Steve Taylor and Kristen Wilhelm Dismiss Residents — But the Questions Remain
By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
If residents deserve the full picture, then it is important to address what was actually said — and what was not.
Clarification: Contrary to statements made by Kristen Wilhelm, Olson made no statements at the Joint Review Board (JRB) meeting. The comments referenced were not made by Olson. Statements asking that the agenda be suspended to allow for public comment were made at the beginning of the meeting and at the end of the meeting by former Mayor Tom Taylor.
No One Was Confused About the Agenda
Wilhelm asserts that “misinformation was widely distributed” mischaracterizing the JRB meeting as a public hearing.
Residents understood the agenda.
They knew public comment was not listed. They knew the February 18 City Public Hearing included formal comment. They attended the February 16 JRB meeting intending to request that the Board suspend its rules to allow limited participation.
That is not confusion.
That is civic engagement.
The Board declined to suspend the agenda. It had the authority to do so. But declining and then reframing the request as misinformation misstates what occurred.
There was no deception campaign. There was a room full of residents asking to be heard.
Transparency Is More Than Technical Compliance
Wilhelm emphasizes statutory structure and notes that the mayor appoints only one member of the JRB.
That is correct.
But the question raised by residents was not whether Mayor Nelson legally “controls” the Board. The question was whether public participation was meaningfully accommodated when significant community interest was present.
Compliance with notice requirements is the floor. Responsiveness is the ceiling.
When a room is full of residents and no public comment is allowed, disappointment is predictable — not dishonest.
The Shift to Personal Attacks
The discussion quickly moved from policy to personality.
Supervisor Steve Taylor another campaign team member for the Nelson Mayoral election campaign wrote:
“Olson is still not over his loss by a huge margin (57-43)… assisted by an old washed up blogger and a convicted criminal blogger who has new charges for a 2nd offense.”
For clarity: I have a prior conviction currently under appeal. A second charge is pending, and a motion to dismiss has been filed. Which is why Taylor and Nelson were named in a John Doe complaint. Those matters remain before the court.
Personal attacks do not address process concerns.
They avoid them.
“You May Get Under People’s Skin… But I Can’t Recall Ever Catching You in a Lie”
Wilhelm followed Taylor’s comment by stating:
“He knows the process but a dishonest grandstand is just like him… I can’t recall ever catching you in a lie.”
That is a serious assertion.
Disagreement over whether public comment should have been allowed is not dishonesty.
Requesting suspension of procedural rules is not a lie.
Advocating for broader participation is not deception.
Strong opinions do not equate to falsehood.
If anything, labeling procedural disagreement as “crazy stuff” risks dismissing legitimate public concern.
Ongoing Legal Proceedings Naming Taylor and Nelson
On September 22, 2025, I filed a verified Petition and Complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025JD000011) requesting that the Court open a John Doe proceeding under Wis. Stat. § 968.26.
The petition names:
-
Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor
-
Franklin Mayor John Nelson
among others, and alleges misconduct in public office, conspiracy, and retaliation.
To be clear:
A petition is not a finding of wrongdoing. The Court has not yet made any determination. No charges have resulted from that filing.
However, the concerns raised are now formally before the judiciary.
Separately, publicly reported information has indicated that Mayor Nelson is the subject of law enforcement review concerning potential misuse of public resources. No criminal charges have been filed, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made.
Investigations are not convictions.
But transparency concerns do not exist in a vacuum.
Fair Use and Public Debate
Wilhelm’s written statement was voluntarily published in a public political forum. Referencing and responding to it for commentary and criticism falls within fair use under federal copyright law.
Political speech invites response.
That is how public discourse works.
The Real Issue
This is not about who won an election.
It is not about who is “over” a past loss.
It is about whether residents who show up, understand the process, and request participation are fairly characterized afterward.
There was no widespread misinformation.
There was a room of citizens asking to be heard.
Calling that “dishonest” does not make it so.
If residents deserve the full picture, it should include the part where they participated in good faith.
Transparency is strengthened by engagement — not by dismissing it.
Leadership or Rhetoric — Residents Can Decide
Calling critics “washed up” or pointing to pending legal matters is an attempt to discredit the messenger rather than engage the message. That may energize supporters. It does not resolve the underlying issue.
Strong leadership welcomes questions. It does not belittle them.
If the process was handled correctly and transparently, that case can be made on its merits. It does not require insults to defend it. When rhetoric replaces substance, residents are left to draw their own conclusions about which argument is stronger.
Public office is not a shield from accountability. It is an obligation to it.
Residents are capable of deciding whether they prefer engagement — or deflection.
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.
💬 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