Nomination, Not Appointment: What Franklin’s JRB Process Reveals About Nelson’s Leadership and Transparency

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

There’s been a lot of confusion—and a lot of heat—around Mayor Nelson’s so-called “appointment” to the Joint Review Board based on the reporting of Franklin Today, Greg Kowalski.  Kowalski is now doing the Franklin City Hall PR for Nelson, Eichmann, Taylor, and Wilhelm.  Hey...has anyone seen the paid Franklin PR Contact Mary Christine?  She has gone almost underground like there is an investigation in process?

Let’s start with what’s not in dispute:

The Mayor does not appoint the public member.
The Joint Review Board does.

What the law actually says:

Under Wisconsin Stat. § 66.1105(4m)(a), the public (citizen) member of the Joint Review Board is selected by a majority vote of the Joint Review Board.

Not the Mayor.
Not the Common Council.
Not a committee.

The Joint Review Board.

What actually happened in Franklin

• February 16 – Joint Review Board appoints Sally Smits as the public member
• (After February 16) – Smits resigns from the position
• March 5 – Cathleen (“Cathy”) Richard submits her volunteer application
• March 17 – Mayor Nelson sends a letter nominating Richard for the role
• March 22 – Steve Olson submits an interest form for the same position
• April 5 – Mayoral election
• April 30 – Nomination brought before the Economic Development Commission for “endorsement”
• May 6 (upcoming) – Joint Review Board vote

That’s the timeline.

A moment that reflects leadership

Once Smits resigned, the position became vacant.

At that point, the process reset.

“At the Joint Review Board’s organizational meeting, the agenda itself makes the sequence clear:

Appointment of the public member occurs before any substantive review of the TID.

That’s not incidental—it reflects how the process is designed.

The public member is intended to be part of the decision-making body from the outset, not introduced after the process has already taken shape.”

And that’s where leadership—and judgment—come into play (Mayor Nelson).

Because while a Mayor can recommend a candidate, the responsibility to select one still belongs to the Joint Review Board.

The key question isn’t the nomination

It’s the process behind it.

At the time:

• There was an existing applicant (Richard)
• And another interested individual (Olson)

Multiple people had stepped forward.

So the question becomes:

How did the process move from multiple interested individuals… to a single nominee?

• Was there an open consideration of candidates?
• Was the opportunity revisited publicly after the vacancy?
• Or was a candidate identified internally and advanced forward?

What that says about judgment

There’s nothing inherently improper about recommending someone.

But leadership isn’t just about what you can do.

It’s about how you choose to do it.

When a vacancy occurs on a board that is supposed to operate independently, the expectation is simple:

The process should be open, transparent, and allow for meaningful consideration.

When that process appears to narrow before the decision-making body even meets…

It reflects a different kind of judgment.

Not illegal—but worth examining

None of this suggests the rules were necessarily broken.

But that’s not the standard people hold leadership to.

The standard is whether decisions reflect:

• Transparency
• Fairness
• Respect for independent processes

And that’s where reasonable people can start to ask questions.

Addressing the recent scrutiny

Recent reporting has focused heavily on Cathleen Richard’s social media activity.

Her response has been straightforward: she has the right to express her views.

That’s true.

But that’s also not really the question.

The issue isn’t whether someone has the right to speak—it’s whether their public conduct reflects the level of judgment expected for the role.

What that scrutiny actually looks like

This discussion isn’t based on hypotheticals.

It is based on publicly available comments made in response to members of the community on the Franklin Today Facebook Group in response to the Franklin Today Article:

Why this is relevant

These are not private messages.

They are public statements made in a community forum and include:

• Personal attacks
• Profanity directed at individuals
• Allegations about other residents and former officials

Framing the issue correctly

This isn’t about silencing speech.

People have every right to express their views—even strongly.

But public service carries a different expectation:

The ability to handle disagreement without escalating into personal attacks.

Especially in a role that requires:

• Evaluating major financial decisions
• Representing taxpayers broadly
• Exercising independent, professional judgment

Bringing it back to the role

The Joint Review Board is not a social media forum.

It is a statutory body responsible for evaluating public financing decisions that can affect millions of dollars.

So the question isn’t:

“Can someone say these things?”

It’s:

“Do these statements reflect the level of judgment expected for this role?”

A clarification that matters

Some coverage suggests appointments ultimately rest with the Mayor and Common Council.

That’s true for many boards.

But not for this one.

The Joint Review Board selects its own public member.

Which means:

The final decision—and responsibility—rests with the board itself.

Why this matters for TID 10

This isn’t just about a seat.

The Joint Review Board is responsible for evaluating TID 10, including:

• Whether the project meets legal standards
• Whether the financing is sound
• Whether the development serves a public purpose
• And whether it would occur “but for” public financing

These decisions impact taxpayers, public revenue, and long-term obligations.

One last point worth clearing up

Some reporting suggests it’s “unknown” whether additional candidates could emerge before the May 6 meeting.

That framing makes it sound like an open-ended process.

It’s not.

The Joint Review Board meets, considers candidates, and votes.

That’s it.

So this isn’t a mystery waiting to unfold.

It’s a decision waiting to be made.

Bottom line

This isn’t just about one nominee.

It’s about how leadership handles:

• Vacancies
• Opportunities for public service
• And independent decision-making bodies

Because the process tells you just as much as the outcome.

Final thought

When multiple people step forward—and one emerges through a process that isn’t fully visible

The question isn’t just who was chosen.

It’s:

What does the process behind that choice say about the judgment used to make it?

And in public service, that question matters just as much as the answer.

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/