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.”
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.
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,
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.
đź•Ż️ 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.
đź’¬ 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.
đź’¬ 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.
Comments
Post a Comment