entirely: it places the power of municipal enforcement directly in the hands of the same official whose conduct has been the subject of sustained, documented criticism.

That is not trademark enforcement. That is intimidation.

Harassment Is Not Leadership

Mayor John Nelson is free to disagree with reporting. He is free to criticize it. He is free to defend his record publicly.

What he is not free to do is use the machinery of government to punish critics — whether those critics are private residents or a local news publisher.

When police resources, prosecutorial referrals, municipal citations, and now civil enforcement tools are deployed against dissent, the line between governance and harassment has been crossed.

Why This Matters to Everyone

This is not just about Franklin Community News.

It is about whether residents can criticize their government without fear of retaliation.

It is about whether police departments remain independent from political pressure.

It is about whether taxpayer dollars are spent to protect public safety — or to silence dissent.

And it is about whether local journalism is allowed to do its job without being targeted by the very officials it covers.

A Direct Call to Action

The Franklin Fire & Police Commission must act.

The Commission should open a formal investigation, review the full record, and determine whether political influence, selective enforcement, or retaliatory investigative practices undermined the independence and integrity of the Franklin Police Department. Silence or delay would signal that oversight exists in name only.

The Franklin Common Council must also act — and immediately.

The Council is scheduled to meet Tuesday, February 3, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. at Franklin City Hall. Council members should reject any agenda item that authorizes enforcement action against a news publisher based on unsupported claims and should refuse to place municipal power in service of silencing criticism. Disagreement with reporting is not a legal basis for retaliation.

Residents should attend, observe, and speak. This is not an abstract policy debate — it is a test of whether Franklin’s elected officials will defend constitutional principles or enable their erosion.

Finally, Mayor Nelson should reconsider the path he is choosing.

Leadership demands restraint, accountability, and respect for constitutional limits. Using government authority to pursue critics — whether through police action, municipal prosecution, or civil enforcement — erodes public trust and invites greater scrutiny, not less.

Democracy does not fail all at once. It erodes when criticism is punished, when power resists accountability, and when intimidation replaces transparency.

Tuesday’s meeting matters.

Franklin still has a choice.

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/

After Criticism of Mayor Nelson, Four Franklin Residents Face Disorderly Conduct Citations

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Several Franklin residents (four) who publicly criticized Mayor John Nelson or other city officials were later cited or charged under municipal ordinances, raising questions about how Disorderly Conduct and related laws are being applied to political speech in the City of Franklin.

Court records, police reports, sworn testimony, public statements, investigative media reporting, and municipal billing records reviewed by Franklin Community News show a pattern in which residents who engaged in political criticism—often online—were cited for municipal offenses, while similar or more direct statements by elected officials and their allies did not result in enforcement.

For background on the initial case involving a $376 citation and the broader concerns around speech and enforcement, see “A $376 Ticket, Thousands in Taxpayer Legal Fees, and How Franklin Prosecuted Political Speech” .

Disorderly Conduct Citation Issued After Facebook Comment

Franklin resident Douglas Milinovich received a municipal Disorderly Conduct citation following a Facebook comment he posted while at home and ill, responding to a Franklin Community News article published on January 17 titled “A $376 Ticket, Thousands in Taxpayer Legal Fees, and How Franklin Prosecuted Political Speech.”

In the comment, Milinovich praised the article and directed profane criticism at elected officials, writing that he was “coming hard” for Supervisor Steve Taylor and Alderperson Michelle Eichmann, and stating, “I have people doing work for me” and “the author isn’t always the one who wrote the story.” The post did not contain an explicit threat .

According to Milinovich, Franklin police later went to his residence and issued the municipal Disorderly Conduct citation while he was ill in bed.

On January 28, Milinovich posted a video on Facebook from what appeared to be a hospital room, addressing members of a local community page. In the video, he discussed serious illness, warned viewers about flu-related complications, and referenced his recent Disorderly Conduct citation. Milinovich attributed the charge to what he described as his criticism of Mayor Nelson and other city officials. The video included emotional and profane language directed at several individuals.

In comments responding to the video, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve F. Taylor wrote that he had “zero contact with Franklin PD in more than a year” and that the matter “had nothing to do with” him. Taylor did not elaborate further. His statement contrasts with sworn testimony and records in other municipal cases describing involvement by city officials following public criticism.

Voicemail to Mayor Leads to Charge

Another Franklin resident, Bob Swendrowski, was charged in December 2024 with unlawful use of electronic communication following two voicemail messages left for Mayor John Nelson, according to court records.

In the two messages, Swendrowski criticized the Mayor’s conduct in office and stated that he believed Nelson should resign. He also referenced his intent to pursue public records requests related to the Mayor’s prior public employment and other matters involving the Mayor. The voicemails did not contain threats of violence.

Statements made by Swendrowski indicate that a complaint was also submitted by Danielle Kenney, a Franklin resident and current candidate for alderperson, who previously ran unsuccessfully for office against Milwaukee County Supervisor Patti Logsdon.

(Updated January 30 - 4:30pm)

The following email was received at 10:30pm January 29 from Danielle Kenney:

"I did not file disorderly conduct charges against Bob Swendrowski or anyone else.

I filed a police report as a victim after a threatening message was left in my mailbox with no contact information or postage. Law enforcement handled the matter and no suspect was identified. I believe they did ask him about it due to messages he left on my voicemail months prior. He denied doing it. Nothing ever came of it and no charges or complaints were filed against him or anyone else. They simply spoke to him. 

That is the full extent of my involvement. Please let the public record reflect the actual facts."  

Respectfully, 

   Danelle Kenney

The charging paperwork was processed by the Franklin Police Department, with the citation handled by Captain Ireland, according to municipal records.

The case was transferred to the City of Oak Creek and resolved in municipal court. Swendrowski entered a no-contest plea and paid a fine. Additional records related to the charging decision, inter-municipal handling of the case, and related correspondence are pending through open records requests.

In the voicemail, Swendrowski also referenced his intent to pursue records concerning matters that have previously been the subject of investigative reporting by TMJ4 News, including allegations documented in Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office internal records concerning Mayor Nelson’s prior law enforcement employment. Franklin Community News does not independently verify those allegations.

Charges and Speech Restriction in Christie Case

A third resident, Marcus Christie, faced multiple municipal charges following criticism of Mayor Nelson and city officials, including a Disorderly Conduct citation and an unlawful use of telephone charge.

According to court records and written stipulations obtained through public records requests, the resolution of Christie’s case included an agreement that he would refrain from public commentary for a defined period of time. As part of the resolution, Christie was also required to submit a written apology letter addressed to Mayor Nelson. Records reflect that draft letters proposed by Christie were rejected and that the final version of the letter was authored by the Mayor and provided to Christie for submission as part of the stipulation.  According to open records obtained by FCN the apology letter shown below, was written by Nelson for Christie to sign.  The "Revised Letter" was sent from Franklin Assistant City Attorney Ed Borda on December 15, 2025.

Christie has said he believed the charges were related to his criticism of city leadership. The case was resolved without a trial.

Officials’ Speech and “Safety” Rhetoric Not Subject to Citations

In contrast, several elected officials have made public statements about critics without receiving Disorderly Conduct citations.

Mayor John Nelson has posted comments on Facebook identifying critics by name and date of birth and publishing booking photographs, accompanied by derogatory character judgments. Supervisor Taylor has publicly referenced incarceration, mental health evaluations, and predicted future speech activity of critics. Alderperson Michelle Eichmann stated during a Franklin Common Council meeting that critics could not be pursued for slander but that “other ways” were being explored, in reference to Franklin Community News and its author.

In recent social media discussions, criticism of city leadership has also been framed as a safety concern by current and former officials and their supporters. In one Facebook exchange, former Franklin alderperson Kristen Wilhelm, a public supporter of Mayor Nelson and Alderperson Eichmann, characterized a group of critics as creating “false narratives.” Alderperson Michelle Eichmann responded that in the current political climate, “one can never feel too safe.” Other commenters echoed that framing, describing critics as “trolls” or suggesting that public criticism itself harms the community. No enforcement action followed those statements.

Feeling Unsafe, Public Opinion, and Protected Speech

Courts have recognized that political speech may be uncomfortable, offensive, or upsetting, particularly when directed at elected officials. However, enforcement standards for Disorderly Conduct traditionally distinguish between subjective fear or offense and speech that presents an objective threat, violence, or genuine public safety risk.

The cases reviewed by Franklin Community News raise questions about how that distinction is being applied when criticism of public officials is involved.

Questions Raised About Law Enforcement Independence

Beyond individual cases, records and sworn testimony raise broader questions about the role of elected officials in law enforcement decisions involving political critics.

In one municipal case, a Franklin police officer testified that a Disorderly Conduct citation was issued after the District Attorney declined to pursue state charges and that the citation was issued at the direction of department leadership. Police records also reflect that after an initial determination that no crime had occurred, elected officials met with officers and urged enforcement action.

Public billing records show that legal costs devoted to the matter—including internal review, communications, and prosecution—amounted to thousands of dollars, far exceeding the $376 forfeiture imposed.

Collectively, these circumstances have led some residents to question whether law enforcement decisions are being influenced by political considerations rather than applied consistently based on public safety concerns.

Billing records obtained through open records requests show that Franklin attorney time alone associated with these municipal enforcement matters totaled at least $1,700 to $2,000, based on conservative calculations using documented hourly entries billed at $85 per hour. That figure reflects Franklin residents’ tax dollars spent on one attorney’s tracked time and does not include time billed by Special Prosecutor Roger Pyzyk, police labor, court staff time, or legal work performed under municipal retainers or flat-fee arrangements. The full taxpayer cost associated with these municipal citations is therefore substantially higher than the documented minimum.

Formal Request for Review Sent to Police Chief

On January 25, Franklin Community News publisher Richard Busalacchi submitted a formal written request to Franklin Police Chief Craig Liermann seeking re-review and consistent application of the city’s municipal Disorderly Conduct standard.

The seven-page letter cited recent enforcement actions against residents for online political speech, referenced sworn testimony from a municipal case, and requested review of prior police reports and CAD entries involving complaints that were not acted upon. A copy of the letter was also provided to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office Public Integrity Unit.

On January 29, Franklin Police Chief Craig Liermann responded in writing, stating that the department would not re-review any complaints or information previously submitted and would not accept resubmission of materials related to prior complaints or reports.

The response did not address the substance of the enforcement standards raised in the request.

With internal review declined and multiple open records requests still pending, questions surrounding the application of Franklin’s Disorderly Conduct standard remain unanswered. As additional records are released and related cases proceed, Franklin Community News will continue to examine how political speech is addressed by law enforcement and whether enforcement decisions reflect consistent, viewpoint-neutral standards.

In April, Franklin Voters Will Decide What Kind of Speech Their City Protects

Editorial | Franklin Community News

January 29

In April, Franklin voters will make a decision that reaches beyond personalities, beyond politics, and beyond any single election. They will decide what kind of city Franklin will be when it comes to free speech, public accountability, and the role of government power in responding to criticism.

The recent record documented by Franklin Community News raises serious concerns about how political speech has been treated in Franklin—particularly when that speech is critical of Mayor John Nelson and his allies.

Multiple residents who criticized the Mayor or sought public records were met not with rebuttal or transparency, but with police involvement, municipal citations, and prolonged legal exposure. In several cases, law enforcement action followed speech that contained no threats, no calls to violence, and no public safety risk. In at least one instance, enforcement occurred after the District Attorney declined to pursue charges.

At the same time, elected officials and their supporters have engaged in public rhetoric that is aggressive, personal, and dismissive of critics—without facing similar scrutiny or enforcement.

That disparity should concern every voter, regardless of political affiliation.

Free Speech Is Not a Courtesy Granted by Those in Power

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech that those in power find uncomfortable, inconvenient, or offensive. It does not exist to shield public officials from criticism, nor does it allow government actors to decide which voices are acceptable and which should be silenced through enforcement.

When police power is repeatedly brought to bear against residents following criticism of elected officials—while similar speech by officials themselves goes untouched—the effect is chilling. Residents learn that speaking out may come at a cost. That is not how democracy functions, and it is not what municipal law enforcement is meant to do.

No mayor needs to issue a written order to suppress speech. When enforcement follows criticism rather than threats, the suppression occurs through practice, not paperwork.

Accountability Is Not Harassment

Public records requests, criticism of elected officials, and calls for resignation are not harassment. They are fundamental tools of civic participation. Attempts to reframe those activities as disorderly or unsafe do not strengthen public safety; they weaken public trust.

Franklin residents deserve leadership that responds to criticism with transparency and explanation—not with police citations, legal maneuvering, or refusal to revisit enforcement decisions when serious questions are raised.

April Is About More Than One Office

This election is not simply about whether Mayor Nelson should continue in office. It is about whether Franklin’s voters accept a model of governance in which criticism is treated as a problem to be managed rather than a right to be respected.

Voters should ask themselves:

• Should residents fear legal consequences for criticizing elected officials?

• Should public resources be used to pursue speech-based enforcement while officials’ own conduct goes unexamined?

• Should law enforcement be insulated from political disputes—or drawn into them?

These are not abstract questions. They are now part of Franklin’s public record.

The Choice Belongs to the Voters

Franklin’s institutions will ultimately reflect the values its voters endorse. In April, residents will have the opportunity to affirm that free speech, accountability, and viewpoint neutrality still matter in local government—or to accept a status quo that has raised serious and unresolved concerns.

Democracy does not require agreement. It requires the freedom to disagree without fear.

In April, Franklin voters will decide whether that freedom remains protected.

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/

Franklin Can Act on High View Street — Mayor Nelson May Soon Have to Explain Why He Won’t

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi, Franklin Community News

Nearly 100 Franklin residents have formally asked the City of Franklin to vacate a short, dead-end portion of High View Street. City officials have so far declined to act, citing the fact that the Franklin Public School District did not sign the petition as an abutting landowner.

That explanation is incomplete — legally, factually, and politically — and it ignores what voters actually approved.

What Voters Approved — According to the Referendum Resolution

On June 19, 2024, the Franklin Public School District Board adopted a resolution placing a $145 million general obligation bond referendum on the November 5, 2024 ballot. The resolution authorized borrowing for a defined list of purposes, including capital maintenance, ADA compliance, safety and security upgrades, and additions and renovations at Franklin High School such as a field house, pool, tennis courts, and related site improvements.

Notably, the resolution — and the ballot question presented to voters — does not mention converting High View Street into a throughway, opening neighborhood streets to expanded traffic, or altering existing residential access patterns.

Voters were also given detailed tax assurances. The District emphasized that the bonds would be issued over 20 years, based on projections prepared with Ehlers, Inc., assuming an average 5% interest rate, with an expected mill rate increase of approximately $0.82. The District highlighted its history of defeasing debt and encouraged homeowners to calculate their individual tax impacts.

Voters agreed to long-term tax obligations based on those representations — and on the scope of impacts described.

What Changed After the Vote

After the referendum passed, updated site plans advanced by the School District now seek to use High View Street as a through street, fundamentally changing traffic patterns near Franklin High School and adjacent homes.

For nearby residents, this is not a minor adjustment. A quiet dead-end street would become a cut-through tied to school traffic and events — an impact never disclosed to voters during the referendum campaign.

That change is what triggered the neighborhood response.

99 Neighbors Have Asked the City to Step In

In response, 99 residents living on High View Street, South 47th Street, West Forest Hill Avenue, West Valley Drive, and surrounding blocks signed a formal petition asking the City to vacate the eastern portion of High View Street and prevent its conversion into a throughway.

They are not opposing the referendum project.

They are objecting to a post-vote expansion of impacts that voters never approved.

They are asking for process: a resolution, a public hearing, and a vote.

What Residents Said at the January 20 Common Council Meeting

Those concerns were brought directly to City Hall.

At the January 20, 2026 Franklin Common Council meeting, multiple residents spoke
during public comment about the proposed use of High View Drive as a through street tied to the high school expansion.

Speakers cited Wisconsin Statute § 66.1003, emphasizing that while a petition signed by property owners is one way to initiate a street vacation, the statute does not give any single landowner veto power over whether the Common Council may consider the issue. Residents warned that High View Drive was designed and used as limited emergency access, not as a regular traffic route, and that converting it into a throughway would increase congestion and create new safety risks.

Several residents noted that no traffic study had been conducted, despite existing unsafe conditions already occurring during school drop-off and pick-up on nearby streets such as Forest Hill Avenue. Parents of young children expressed concern that opening High View Drive and 47th Street would replicate or worsen those conditions in another residential area.

Residents asked the Council to place the matter on a future agenda, hold a public hearing, and evaluate whether vacating the street would better serve the City’s long-term safety and planning interests.

What the Law Actually Requires — and What It Does Not

Wisconsin law does require that a street-vacation petition initiated under Wis. Stat. § 66.1003(2) be signed by all abutting landowners in order to proceed on that petition alone.

But the statute does not stop there.

Section 66.1003(4) expressly provides an alternative path. Notwithstanding the petition requirements, the Common Council may initiate a street vacation on its own motion by adopting a resolution and holding a public hearing if it determines the public interest requires it.

In other words, the absence of unanimous signatures limits one procedural path — it does not strip the Council of its authority to act, and it does not prevent the issue from being considered by elected officials.

Treating the petition defect as a barrier to agenda placement is a policy choice, not a statutory mandate.

What the Courts Say

Wisconsin courts treat street vacations as a legislative decision, granting common councils broad discretion to determine whether a street continues to serve a public purpose.

Courts have long held that no landowner has a vested right in the continued existence of a public street. In Nick v. State Highway Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court made clear that public roads may be altered or vacated when the governing body determines the public interest no longer requires them, even if an adjoining landowner objects.

When such decisions are challenged, courts review them on certiorari, a highly deferential standard. In State ex rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, the court held that judicial review is limited to whether the municipality acted within its jurisdiction, followed the law, and had a rational basis for its decision — not whether the court agrees with the policy outcome.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Ottman v. Town of Primrose, emphasizing that courts do not substitute their judgment for that of elected officials unless the action is arbitrary or exceeds statutory authority.

Taken together, these cases establish a clear rule:

If a common council adopts a resolution, provides proper notice, holds a public hearing, and votes on the record, courts will generally defer to that decision.

An Active Lawsuit Raises the Stakes

This dispute is unfolding alongside an active lawsuit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

On October 1, 2025, Franklin Public Schools and Franklin High School filed Case No. 2025CV008557 against the City of Franklin Common Council and the City of Franklin Plan Commission, seeking a writ of certiorari challenging conditions imposed on the high school expansion.

While the School District is aggressively asserting its interests in court, the City is declining to even hold a hearing requested by residents — despite having clear statutory authority to do so.

Mayor Nelson’s Position — and the Election Clock

Mayor John Nelson has publicly supported the Franklin Public Schools referendum project and has acknowledged that the lawsuit “divides the community.”

That support now places him squarely at the center of this issue.

With a Franklin mayoral election approaching, the question is no longer whether the City can act on High View Street.

It is whether the Mayor and Common Council are willing to risk alienating 99 organized, engaged, tax-paying residents by refusing even to hold a hearing — while backing a post-referendum change that voters never authorized.

Holding a hearing would not undermine the referendum.

It would not decide the lawsuit.

It would simply honor transparency, process, and accountability.

Franklin residents accepted the tax impact they were promised.

They did not consent to neighborhood streets being rewritten after the fact.

The authority to act exists.

The record is clear.

What remains is a decision — and voters will remember it.

Editorial - Franklin Leadership Can’t Have It Both Ways — Mayor Nelson Can’t Afford to Lose 99 Voters

Franklin is at a crossroads. Our community overwhelmingly voted in favor of a $145 million referendum to invest in our schools, trusting that project plans and impacts would match what was presented at the ballot box. 

But in the months since, plans have shifted — and not in small ways. Updated designs now include an extension of High View Drive into a neighborhood street rather than the limited emergency access shown originally. 

Now nearly 100 residents who signed a petition asking the City to vacate a portion of High View Drive — not in opposition to the school project, but out of concern for their safety, traffic impacts, and neighborhood character — are being told their voices don’t count because the School District didn’t sign the petition. That’s not how democracy is supposed to work.

Mayor John Nelson has publicly supported the referendum project. That support is understandable — Franklin Public Schools are a critical asset to our community and deserve investment. But if that support becomes an excuse to avoid addressing neighborhood concerns, it undermines trust in local government.

Even more concerning is the Mayor’s habit of trying to have it both ways: on one hand, aligning with the District and its lawsuit against the City over post-referendum conditions; on the other, suggesting there’s nothing the City can do about the petition because it lacks a specific signature. But Wisconsin law offers an alternative: under Wis. Stat. § 66.1003(4), a common council may initiate the discontinuance of a public way on its own motion by resolution and public hearing, regardless of petition signatures. 

In other words:

The absence of all abutting signatures limits one procedural path, but it does not strip the Common Council of its authority to act.

Residents rightly raised this at the January 20, 2026 Common Council meeting. Multiple neighbors spoke, on the record, about safety concerns, the lack of traffic analysis, and the statutory framework that allows Council-initiated action — not just petition-driven action. Yet the City Attorney and staff focused narrowly on an “invalid petition” instead of engaging the broader statutory context. That may satisfy a technical reading of one subsection, but it sidesteps the larger public interest.

This is where political leadership really counts.

Mayor Nelson cannot afford to alienate 99 highly engaged voters — especially when their concern isn’t about stopping the school project, but about preserving neighborhood safety and fairness in the process. These are people who voted in the referendum, pay taxes, and live in the community they are trying to protect.

And make no mistake: this will be an election-year issue. With the Franklin mayoral election on the horizon, voters are starting to ask tough questions:

• If the Mayor truly supports both the schools and residents, why has he avoided a hearing?

• If he believes the community will back the post-referendum changes in a public process, why refuse one?

• And why treat the absence of a signature — from an entity already in litigation with the City — as a veto over democratic consideration?

Leadership means listening — especially when residents come together with a clear, documented concern. It means using all the tools the law provides, not just the ones convenient for a particular outcome.

The Mayor may have good intentions, but leadership isn’t measured by who you stand with when everyone agrees. It’s measured by who you stand with when there’s conflict — and whether you’re willing to give voters their day to be heard.

Mayor Nelson, you can support our schools and respect our neighborhoods. But you can’t play both sides of the fence — and you certainly can’t afford to lose 99 organized voters in an election year.

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/