Mayor Nelson Orders Franklin Community News Publisher Removed From Council Meeting During Comments on Suspended Ethics Code
Alderman Salous moved to grant additional speaking time, but no Council member seconded the motion
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
Franklin Mayor John Nelson ordered Franklin Community News publisher Dr. Richard Busalacchi to leave Tuesday evening’s Common Council meeting after Busalacchi’s three-minute public-comment period expired while he was addressing the City’s suspended Code of Conduct and Ethics.
Busalacchi requested an additional minute and a half to complete his presentation. Alderman Salous moved to extend his time by one minute, but no Council member seconded the motion.
“Motion fails,” Nelson announced.
During the exchange that followed, Nelson repeatedly told Busalacchi that he had already received his opportunity to speak.
“You had your opportunity,” Nelson said. “A motion was made. It failed. Citizen comment is over—for you.”
Nelson then told Busalacchi, “We’re going to ask you to leave,” called for an officer and again said, “Good night, Mr. Busalacchi. Have a good night.”
Police officers subsequently escorted Busalacchi from the Council chambers.
Watch the Presentation and Removal
The video below shows Busalacchi’s public comments, his request for additional time, Alderman Salous’s motion, Nelson’s response and the exchange that resulted in Busalacchi being escorted from the meeting. Please start at 1:31:32.
The video provides the complete context and allows residents to evaluate the tone and conduct of everyone involved.
Busalacchi did not yell or scream while delivering his prepared presentation. His time expired immediately after he asked the Common Council to place Resolution 2023-7983 on its next agenda and began introducing three specific actions he wanted the Council to take.
Franklin’s Ethics Code Has Been Suspended for More Than Three Years
Busalacchi’s comments addressed Franklin’s lack of a functioning local process for considering alleged misconduct by elected and appointed officials.
Franklin abolished its former Ethics Board and repealed its local ethics ordinance in 2005. At the time, then-Mayor Fred Klimetz warned that relying exclusively on state law would leave the City with less-stringent standards, primarily focused on financial conflicts, and fewer opportunities for residents to obtain local redress.
Franklin attempted to close that accountability gap in 2022.
After several months of consideration and amendments, the Common Council unanimously adopted a Code of Conduct and Ethics on August 2, 2022.
Nelson, then serving as an alderman, had requested that the ethics-code subject be placed before the Council in 2020. He subsequently participated in developing and amending the Code and voted for its final adoption. Alderwomen Kristen Wilhelm and Michelle Eichmann also participated in its development.
However, at Nelson’s first regular Common Council meeting as mayor on May 2, 2023, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2023-7983.
The resolution established a moratorium on the “application and enforcement” of the Code while the City conducted what it described as a “review, consideration and evaluation process.”
The official action is recorded under Item G.19 on page 8 of the May 2, 2023 Common Council minutes.
More than three years later, the moratorium remains in effect.
The publicly available record identifies no person or committee assigned responsibility for completing the review, no deadline, no completed report and no public explanation of what deficiencies required suspending the Code’s application and enforcement.
City Website Does Not Disclose the Moratorium
Despite the moratorium, the City continues to display the Code of Conduct and Ethics on its official website.
The posted document does not notify residents that its application and enforcement were suspended in May 2023.
A resident reading the City’s Code could reasonably believe that its complaint process remains operational and that a sworn complaint submitted under the Code would be reviewed. It would not be processed through the suspended enforcement procedure.
The City is therefore displaying ethical standards that residents cannot invoke through the process described in the document.
An Accountability Gap With Practical Consequences
Busalacchi’s presentation was not merely about an outdated policy or an unfinished administrative review. It addressed Franklin’s lack of a functioning local process for considering allegations involving Nelson, Eichmann and other City officials.
Several matters seeking outside review have been filed:
A John Doe matter remains open. Read Here.
A complaint before the Wisconsin Elections Commission remains open. Read Here.
A public-integrity complaint or referral to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office remains open. Read Here.
A publicly reported and subsequently unsealed search warrant was issued as part of an investigation involving allegations concerning Nelson and the use of taxpayer-funded personnel or contractors for political purposes. Read Here.
Complaints submitted to Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel were dismissed.
The existence of a complaint or investigation does not establish that misconduct occurred. The allegations have not been finally adjudicated.
Their existence does, however, demonstrate why a functioning and impartial process is necessary. Without such a process, neither the complainant nor the official accused receives an independent local determination based on evidence.
Busalacchi maintains that the Franklin Police Department has declined on multiple occasions to investigate allegations involving Nelson, Eichmann and other local officials. When local police decline to investigate and the City’s Code of Conduct remains suspended, residents must seek review from county, state or other outside authorities.
Nelson Previously Acknowledged Outside Complaints
Nelson has previously acknowledged Busalacchi’s efforts to obtain review from outside agencies.
During an investigative interview concerning alleged misconduct connected to Nelson’s former employment as a Village of Waterford police lieutenant, Nelson stated:
“So the problem with him is he’s looking for anybody that’ll listen to his case against me.”
Nelson then identified several agencies:
“That includes Milwaukee DA’s Office, court counsel, State of Wisconsin Ethics Board, even the FBI.”
The Waterford investigative-interview transcript provides the context for Nelson’s statements.
Those statements do not establish the merits or outcome of any complaint. They do establish that Nelson was aware Busalacchi had sought outside review concerning his conduct.
That history provides relevant context for Tuesday’s meeting. The resident addressing the absence of a local ethics process was someone who had pursued complaints involving the mayor and other Franklin officials. The mayor enforcing the speaking limit and ordering the resident to leave was one of the officials whose conduct had been presented to outside agencies.
Busalacchi did not use his three-minute presentation to argue the merits of the individual allegations. Instead, he asked why Franklin’s supposedly temporary ethics moratorium remains in place and sought an independent process capable of evaluating any complaint fairly.
Questions About Consistent Enforcement
The removal also raises questions about whether Franklin’s public-comment rules have been applied consistently.
Busalacchi has attended or reviewed numerous Common Council meetings in which speakers were permitted to continue after the three-minute limit. In some instances, Nelson allowed a speaker to continue. In others, the mayor sought the Council’s consent before allowing additional time.
A frequent speaker commonly referred to as “the Colonel” has been permitted to continue beyond the allotted time on multiple occasions.
Other residents have yelled, raised their voices or engaged in heated exchanges with Council members and Nelson without being removed from the chambers, according to Busalacchi’s observations.
On Tuesday, Nelson indicated that the Council would follow its formal procedure. The recording captures him saying words to the effect of, “We’re going to do it the right way,” as Salous moved to extend Busalacchi’s time.
When no Council member seconded the motion, Nelson declared that it had failed.
Busalacchi said he is unaware of any previous Franklin resident being removed from a Common Council meeting under comparable circumstances. A comprehensive review of prior meetings would be necessary to determine whether he was the first person removed.
“If the three-minute rule is going to be strictly enforced, it must be enforced consistently,” Busalacchi said. “The procedure should not change depending on who is speaking, what issue is being discussed or whether the mayor agrees with the comments.”
The circumstances do not, by themselves, prove that Busalacchi was removed because of the subject of his presentation. They do make transparency and consistent enforcement particularly important.
When a mayor strictly enforces a speaking limit against a resident discussing unresolved ethics matters involving that mayor—after other speakers have reportedly received additional time or engaged in more disruptive conduct without removal—even the appearance of selective treatment warrants public scrutiny.
Three Requested Actions Were Never Presented
Busalacchi reached the three-minute limit immediately after making the following statement:
“I ask the Common Council to place Resolution 2023-7983 on its next meeting agenda and take three specific actions.”
Because the motion to extend his time received no second, Busalacchi was unable to present those actions publicly.
His prepared remarks called upon the Council to:
Disclose whether the promised review was ever conducted and release any resulting report, recommendations or other work product.
Immediately notify residents on the City’s website that the Code’s application and enforcement are suspended.
Establish a definite public timetable for ending the moratorium and implementing a functioning process that provides for independent investigation, impartial decision-making, appropriate due-process protections and meaningful action when violations are established.
Busalacchi was not asking the Council simply to reactivate the former complaint procedure. His comments recognized that the former procedure may not have provided sufficient independence and impartiality.
The objective is a credible process that protects complainants, provides due process to accused officials and produces decisions based on evidence rather than political relationships.
Busalacchi’s concluding statement—which he was prevented from delivering when his time expired—read:
“Franklin residents deserve more than ethical standards displayed on a website. They deserve an accountability process that is independent, credible, transparent and actually available when it is needed.”
The unanswered issue extends beyond what happened to one speaker at Tuesday’s meeting.
Franklin adopted ethical standards, suspended their application and enforcement as part of a supposedly temporary review, and has allowed that moratorium to remain in place for more than three years.
The City continues to display the Code on its website without disclosing that residents cannot use its enforcement process.
When local authorities decline to investigate and the City’s ethics process remains unavailable, residents are left searching for an outside agency willing to hear their concerns.
That is precisely why Franklin needs a local accountability process that is independent, impartial and available regardless of who is accused.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment