Wednesday, April 29, 2026

Steve Taylor Now Oversees Milwaukee County Finances. His Record at the ROC Foundation Tells a Different Story.

 


By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

When Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor was named Chair of the County’s Finance Committee this past Tuesday, his message was clear.

“I am honored to be trusted with these roles and the responsibility that comes with them,” Taylor said in a recent press release, pledging to “keep pushing for responsible budgeting” and warning that the County faces serious financial challenges.

“We need to focus on our core services and make sure we’re being responsible with taxpayer dollars,” he added.

Those are the right priorities.

But they also raise a fair question:

What does Taylor’s own record show about financial management and decision-making?


From Public Office to Nonprofit Leadership

Before taking on the County’s top financial oversight role, Taylor served in public office during the approval and development of Ballpark Commons in Franklin.

During that time, he was involved in actions supporting zoning, financing, and the eventual sale of the former Crystal Ridge landfill—then owned by Milwaukee County—to ROC Ventures, led by Mike Zimmerman, for a nominal purchase price of $1 as part of a broader redevelopment plan.

Public records indicate that the transaction did not involve a traditional request-for-proposals (RFP) process or competitive bidding.

Following his unsuccessful reelection bid in 2018 to Patti Logsdon, Taylor later became Executive Director of the ROC Foundation, an organization affiliated with that same development.

This progression—from public official involved in development decisions to leadership of an affiliated nonprofit—provides important context for evaluating his record.

A Small Budget—But a Revealing One

The ROC Foundation is a relatively small nonprofit.

In 2024, it reported approximately $105,000 in total revenue.
By comparison, Milwaukee County’s annual budget exceeds $1 billion.

The difference in scale is enormous.

But financial leadership is not defined by size alone. The same principles apply at every level:

  • Discipline
  • Consistency
  • Transparency

And the Foundation’s financial record offers insight into how those principles have been applied.


A Pattern of Inconsistent Performance

From 2020 through 2024, the ROC Foundation’s finances show:

  • Multiple years of operating losses

  • One year of near break-even

  • One year of significant surplus (2023)

  • A return to losses in 2024

Revenue rose sharply in some years, then declined. Net assets followed a similar pattern.

Rather than steady growth, the record reflects volatility and limited long-term stability.

A closer look at program spending relative to expenses and executive compensation highlights the imbalance in earlier years.

A closer look at program spending relative to executive compensation highlights the imbalance in earlier years.

In 2020, executive compensation was nearly 19 times greater than program spending, and only 3.9% of total expenses were directed toward mission-related activities.

The Foundation’s fundraising efforts generated significant gross revenue—sometimes exceeding $100,000 annually.

But expenses often rose alongside that revenue, reducing the net impact.

For example, in multiple years:

  • Fundraising totals were substantial

  • Yet net proceeds were significantly reduced after associated costs

This raises a fundamental operational question:

How effective is a fundraising model if a large portion of revenue is consumed by the cost of generating it?

IRS filings and public reporting indicate that the ROC Foundation’s fundraising activities extend beyond traditional donations and include event-based revenue streams such as:

  • 50/50 raffles

  • Raffles and prize-based drawings

  • In-game promotions during sporting events

  • Auctions and tournament-based fundraising events

According to IRS disclosures, the Foundation has also allowed other nonprofit organizations to participate in fundraising activities at Milwaukee Milkmen and Milwaukee Wave games.

While certain events—such as golf tournaments and auctions—are itemized in IRS filings, the Foundation’s Form 990 does not separately report:

  • Gross raffle receipts

  • Raffle-related expenses

  • Net proceeds from gaming activities

  • Distribution of funds to participating nonprofits

Instead, these revenues are often included within aggregate fundraising totals without detailed breakdowns.

This fundraising structure provides important context for the Foundation’s financial patterns:

  • Fundraising revenue can appear substantial in total

  • However, associated costs reduce net impact

  • In some cases, revenue closely tracks expenses

This makes it difficult to determine:

  • net proceeds from specific activities

  • how much funding directly supports the mission

Event-based and raffle-driven fundraising models are not uncommon.

However, when detailed reporting is limited, they raise a fundamental question:

How much of the money raised ultimately supports charitable programming after expenses?

Executive compensation increased steadily from 2020 through 2023 before leveling off in 2024.

  • 2020: ~$53,000

  • 2021: ~$60,000

  • 2022: ~$63,000

  • 2023: ~$79,000

  • 2024: ~$79,000

This trend reflects growth in earlier years followed by stabilization.

Notably, the Foundation’s 2024 operating loss cannot be attributed to rising executive compensation, which remained relatively consistent year-over-year.

The ROC Foundation’s stated mission is:

“to provide support and unique experiences for youth, high school, and young adults… and create impactful outcomes in the communities where we live, work, and play.”

IRS filings confirm that funds were directed toward mission-related activities.

However, the level of that spending varied significantly:

  • Minimal in early years

  • Moderate in some years

  • Significantly lower in 2023 despite strong revenue

  • Increasing sharply in 2024

This inconsistency raises an important question:

Are financial resources being aligned with measurable mission impact over time?

The Foundation’s most recent filings highlight a sharp shift between 2023 and 2024:

  • 2023: High revenue and a significant surplus, but relatively low program spending

  • 2024: Substantially higher program spending, but a decline in revenue and a return to operating losses

This contrast illustrates a key point:

Program efficiency percentages alone do not tell the full financial story.

Higher program spending in 2024 occurred alongside reduced revenue, while lower program spending in 2023 coincided with a financial surplus.

Together, these results suggest that the organization’s financial performance is driven by year-to-year variability rather than a consistent operating model.

Recent filings also show direct financial transactions between the ROC Foundation and ROC Ventures, an affiliated entity. In 2024, the Foundation reported approximately $23,000 in payments to ROC Ventures for expenses including rent and management services, compared to roughly $10,000 in 2023.

  • ~$10,000 in 2023

  • ~$23,000 in 2024 (including rent and management fees)

While such arrangements are not uncommon, they reflect a financial structure in which the nonprofit relies on services provided by an affiliated private entity—highlighting the importance of transparency and clear governance.

Public materials also show overlapping structure:

  • Taylor as Executive Director

  • ROC Ventures–linked email domain

  • Board leadership connected to the same network

These relationships are not inherently improper—but they underscore the importance of transparency and clear governance.

IRS filings indicate:

  • No formal conflict-of-interest policy disclosed

  • No independent compensation review process

  • Limited documented board oversight

These are not violations of law.

However, they are widely recognized governance standards—and their absence raises reasonable questions about internal controls.

The Foundation’s program spending can be compared to widely accepted nonprofit benchmarks, which generally expect at least 65% of expenses to support mission-related activities.

Based on filings:

  • 2020: 3.9%

  • 2021: 24.2%

  • 2022: 25.9%

  • 2023: 12.3%

  • 2024: 85.7%

In multiple years, the Foundation falls well below industry benchmarks.


While 2024 reflects a significant increase in program spending, it also coincides with a year in which the organization operated at a loss, making it unclear whether this level of spending is sustainable.

What This Means

These comparisons do not establish wrongdoing.

But they do provide a framework for evaluating effectiveness.

Over time, the Foundation’s spending patterns appear:

  • Inconsistent

  • Below benchmarks in multiple years

  • Improved in one year, but without clear evidence of sustainability

The Bigger Question

Milwaukee County’s budget exceeds $1 billion—more than 10,000 times larger than the ROC Foundation’s.

But financial management is not about scale alone. It is about approach.

Across five years, the ROC Foundation’s record shows:

  • Inconsistent financial performance

  • Fluctuating program spending

  • Revenue volatility

  • Fundraising inefficiencies

  • Financial ties to a related private entity

That record does not answer every question—but it does raise one:

What does this approach look like when applied to a billion-dollar public budget?

Final Thought

Taylor has warned that Milwaukee County faces serious financial challenges and has pledged to ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

Those are commitments worth taking seriously.

They are also standards worth applying consistently—whether the budget is $100,000 or $1 billion.

Because in the end, financial stewardship is not defined by size.

It is defined by discipline, consistency, and accountability.

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/


“Clean and Innocent”? State Review Sought in John Doe Case Involving Nelson, Taylor and Vincent


By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

NOT SO FAST

Celebrating a little early Steve "It's all Fake News" Taylor and Kathleen "It's All a LIE!" Vincent.

A Milwaukee County John Doe case involving multiple local officials has been marked “closed” in the court system—but official records show the matter has not been resolved and has instead been formally referred to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for potential state-level review.

On March 31, 2026—the same day the case was administratively closed in CCAP—the Milwaukee County District Attorney notified the court that his office had requested the Wisconsin Department of Justice to assume responsibility for handling the case.  

That same day, the Chief Judge’s office confirmed the request and stated the court would “provide a prompt update once we hear back from the DOJ.”  

Together, these records show that the case was not concluded on its merits, but instead transitioned out of the local court process and into potential state-level review.

A Formal Process—Not a Dismissal

The John Doe petition followed a defined statutory path under Wisconsin law.

After the filing in September 2025, the Chief Judge referred the matter to the Milwaukee County District Attorney pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.26(2)(am) for review.  

That step required the District Attorney to evaluate the materials and determine whether further action was warranted.

Over the following months, additional filings were submitted, including amended and supplemental materials expanding the scope of the allegations and supporting documentation.

The March 31, 2026 referral to the Department of Justice represents the next step in that process—not its conclusion.

What “Closed” Actually Means

The “closed” designation in CCAP reflects an administrative disposition, not a legal determination.

According to the Clerk of Courts for Chief Judge Carl Ashley, John Doe filings that do not proceed to a formal inquiry are often administratively closed after a period of time as part of routine case management. This type of closure is procedural, not substantive, and Wisconsin law does not impose a fixed deadline requiring it. No court ruling was issued addressing the substance of the claims.

In this case, the administrative closure occurred simultaneously with the District Attorney’s request to the DOJ, underscoring that the matter was not decided but redirected.

Referral to the Department of Justice

The District Attorney’s letter makes the status of the case clear:

the office has “formally submitted a request to the Department of Justice to assume responsibility for handling the above-referenced case”  

The court separately confirmed it is awaiting a response from the DOJ, indicating that the next decision rests with the state.

Such referrals typically occur when a matter involves:

  • multiple public officials
  • potential conflicts within the local jurisdiction
  • or issues requiring independent review

At this stage, no determination has been made. The matter remains under consideration.

Individuals Named in the John Doe Petition

The John Doe petition identifies several public officials and individuals in connection with the allegations described in the filing.

Those named include:

  • Steve Taylor – Milwaukee County Supervisor
  • Kathleen Vincent – Milwaukee County Supervisor
  • John Nelson – Mayor of Franklin
  • Michelle Eichmann – Franklin Alderwoman
  • Mike Zimmerman – Business owner
  • John Chisholm – Former Milwaukee County District Attorney
  • Hannah Dugan – Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge
  • Joe Russ – Community member and social media administrator
  • Grant Johnson – Individual referenced in the filing

No court has made findings regarding any of the individuals identified in the petition, and the allegations.

What the John Doe Petition Alleges

The petition outlines a series of allegations describing what is characterized as a coordinated pattern of conduct involving public officials, law enforcement, and related individuals.

According to the filings, the allegations include:

  • Use of legal processes, including restraining orders and related actions, in ways alleged to impact protected speech
  • Filing and use of reports and complaints that are described as incomplete, inconsistent, or misleading
  • Influence over how investigations and enforcement decisions were initiated and carried out
  • Use of information and materials in court proceedings without full disclosure
  • Coordination between multiple individuals across different roles and institutions
  • Actions taken in response to reporting, public commentary, and civic activity

The filings frame these issues not as isolated incidents, but as part of an alleged continuing pattern involving process, decision-making, and institutional response.

Supplemental Filings and Additional Evidence

Subsequent filings expanded on the original petition with additional materials obtained through public records requests, testimony, and documentation.

According to those filings, the additional materials include:

  • Police reports in both redacted and unredacted form
  • Audio recordings and interview evidence obtained after initial denials
  • Sworn testimony from law enforcement personnel
  • Internal communications relating to how complaints were handled
  • Affidavits from multiple individuals confirming facts

These materials are presented as providing additional factual context and support for the broader claims outlined in the petition.  

Alleged Procedural and Structural Concerns

The filings also raise broader concerns about how the matter was handled across multiple stages.

These include:

  • Questions regarding the interpretation and application of underlying legal orders
  • Claims that decisions were based on incomplete or inconsistent documentation
  • Allegations of overlapping roles and potential conflicts of interest
  • Concerns about coordination occurring outside traditional investigative processes

Taken together, the filings frame the issue as involving not only specific actions, but also how legal and governmental processes were applied.

Additional Allegations of Ongoing Activity

A December 2025 submission to the court and related oversight bodies further expands on the claims, describing what is characterized as continued activity occurring alongside legal and administrative proceedings.

According to that filing, the petitioner alleges:

  • Actions occurring in close proximity to ethics-related proceedings
  • Use of public communications and reporting as the basis for further responses
  • Continued involvement by individuals connected to the underlying matter

The submission presents these developments as part of the same broader pattern described in earlier filings and reinforces the request for independent review.  

Public Statements and Ongoing Discussion

Public discussion of the case has continued following the March 31 filings, including social media commentary from individuals named in the John Doe petition.

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor has referenced the matter in posts on both his personal social media page and in the “Greendale Under the Bubble” Facebook group in a manner suggesting the case had been resolved seeming to celebrate a bit early with County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent at Ray and Dot's in Greendale. Photo credit to ??? :). Very sly Stevie.

Open photo NaN

Open photo NaN

However, official court records and correspondence from both the District Attorney and the Chief Judge’s office indicate that the matter has been referred to the Department of Justice and remains under review.

The administrator of the “Greendale Under the Bubble” group, Joe Russ, is also named in the John Doe petition. No court has made findings regarding any individuals identified in the filing.

What Happens If the State Moves Forward

If the Wisconsin Department of Justice determines that further action is warranted, the case would not resume under the original John Doe filing.

Instead, it would proceed through a new legal pathway, which could include:

  • A formal criminal case filed in circuit court
  • A state-led investigation conducted outside of court
  • Or the initiation of a new proceeding under state authority

The current administrative closure does not prevent further action. It reflects only that the original filing is no longer being handled as an active court inquiry.

What Happens Next

The Wisconsin Department of Justice now has discretion to determine whether to:

  • conduct further review
  • request additional information
  • initiate an investigation
  • or decline to proceed

There is no required public timeline for that decision.

Until that determination is made, the central issue raised by the John Doe petition remains unresolved.

Bottom Line

The record is clear:

The case was administratively closed the same day it was formally referred to the State of Wisconsin.

That is not the end of the matter—it is a transition point.

And for now, both the court and the District Attorney are waiting for what comes next.

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/

Sunday, April 19, 2026

Are Nelson and Taylor Advancing Republican Principles — or Using the Party to Consolidate Influence?

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The endorsement of Franklin Mayor John Nelson by the Milwaukee County Republican Party Executive Committee on March 11, 2026, was intended as a sign of party unity. Yet the actions and political activity of Nelson and Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor raise a more fundamental question: Are Nelson and Taylor advancing Republican principles—or are they using the party endorsement as a vehicle to consolidate influence across multiple races and networks?

This question is grounded in documented facts: election history, campaign finance, public records, organizational endorsements, party communications, and verified public statements.

Historical Context: Taylor vs. Logsdon

The long-standing rivalry between Supervisor Steve Taylor and Supervisor Patti Logsdon provides essential context:

  • In 2018, Logsdon upset Taylor in a rematch of their 2016 contest, securing 53% of the vote, aided by $129,069 from Leadership MKE (form County Supervisor Chris Able).
  • Taylor after being defeated by Logsdon became Executive Director of the ROC Foundation.  
  • Logsdon ran unopposed in 2020 and won reelection in 2022 with 51.1% of the vote.
  • In 2021, the Milwaukee County Board voted 10–7 to redraw district boundaries, creating the 17th Supervisory District that Taylor ran for in 2022, unopposed.
  • Taylor was out of politics until 2022 when the Supervisory District Map was redrawn and a district just for Taylor was carved out - the 17th Supervisory District (Franklin east of 51st Street and all of Oak Creek).

Ballpark Commons (“The Rock”) remains central to the rivalry, with Taylor involved in development oversight and Logsdon representing the district containing the project. (fcnewswi.com, Feb 2024)

Supervisory District 9, Aldermanic District 6, and “The Rock”

  • Supervisory District 9 encompasses Ballpark Commons, with county oversight and long-term economic significance.
  • Aldermanic District District 6 is central to local political influence.
  • Public records show Nelson forwarding Kenney campaign information to operatives described as “inside,” indicating coordinated political engagement. (fcnewswi.com, Dec 2023)

Pattern of Political Alignment Across Races

Documented activities demonstrate that Taylor and Nelson have engaged in:


Pictured above to the right is Mayor Nelson making an
endorsement speech at Kahn's campaign kickoff event.


Pictured above and to the right is Supervisors Taylor and Vincent
endorsing Kahn at at the Milwaukee County Budget Meeting.

Campaign appearances, signage, and literature document a consistent pattern of alignment across multiple races.

Campaign Finance and Political Networks

Public campaign finance records show overlapping networks:

  • Zimmerman Family (2023): Michael, Bridget, Paige, Andrew Zimmerman, each contributed $735 to Nelson’s campaign
  • Kelly Hersh (2023): six contributions totaling $1,056; husband Aaron contributed $200 in 2026
  • Suhail and Eman Sarsour (2023): each contributed $735; publicly associated with the same Milwaukee-area Sarsour family network as Salah Sarsour

([Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2023–2026]; FCNewsWI, Apr 2026)

Additionally, Maqsood Khan contributed to a legal defense fund for Salah Sarsour, showing alignment with Nelson. These records demonstrate a concentrated, networked pattern of financial support.

Election Night Coordination

Taylor and Mike Zimmerman, CEO of ROC Ventures (Ballpark Commons) attended Nelson’s 2023 and 2026 mayoral election night party, illustrating active campaign involvement beyond public appearances.


Taylor and Zimmerman with Nelson at the 2023 election.


Georgia Konstantakis, Franklin Municipal Judge, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann, 
Steve Taylor, and Mike Zimmerman in picture - Nelsons 2026 eletin

Endorsements by the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance

  • Nelson, Kahn, Kenney were endorsed by the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance.
  • Nelson has now scrubbed his Facebook page of any mention of the Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance Endorsement.
  • Maqsood Khan served as president of the Alliance prior to July 2025, further demonstrating networked alignment with Nelson and Taylor.

GOP Communications Leading Up to the Election

Official Milwaukee County GOP text messages were sent to members in the weeks preceding the 2026 elections, highlighting candidates Nelson, Taylor, Craig, and Logsdon (fcnewswi.com, Mar 2026), showing organized outreach and party engagement.

March 11 Milwaukee County GOP Executive Committee Meeting

  • Anonymous messages circulated claiming participants were “recruited.”
  • A dues-paying member was instructed not to attend, with warnings that law enforcement would be involved.
  • Attendees reported statements suggesting anyone opposing the endorsement could be “kicked out of the party.”
  • Nelson Taylor, Logsdon were present.  All received endorsement from Executive Board.
  • Nelson still has the Milwaukee County GOP Endorsement on his Facebook Page.

Alleged Political Pressure via Text Message

Three individuals, including one of the authors of this report, observed a text message sent from Steve Taylor to a Franklin Common Council member. The message stated:

“There will be a recall against you and we will take care of you” if certain votes or endorsements were not aligned with Taylor’s expectations.

The identity of “we” referenced in the message is unknown; no verified evidence identifies who was included.

This allegation is presented as a reported observation, not independently verified fact.

The content raises concerns about perceived political pressure and potential intimidation within local governance and party activities.

Note: Franklin Community News is reporting this as an allegation; it has not been independently verified.

Post-Election Public Comments

At the April 8, 2026, Common Council meeting, Taylor:

  • Referred to an opponent as a “five-time loser” and said they had spent years “undermining this city.”
  • Criticized social media activity, describing some as “deranged” or a “stalker.”
  • Addressed Alderman Craig directly: “Probably learned a valuable lesson. Shouldn’t focus on 12 people when you have 6,000 you represent.”

Attendees understood some remarks to reference Franklin Community News.

Republican Party Bylaws and Accountability

The bylaws require:

  • Support for endorsed candidates
  • Transparent and ethical participation in party activities
  • Respect for internal processes
  • Only the a Caucus or General Assembly of the Membership can make endorsements, not the executive Committee.

Nelson and Taylor’s coordinated support for candidates running against endorsed Republicans raises questions about compliance and accountability, which party leadership must address.

Conclusion

The issue at hand is no longer merely about party labels. It is about alignment, accountability, and integrity within the Republican Party.

Milwaukee County Republicans and voters deserve clear answers on critical questions:

  • Are party endorsements meaningful, and are they being consistently respected?
  • How do personal networks, coordinated campaigns, and aligned support intersect with the official party process?
  • What standards should govern the conduct of party leadership to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to party principles?

The documented record — including public appearances, coordinated candidate support, campaign finance contributions, endorsements, meetings, and post-election public statements — demonstrates a pattern that requires careful scrutiny.

Moving forward, party leaders and members must consider whether these patterns reflect the principles the Republican Party claims to uphold, or whether they represent a departure from those standards, potentially undermining the credibility and integrity of the party itself.

The time for clarity, accountability, and principled leadership is now — before the lessons of one cycle are repeated in the next.

Sources

  1. FCNewsWI – Milwaukee County GOP Should Have Thought Twice Before Endorsing John Nelson, Mar 2026
  2. FCNewsWI – District 9 Political Alignment, Apr 2026
  3. FCNewsWI – Franklin District 6 Campaign Coverage, Mar 2026
  4. FCNewsWI – For the Greater Good of Franklin/Hales Corners, Mar 2024
  5. FCNewsWI – Franklin Bought and Paid for by ROC, Feb 2024
  6. FCNewsWI – Patti Logsdon to Face Challenger, Dec 2023
  7. Wisconsin Elections Commission – Campaign Finance Records, 2023–2026
  8. Taylor Comments – Franklin Common Council, April 8, 2026 (PDF transcript)
  9. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2018 & 2021
  10. Ballotpedia – Logsdon Election Results 2020–2022
  11. FCNewsWI – Nelson Campaign Received Maximum Contributions, Apr 2026

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/

Did Vincent Mislead Greendale Residents on The Rock Festival Permits?

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi Franklin Community News Open records email, Zimmerman’s public comments, and conflicting statements to re...